The debate on whether or not to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has not been a purely scientific or logical one. Extremist politics and junk science have entered into the equation, and the losers will doubtlessly be the American people. The plan to drill in ANWR proposed by the Bush administration, and now defeated in the Senate, was a sensible and environmentally sound idea. Despite the hysterical accusations leveled against the administration, the plan to drill in ANWR would have neither threatened the environment, nor the wildlife of the region. Some would even argue that the real danger in the ANWR debate is posed to America’s national security. Regardless of what dangers not securing energy independence for the United States poses, one thing certainly not threatened is ANWR.No one is suggesting that the United States turn the state of Alaska, or even ANWR itself, into a massive oil field. First off, just what ANWR is, must to be established. The Refuge has 1.5 million square acres, of which only 2000 square acres had been put up by the administration for oil exploration. In other words, not all of ANWR would have been drilled; maybe none of ANWR would have even been drilled because the proposal by the administration would have only opened the tiny space up for exploration to future drilling. This 2,000 acres comprises a measly .08% of the whole of ANWR. This small portion of ANWR put up for oil exploration is not the picturesque nor pristine sight to behold that fringe elements of the environmental movement would portray it to be. It is a cold, desolate, vast frozen waste that stays in the dark for two months out of the year. If one were airdropped into this portion of ANWR, one would not stand around admiring the beauty. One would be thinking of ways to get out of that barren wasteland. The proposed area put up for drilling exploration is of no use to anyone or anything. 1.5 million square acres of ANWR will not be undone by exploring 2,000 of those square acres that are not even of any significant use.
Some would argue, however, that the wildlife of the region would be harmed by human intervention in ANWR. The administration has proposed to limit the potential environmental effects, by only allowing work between November and May, outside the normal breeding months for all species that might enter the area. The proposal also requires companies to use “ice roads” that melt each spring, protecting the underlying tundra. Furthermore, human intervention does not always yield the gloom and doom that many opponents of oil exploration erroneously contend it would. The much beloved caribou, now the poster child of the great ANWR debate, have certainly benefited by human impact in Alaska. In the twenty years since humans opened the Prudhoe Bay oil field, the caribou population has jumped from 3,000 to 27,500. Humans clearly are not harming the wildlife populations of the areas of Alaska they have drilled in. Similar care and caution can easily be employed in ANWR.
America as a nation must face its growing energy crisis. Surveys overwhelmingly indicate that the American people seek to have more of their oil drilled domestically. Drilling in ANWR and getting one step closer to energy independence is a more appealing option than to get America’s oil from unstable parts of the planet like Venezuela, and regions like the Middle East that are filled with hostile states teetering on the brink of war. The United States presently imports 55 percent of its oil; this figure is expected to leap to an intolerable 64 percent by 2020. We produce much less oil now than we did in 1970, when we imported a mere 35 percent of our oil. Domestic energy use continues to climb, even while domestic energy drilling plummets.
America now imports 10 million barrels of oil a day, much of which comes from nations that would turn off the spigot at the drop of a hat. And sadly, the Real-Politik nature of global affairs would likely require some sort of drastic measure by the United States if its oil supply were cut off. In other words, a possible war. Neither the proposed 2,000-acre oil exploration zone nor even the whole vast frozen wasteland of ANWR itself is worth the bones of one American soldier, sailor, Marine, or pilot. The oil reserves of America would not long endure if a war or other catastrophe cut off our supply. Some better degree of oil independence would stave off the prospective national disaster that now looms ahead of the American people.
The simple fact of the matter is that drilling for oil in ANWR is not only scientifically sound and nature friendly, but it makes good sense concerning national security. But there will continue to be those who will preach doom and gloom about human intervention in the allegedly beautiful portion of ANWR that was proposed for possible drilling. Let us face reality. Who really wants to destroy the environment? Who would be proposing an idea like that? No one is proposing that, despite such allegations coming from certain circles in America opposed to drilling. The Bush administration is always going to be accused of trying to destroy the environment. That will always be a page in the playbook of those who oppose American energy independence. That fact cannot be changed. The reality we have to face in regard to energy, that many people do not want to face, is that we cannot simply conserve our way out of the energy problem. We must produce our way out of it, while also looking for alternative sources of energy. There is plenty of oil that can be safely and responsibly had in ANWR. Now all we have to do is go get it.
M. Andrew Glock