Arctic
refuge should be preserved
Bordering Yukon Canada and the Beaufort
Sea, 100 miles east of a town called Deadhorse
in Alaska, is a piece of property prized
by pilfering politicians.
The
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a 19.5
million-acre plot of land in Northeastern
Alaska is under legislative attack by the
Bush administration. Interior Secretary
Gale Norton, whose chief purpose is to protect
the nation’s environmental interests, is
on the dollar-sign bandwagon with the Bushmeister.
Propaganda
paid for by the national oil interests touts
the benefits of raping 1.5 million acres
of coastal land for oil production. The
legislation has been on Bush’s agenda since
his 2000 campaign for the presidency.
A
reason for this may be that he and his running
mate, Vice President Dick Cheney, have a
big stake in the oil claim. Cheney took
over as CEO for Halliburton Oil in 1995
and has supported such money raising concepts
as the Organization of Petrolium Exporting
Countries’ proposal to decrease production
in 1999 to keep gas and oil prices high
and drilling for oil in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Imagine that.
Coined
as the “Big Oil Dream Ticket,” the running
mates sought to answer all of America’s
energy questions to close the supposed “oil
supply gap.” Hypocritically enough, one
of the main points in their plan was that
the oil from developing ANWR would reduce
the U.S. vulnerability to OPEC’s decisions.
Another
point of their energy plan was that the
environmental impact on Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge would be slight. In direct
conflict with this concession are reports
of damage to the fragile ecosystem when
seismic explorations for oil were being
conducted in the winters of 1984 and 1985.
These
explorations produced 1,400 miles of trail
made by equipment needed for the seismic
readings-drills, vibrator and recording
vehicles. In addition to this initial length
of damage, D-7 caterpillar tractors transporting
ski-mounted trailers traveled between work
camps.
Some
of the tracks returned to the appearance
of natural habitat in the 10 years after
the explorations. But some of the trails
had not yet recovered from the destruction
in 1999, 15 years after the initial incursion.
So then, how can building oil derricks and
pipelines on 1.5 million acres of coastal
Arctic refuge not hurt the environment?
In
1973, five nations signed a treaty pledging
protection for the remaining polar bear
populations. The United States, Norway,
Canada, Denmark and the former Soviet Union
agreed that protecting one of the largest
predators in the arctic was of the utmost
importance. The refuge contains more than
160 bird species, 36 species of land mammals
and 36 different types of fish. Conservation
is necessary.
Created
in 1960 as Public Land Order 2214, the refuge
was renamed and expanded in 1980 as the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation.
Arguments
ranging from the land being a vacant, desolate
stretch of earth to the need for independence
from national oil have catapulted ANWR into
congressional controversy. The measure to
develop the land failed to pass in the Senate
by only two votes, a margin that would make
most conservationists shudder.
The
public must understand what is at stake
here. It is not about more jobs for Alaskans
or more money for the Vice President — this
is about where we are going to finally draw
the line between money and sustainability.
Once the refuge is violated and used up,
the oil industry and all the other resource
industries must and will seek out yet another
market to exploit. It’s in their very nature.
Will
the American people throw every beautiful
and pristine place we have into the firestorm
of capitalism? When there is nothing left
we will have only ourselves and Bush to
blame.
Monica
Lyn Pardee is a journalism major at Cal
State Long Beach.
|
