Rethinking ANWR
by Forrest Dunbar on June 7, 2010 in Opinion
You know what doesn’t happen if we drill there? Underwater oil geysers.
As BP finally reports a modicum of success in capping or diverting the spouting Macondo tap, perhaps putting the end of the largest oil spill in America history in sight, this is a time for reflection not only for oil execs, Dick Cheney, and the Mineral Management Service, but also for environmentalism-inclined Democrats.
It almost seems like fate that the worst environmental catastrophe in 20 years would occur just three weeks after a Democratic President approved an expansion of the very activity that led to the spill. And while the Administration has now effectively ordered a moratorium on further offshore drilling, the question remains: why did they approve such drilling in the first place?
The reason is that while a majority of Americans believe that domestic production should be part of our national energy strategy, the Democratic Party has become myopically focused on keeping the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) closed even if that may lead to far more damaging activities.
A number of people in Washington have pointed out the illogical precedent of allowing drilling in deep water, particularly in earthquake and hurricane-prone areas, but forbidding it in a flat, open, easily-monitored, and geologically stable region of Alaska. These voices had mostly been ignored or swiftly dismissed. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, responding to Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) point in a recent congressional hearing, summed up the Administration’s stance succinctly: “The President has been clear, and I have been clear, that we will not drill in ANWR.”
These calls for policy change likely would have remained in obscurity (at least left-of-center) had not Sarah Palin sounded off from the pulpit that is her Twitter account: “Extreme Greenies: see now why we push “drill,baby,drill” of known reserves & promising finds in safe onshore places like ANWR? Now do you get it?” This comment was roundly criticized in liberal circles, and with cause, given Palin’s accusatory tone, questionable logic, and past history on environmental issues. And yet, putting the histrionics and political opportunism aside, there may be some kernel of truth to the idea that closing off places like ANWR to drilling contributed to what we are seeing in the Gulf.
Most Democrats, even those who consider environmentalism and global climate change a central motivation in their political participation, acknowledge that in the short and medium term, oil and gas are of vital importance to our economy. We cannot wave a magic wand and instantaneously transform every plane, train, automobile, and power plant into solar and tidal powered green machines. If we must burn hydrocarbons in the present, there are a great number of reasons why we would want that fuel to come from domestic sources, the most important of which are national security and Gaia.
In the long term, of course, a nation that consumes 25% of the world’s oil while sitting on less than 3% of the reserves cannot drill its way to energy independence. But that does not mean we have to so egregiously fund those who wish us ill. The White House itself used the term “energy security” five times in its brief announcement of its updated energy policy – including the title of the document itself. We must acknowledge that shipping billions of dollars a year overseas, often to countries that fund the killing of our soldiers, is both morally wrong and geopolitically suicidal. It should be prevented with every tool in our toolbox—wind, energy conservation, nuclear power, and domestic fossil fuel production.
With respect to Gaia – the theory that the Earth’s global ecology forms one interdependent whole, perhaps conceptualized as a single, mega-organism – let’s get all tree-hugger for a moment. Because despite what some may think of Alaskans (“spill, baby, spill!”), many do care deeply about environmental issues. One cannot grow up surrounded by such over-the-top natural splendor, and not develop a desire to protect it. Some of the smartest people you will ever meet on environmental issues are hunters and fishermen who understand that their lives, livelihoods, and culture depend on sustaining the land and its bounty.
You don’t need to think that the Earth is literally alive, Krakoa style, to understand the broader point: environmental damage in one region of the planet concerns everyone, everywhere on the planet. An oil spill off Spain, a swathe of destruction in the Amazon, a toxic gas cloud in China are all problems for the whole world, not just the immediate impacted areas.
So the question remains: if we have to get oil from somewhere, shouldn’t we get it, or at least as much of it as we can, from domestic sources, where we do have environmental regulations (even if they seem to have been skirted in the Gulf), where we do have a free press to highlight violations, where we do have a vibrant environmentalist community holding companies’ feet to the fire—rather than, say, the Sudan? Do we think Brunei cares about the environment? Just because we have pushed drilling abroad does not mean we have saved the environment at home. Because everywhere is home. Say what you will about the American government, but at least they have not attempted a clumsy cover up of a huge oil spill or used military police to defend thousands of tons of oil contamination per year.
Returning to potential ANWR development itself, many Democrats think opening it would constitute a free-for-all of environmental exploitation. This is simply not what is being proposed. In reality, the refuge contains 19 million acres—about the size of South Carolina— but the 1002 area, where the proposed drilling would take place, is 1.5 million acres of that, about 8%. Slant and horizontal drilling allow the oil to be extracted while only impacting 2,000 of those acres, scattered throughout the 1002. Ice roads for the trucks and ice pads to support the platforms will melt in the summer, reducing environmental impact. And any legislation that opened 1002 would doubtlessly include provisions requiring equipment removal, land restoration, and strict environmental oversight, as similar legislation has required in the past.
Are there risks with opening ANWR? Of course. The 1002 area is a caribou calving ground, and research suggests oil development may displace birthing to other areas. But the herd around the Prudhoe Bay development has tripled in size since drilling began, and vast tracts of undisturbed land in ANWR could accommodate displacement should it occur. The Gwich’in also have real concerns and should be brought into the development process at every stage. But most of those concerns tie back to the caribou, which can and must be protected.
Opening ANWR will not solve all of our energy production problems. At the end of the day, there simply is not enough oil there. Moreover, as Alaska itself vividly illustrates, global climate change requires that we shift away from greenhouse gas-releasing fuels in the long-term. Yet drilling there could be a vital piece of a comprehensive plan, focused on development, alternative fuels, and conservation. The federal government could take the revenue from the ANWR lease sales and plough it entirely into alternative energy research. A bipartisan bill with ANWR as a centerpiece could be a step away from fossil fuels, even as it mitigates our energy constraints in the short term, improves energy security, and frees Democrats from a bizarre world in which offshore drilling is the preferred, environmentally responsible alternative.
Unfortunately, opposition to ANWR has become an ideological issue for the Democratic Party—a talisman—disconnected from the science of what is possible in terms of responsible development and rational cost-benefit policy analysis. Drilling offshore is risky—much more so than drilling in ANWR. So long as we allow the former but dismiss off-hand proposals for the latter, we hamstring efforts to comprehensively tackle our energy challenges while further endangering the environment. Just because Sarah Palin said it does not mean it is untrue.
Forrest Dunbar is a joint MPP/JD candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School and Yale Law School. He is originally from Cordova, Alaska, and is currently living in Anchorage.
