Warning!  In this zone, there is

        If you're looking for an older rant, check the ARCHIVE page.

        Okay, I've totally caved.  I started a LiveJournal blog thingy.  I suck.  Here's the Address:

        http://www.livejournal.com/users/unpcmisanthrope/

        My user ID is unpcmisanthrope.  Who'd have thought it?

        EDIT (5/30/08):  as of, hell, like, 2 years ago, now, I changed my ID to misanthrope_mom (new baby, y'all).  Feel free to find the journal, if you want to inflict massive amounts of baby spam and talking about poop on yourself.

    Far up north from here, in the Arctic, on the Northwest coast of Alaska, is a 19.6 million acre patch of land, designated the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, or ANWR for short.  Within its boundaries caribou gather to give birth to calves, wild birds flourish, and the occasional camper just might "be slapped in the butt by a frisky polar bear."2

     A section of this Refuge, designated the 1002 area, amounting to 1.5 million acres along the coast has recently been proposed as a site for oil exploration and drilling.

3

    Studies by the United States Geological Survey has led to the report that

"The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels." 4

     ANWR is home to many forms of life, some of which are:  caribou, including the migratory Porcupine caribou herd, polar and grizzly bears, wolves, and 135 species of birds.5  People live there, too.  Two groups of Native peoples live in the area, and have claims on how the land is used:  The Gwich'in and Inupiat peoples.

     The bulk of the contested 1002 area is coastal plain, described by one author as "endless brown tundra, speckled with ponds and lakes, boggy and squishy to hike in."6  Oil seeps to the surface of its own accord, and the millions of mosquitoes are such a plague that they are a factor in the caribou migration.  Of course, this is in summer.  In the winter the area is covered in ice.

     ANWR was originally created as a reaction to massive resource development (oil and natural gas mining) occurring across Alaska in the 1950's.  Studies determined that the best location for wilderness protection would be the northeast corner of the state, and in 1960 8.9 million acres were set aside under the name "the Arctic national Wildlife Range."  In 1980 the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANCILA) was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter.  This law "doubled the size of the Range, renamed it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and designated most of the original Range as Wilderness."  Two important parts of this law were section 1002 specified the information that must be obtained before a determination could be made whether to open the original 8.9 million acres to oil exploration, or designate it as wilderness.  Section 1003 of the law specified that the "production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the [Refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by an act of Congress."7   As directed by the ANCILA law, the US Fish and Wildlife Service performed studies of the area and determined that oil exploration would have profound negative impact on the native species, as well as endangering the livelihood of local native peoples.

     Attempts were made to open the Refuge to oil development in 1991 and 1995, with the current administration making frequent attempts to pass legislation to do so.  In 2003 yet another attempt was made to open the Refuge for oil drilling, which was voted down by the Senate.

     The current debate is split between people who emphasize conservation, and those who support industry.  Current President Bush has repeatedly supported bills that would enforce his administration's energy policy, a key facet of which has been drilling for Alaskan oil.  Many Alaskans favor drilling in the refuge, including Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).  Senator Murkowski was quoted in an article bringing up one of the key points of the argument in favor of drilling, that it makes "more sense to exploit the Alaska reserves instead of relying upon 'Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria--pick your unstable country of choice.' "8  Drilling proponents list advances in technology that would make drilling in ANWR minimally damaging, and the estimates of a vast quantity of raw crude that cries out to be used.  They also point to the recent California energy crisis as an example of why America must secure its own supply of oil.  Additionally, one of the native groups of people, the Inupiat Eskimos of Kaktovik, are firmly in favor of drilling, as they stand to gain the most in terms of leasing income and jobs.9

     A full rogues-gallery of environmental action groups have stepped forward to oppose any legislation authorizing opening the Refuge to even oil exploration.  These include the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), The Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Federation.  Senator John Kerry, currently running for the office of President against the incumbent, has been one of a number of opponents of drilling in ANWR and was quoted in one article as saying "In the last year, they've tried every excuse under the sun to destroy this pristine wilderness--California's energy crisis, a sagging economy, the war on terrorism…"10  and "Drilling proponents weren't interested in national security or strengthening America's position in the troubled Middle East when they stopped John McCain and I from making our cars more efficient."11

     I was first made aware of the debate when I received an email from Robert Redford.12  I had signed up to be a "BioGems Defender" at the NRDC website, and was used to receiving their emailed action alerts.  On reading the email, and following the link, I promptly did as I was bid, and clicked to send a postcard to my representatives.  A few months later, I encountered a vignette in a short story that made me wonder if my automatic opposition might be mistaken, or at least naive.  In "Nine Whispered Opinions Regarding the Alaskan Secession", one protagonist reflects as

"caribou graze in termination dust beneath the pipeline.  After you lost your oil leases…you testified for your people that drilling for oil in ANWR - the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - would curtail calving."13

     My initial feelings were very simple, and exactly as is sarcastically described by proponents of drilling:  In a contest of Big Oil vs. animals, animals always win.  I have always chosen cleaning and protecting the planet over questionable business demands.  But as I get older, and am fully consumed with parenthood, I understand better the compromises that sometimes have to be made.

     I was raised in a fairly church-free manner, only attending on rare visits with my grandparents.  These few experiences left me fairly unimpressed - one reason being that despite frequent laying on of hands and prayer, my allergies were never miraculously cured.  When I was twelve, a family friend involved me in a supposed social event at their church, which culminated with a revival-style gathering exhorting everyone who hadn't been baptized to come up and take Jesus into their heart.  I was furious and felt betrayed.  I knew that religion was meaningless unless you really "felt" it, really meant it in your heart.  So I suppose I was raised with a questioning nature.  But at the same time, the question of the existence of a creator really never came up; I've always believed in God.  Some of the most spiritual moments in my life, when I have felt most acutely that there definitely is a God, have been moments touched by nature - sunrises, forests, birdsong.  My mother raised me by herself, and it was always a struggle to get by.  Being poor somehow never left me wracked with envy, more of an appreciation for what I did have.  One of the things my mother could do for me was take me to places she enjoyed, and on regular trailer vacations we visited the beach, or the redwoods, for weeks at a time.  The understanding of these natural places as desirable places to be and to enjoy was a constant theme.  Though I have never been simply organized enough to participate, my family has been members of the Sierra Club for decades, and most of the magazines found in our house were nature magazines.  All of these things have combined in me to have a preference for the natural world, but with an understanding that sometimes the pragmatic aspect of monetary concerns don't let a person go with their first choice.

     As I've gotten older, perhaps because of my questioning nature, I've grown very impatient with general humanity's selfishness and willful ignorance.  I can understand and sympathize when a person is stripped of choice, but am baffled and frustrated by people who either know better and don't care, or are simply too lazy to think.  My estimation of a person has always been measured in large degree on intellectual terms, and on their willingness and enjoyment of using the brains God gave them.  I have a certain naïveté, I admit, when the environmentalist and the intellectual in me come together:  I have a very hard time understanding how anyone with any capacity for rational thought would NOT want to do everything possible to preserve this miracle of a world that we are a part of.  You don't foul your nest; don't burn down a house you can't get out of; it seems so obvious to me.

     There are two more factors that inform my world-view.  Firstly, I grew up in San Jose, CA, during the Reagan years.  My early teen years were shadowed and colored by the knowledge that I was living in the #2 nuclear strike target in the country.  This imparted more than a bit of pessimism, fatalism, and cynicism about the motives of those in power and the American political process in general.  Perhaps balancing this is my lifelong love of Science Fiction.  Science Fiction is a genre where issues of all sort -social, political, environmental, psychological, technological - can be discussed and possibilities imagined.  In the culture of the Science Fiction fan, confrontation of and discussion of these challenges to mankind at large is standard operating procedure whenever we gather.  Certain assumptions permeate this discourse, one of the main ones being that; we CAN solve any challenges we face.  That they are merely challenges, not conflicts, and the right thing will eventually be done.  That is my thread of optimism.

     Overall, as I find more information on the matter, and as I read and listen to more opinions, I'm fairly certain that my first reaction will be right, but I'm finding the discussion extremely complex.  I am hoping that in the long run, my optimistic "we can solve it" impulse will prove to be correct.

Notes
1 - PBS. Harriman Expedition Retraced.  Retrieved Oct. 1, 2004 from the World Wide
 Web:  http://www.pbs.org/harriman/images/century/2001pipeline_lg.jpg
2 - Kristof, Nicholas D.  "Casting a Cold Eye on Arctic Oil" New York Times Sept. 10, 2003 pg. A25
3 - U.S. Geological Survey.  1998 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment,
1998, Including Economic Analysis.  USGS Fact Sheet.  Retrieved Oct. 1, 2004 from the WWW:  http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
4 - ibid.
5 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 17 January 2001. Potential impacts of proposed oil and gas
       development on the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain: Historical overview and
       issues of concern. Web page of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
       Fairbanks, Alaska. Retrieved Oct. 4, 2004 from the WWW: http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.html
6 - Kristof, Nicholas D.  "Casting a Cold Eye on Arctic Oil" op. cit.
7 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 17 January 2001. Potential impacts of proposed oil and gas
       development on the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain: Historical overview and
       issues of concern. Op. cit.
8 - Frandsen, Jon.  (March 19, 2003).  Senate Rejects Plan to Drill for Oil in Alaska Wildlife Refuge.
 Gannett News Service.  n.p.
9 - Hildebrand, John.  (November 2003). A Northern Front:  Seeking refuge in oil and in wilderness.
 Harper's. Vol. 307, No. 1842.  p. 67-76
10 - Chaddock, Gail Russell.  (April 9, 2002).  Arctic-Oil Advocates Seize on Mideast Crisis.  Christian
 Science Monitor. n.p.
11 - ibid.
12 - Natural Resources Defense Council.  Retrieved Oct. 1, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.savebiogems.org/redford/
13 - Guthridge, George.  "Nine Whispered Opinions Regarding the Alaskan Secession".  The Magazine of
 Fantasy and Science Fiction Vol. 107, No.1, Whole No. 630, July 2004 p.38 (37-51)

Works Cited
Chaddock, Gail Russell.  (April 9, 2002).  Arctic-Oil Advocates Seize on Mideast Crisis.  Christian Science Monitor. n.p.
Frandsen, Jon.  (March 19, 2003).  Senate Rejects Plan to Drill for Oil in Alaska Wildlife Refuge. Gannett News Service.  n.p.
Guthridge, George.  "Nine Whispered Opinions Regarding the Alaskan Secession".  The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction Vol. 107, No.1, Whole No. 630, July 2004 p.38 (37-51)
Hildebrand, John.  (November 2003). A Northern Front:  Seeking refuge in oil and in wilderness. Harper's. Vol. 307, No. 1842.  p. 67-76
Kristof, Nicholas D.  "Casting a Cold Eye on Arctic Oil" New York Times Sept. 10, 2003 pg. A25
Natural Resources Defense Council.  Retrieved Oct. 1, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.savebiogems.org/redford/
PBS. Harriman Expedition Retraced.  Retrieved Oct. 1, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.pbs.org/harriman/images/century/2001pipeline_lg.jpg
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 17 January 2001. Potential impacts of proposed oil and gas development on the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain: Historical overview and issues of concern. Web page of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Fairbanks, Alaska. Retrieved Oct. 4, 2004 from the WWW: http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.html
U.S. Geological Survey.  1998 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis.  USGS Fact Sheet.  Retrieved Oct. 1, 2004 from the WWW:  http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
 
 

    In the first section of this report, I discussed the history behind this debate, and some of the concerned parties and their arguments.  In this section, I will go into more detail about the reasons different factions give for supporting or opposing the idea of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to oil and gas exploration and possible drilling.

    An organization named Arctic Power has created their own informational website, with  "Top 10 Reasons to Support Development in ANWR." 1

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would be Considered for Exploration
2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury
3. Jobs to be Created
4. Economic Impact
5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery
6. North Slope Production in Decline
7. Imported Oil too Costly
8. No Negative Impact on Animals
9. Arctic Technology
10. Alaskans' Support

I shall attempt to discuss all of these points, as well as their rebuttals, though not in this particular order.

     The most active aspect of the debate is in regards to environmental impact, claims made by environmental defenders, as well as those made by the oil industry.  Starting with the question of the size of the area at issue, both sides address the question differently.  Out of the total size of ANWR, 19.6 million acres, and 1002 area designated for exploration, 1.5 million acres, drilling proponents emphasize that the total area available for oil fields is restricted to 2,000 acres. 2  A vocal drilling activist, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski commented:

If a large oil find is discovered, the entire development may only disrupt 2,000 acres of the coastal plain/reserve - a reduction from the 12,500 acres predicted to be impacted in the early 1980's.  That is a "footprint" so small - a little over three square miles in a region two and one-half times the size of the State of Rhode Island - as to likely have no impact on wildlife. 3

Unfortunately, oil drilling, particularly in an Arctic environment, requires much more than simply building oil fields.  A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report spelled this out:

Development in the 1002 Area could likely require a large number of small production sites spread across the Refuge landscape, connected by an infrastructure of roads, pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, loading docks, dormitories, airstrips, gravel pits, utility lines and landfills. 4

     The biologists of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service do not agree, stating in their report that Major or Moderate negative effects would occur for all the wildlife of the region, and summarizing that

"Cumulative biological consequences of oil field development that may be expected in the Arctic Refuge include:

•  blocking, deflecting or disturbing wildlife
•  loss of subsistence hunting opportunities
•  increased predation by arctic fox, gulls and ravens on nesting birds due to introduction of garbage as a consistent food source
•  alteration of natural drainage patterns, causing changes in vegetation
•  deposition of alkaline dust on tundra along roads, altering vegetation over a much larger area than the actual width of the road
•  local pollutant haze and acid rain from nitrogen oxides, methane and particulate matter emissions contamination of soil and water from fuel and oil spills " 8

    In response to this, the petroleum industry points to newer technologies meant to reduce impact, particularly any negative effects.  Techniques have been developed to minimize or destroy any waste products, to reduce the square feet of land altered by drill pads and support infrastructure, and to improve the accuracy of "seismic exploration technology", resulting in more accurately placed wells, and fewer dry wells.10  Many advances have been made in the actual technology of drilling, as well.  Directional wells that can reach from the drill site to a deposit up to 4 miles away, drilling techniques to open a new well off an existing well 11, and reductions in the size of the drill pads, possibly doing away with them entirely 12, all combine to greatly reduce the amount of square acreage the drilling process will take up.

     As in any political debate, there are groups of local people in the region, whose futures will be directly affected by whatever is decided in regards to the exploitation of ANWR.  Two groups of Native people, the Inupiat of Kaktovik, Alaska, and the Gwich'in people of the Arctic Village and others, have come down on opposite sides of the debate.  These groups have followed very different paths after the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.  In an attempt to resolve lasting injustices done to native peoples, the Act divided land and money among 13 regional Native corporations.  The groups, in turn, gave up all claims based on aboriginal title.13  Effectively, the individuals were no longer members of a tribe or group, they were shareholders in an independent corporation.  The Inupiat were one of these groups.  The Gwich'in, however, chose not to participate in the agreement, remained directed by a tribal government, and did without the infusion of cash and lease income the other groups received.14  This cash infusion moved the Inupiat away from subsistence living and traditional values.  A survey of the people of Kaktovik shows that only 16% of those surveyed subsist totally on harvested food, and that their main concerns are ones that might typify any semi-urban low-income group:  healthcare, jobs, and drug and alcohol abuse.15   The Gwich'in maintained a more traditional way of life, which for them centered on the caribou, specifically the migrating Porcupine Herd.  Where the Inupiat, being coastal, have traditionally hunted a variety of land and marine mammals, including legal hunting of 3 whales per year 16, the Gwich'in have this to say about the Caribou:

The Gwich’in rely on the Porcupine Caribou Herd to meet our essential physical, cultural, social, economic and spiritual needs. The caribou provides clothing, tools, weapons, shelter, medicines and nutritional needs. The Gwich’in Nation is composed of about 8, 000 people who live in fifteen isolated communities. Reliance on traditional and customary use (now termed “subsistence”) of the Porcupine Caribou Herd is a matter of survival. Beyond the importance of our basic needs, the caribou is central to our traditional spirituality. Our songs and dances tell of the relationship that we have to the caribou. The caribou is a part of us.17

     In the political arena, one of the most visible proponents of opening ANWR to development is Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior.  In one speech, she nicely spelled out the various aspects of the debate:

Energy production in Alaska's Northern Coastal Plain will reduce dependence on foreign oil; will create new jobs; is strongly supported by organizations that represent working men and women; and will protect wildlife with the toughest environmental regulations ever applied.19

Oil is high-profile stuff.  Oil fuels military power, national treasuries, and international politics.  It is no longer a commodity to be bought and sold within the confines of traditional energy supply and demand balances.  Rather it has been transformed into a determinant of well-being, of national security, and of international power.20

Domestic oil production in the United States has been declining for several decades, after peaking in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day.  … During the last year alone (1992) domestic gas and oil drilling activity decreased by nearly 17 percent, and was at its lowest level since 1942.24

The United States Geological Survey estimated the volume of oil expected to be found in ANWR, and the average likely volume was said to be 7.7 billion barrels of oil.25

    Critics, however, are less enthusiastic about the likelihood of ANWR oil being the force for self-sufficiency it is being made to seem.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, in their analysis of the USGS report, spelled out one key point, "At prices less than $16 per barrel, there is reportedly no economically recoverable oil in the 1002 Area."26  In other words, the costs and difficulties of retrieving and transporting the oil from the ANWR area would make it a losing proposition if the prices dropped sufficiently.  This is not mentioned when proponents talk about lowering fuel prices for consumers, or lowering crude prices worldwide.27

    Drilling opponents often characterize of the volume of oil expected in ANWR as a mere 6-month supply.  This is an oversimplification, of course, since no one is expecting ANWR to supply one hundred percent of America's needs, much less that every bit of recoverable oil will be available at one time.  One rebuttal spelled it out thus:

ANWR would provide a six-month supply absent oil from any other source--no imports, no domestic production, nothing else. No one is proposing this.  To put the matter in proper perspective, the Energy Information Agency estimates that ANWR contains between 6 and 16 billion barrels of oil. By comparison, the U.S. imports approximately 7 million barrels of oil per day. If only six billion barrels of oil were recovered in ANWR, in a time of emergency the U.S. could cut all imports of foreign oil for two years with little or no effect on the economy.  Put another way, ANWR's 6 billion barrels would be sufficient to replace Iraqi oil for 50 years or from Saudi Arabia for 30 years.28

     There are many sides to the debate over oil drilling in ANWR, with the players including powerful international corporations, concerned ecologists, and the nation's northernmost Indian tribe.32  In the words of one author, "The value of wilderness seems so self-evident that it is difficult to articulate a response to those who would destroy it."33  There are many compelling arguments on each side.  In the next section of this report, I shall attempt to resolve the question of whether it is ethically acceptable to for oil exploration and drilling to be allowed to go forward in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Notes
1 - Arctic Power, "Top Ten Reasons to Support Development in ANWR". Retrieved November 6, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm.  Tellingly, Arctic Power is a group made up of individuals and industry, including:  Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, Resource Development Council, Alaska Oil & Gas Association, and Alaska Miner's Association, see http://www.anwr.org/power.htm
2 - Satchell, Michael.  "Gentler footsteps on the tundra".  U.S. News & World Report.  March 25, 2002 p.52
3 - Murkowski, Frank H.  "Oil Drilling in the Arctic:  Vital for America's Economy and Security".  Excerpted in Congressional Digest.  Vol. 80, No. 6, June-July 2001 p. 174 from his Senate website, no longer available.
4 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. "Potential impacts of proposed oil and gas development on the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain: Historical overview and issues of concern". Web page of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Fairbanks, Alaska. January 17, 2001.  p. 9 Retrieved October 4, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.html
5 - McNally, Robert Aquinas.  "White Bears, Black Oil".  E The Environmental Magazine.  Vol. XII, No. 6, November-December 2001, p.10
6 - Sibley, David.  "Birding In An Untamed Land."  National Wildlife. Volume 41, Number 5, August-September 2003.  p. 34
7 - Hickel, Walter J. "ANWR Oil:  An Alternative to War over Oil". The American Enterprise. Vol. 13, June 2002, reprinted in: Hanley, James, ed.  At Issue:  Foreign Oil Independence.  Farmington Hills, MI:  Greenhaven Press, 2004, p. 76
8 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. "Potential impacts of proposed oil and gas development on the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain: Historical overview and issues of concern".  P. 10 Op. cit.
9 - Manuel, Athan.  "Green Words, Dirty Deeds:  A PIRG Expose of BP Amoco’s Greenwashing".  February 2001.   Retrieved November 4, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.savethearctic.com/PDFS/bpamoco01.pdf
10 - 3 - Satchell, Michael.  "Gentler footsteps on the tundra".  p.52 op. cit.
11 - Arctic Power. "ANWR Arctic Technology - Drilling Technology".  Retrieved November 6, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.anwr.org/techno/drilling.htm
12 - Arctic Power. "Arctic Technology". Retrieved November 6, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.anwr.org/techno/techno1.htm
13 - Hildebrand, John. "A Northern Front:  Seeking refuge in oil and in wilderness".  Harper's Magazine.  Vol. 307, No. 1842, November 2003.  p. 72
14 - Ibid.
15 - City of Kaktovik.  "ANWR Survey".  Retrieved November 6, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.kaktovik.com/anwr_survey.htm
16 - City of Kaktovik.  "Subsistence".   Retrieved November 6, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.kaktovik.com/subsiste.htm
17 - Gwich'in Steering Committee.  " Gwich'in Steering Committee Homepage".  Retrieved November 6, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.alaska.net/~gwichin/index2.html
18 - Gwich'in Steering Committee.  " Gwich'in Steering Committee".  Retrieved November 6, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.alaska.net/~gwichin/culture1.html.
19 - Interior Department. "ANWR Oil Reserves Greater Than Any State". U.S. Department of the Interior News.  March 12, 2003 n.p.
20 - Ebel, Roger E. Director of the Energy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, quoted in Hanley, James, ed.  At Issue:  Foreign Oil Independence.  Farmington Hills, MI:  Greenhaven Press, 2004, p. 10
21 - Rubin, Mark, American Petroleum Institute.  Excerpted in Congressional Digest.  Vol. 80, No. 6, June-July 2001 p. 180 from testimony given April 23, 2001 before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
22 - Rubin, Mark.  Congressional Digest. p. 182  op. cit.
23 - Burns, Conrad.  "Beyond the Middle East: In Search of Energy Security".  Heritage Lectures March 19, 2003 Reprinted in: Hanley, James, ed.  At Issue:  Foreign Oil Independence.  Farmington Hills, MI:  Greenhaven Press, 2004, p. 76
24 - Hayes, David.  Excerpted in Congressional Digest.  Vol. 80, No. 6, June-July 2001 p. 185 from testimony given April 23, 2001 before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
25 - 3 - U.S. Geological Survey.  1998 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis.  USGS Fact Sheet.  Retrieved Oct. 1, 2004 from the WWW:  http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
26 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. "Potential impacts of proposed oil and gas development on the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain: Historical overview and issues of concern".  P. 6 Op. cit.
27 - 2 - Arctic Power, "Top Ten Reasons to Support Development in ANWR".  n.p.  op. cit.
28 - Rubin, Mark.  Congressional Digest. p. 184  op. cit.
29 - Roberts, Paul. The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World.  Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2004. p. 214
30 - Roberts, Paul. The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World.  p. 299 op. cit.
31 - Roberts, Paul. The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World.  p. 295-6 op. cit.
32 - 19 - Gwich'in Steering Committee.  " Gwich'in Steering Committee".  Retrieved November 6, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.alaska.net/~gwichin/culture1.html.
33 - Sibley, David.  "Birding In An Untamed Land."  p. 38 op.cit.

Works Cited
Arctic Power, "Top Ten Reasons to Support Development in ANWR". Retrieved November 6,
2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm.  Tellingly, Arctic Power is a group made up of individuals and industry, including:  Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, Resource Development Council, Alaska Oil & Gas Association, and Alaska Miner's Association, see http://www.anwr.org/power.htm
Arctic Power. "ANWR Arctic Technology - Drilling Technology".  Retrieved November 6, 2004
from the World Wide Web: http://www.anwr.org/techno/drilling.htm
Arctic Power. "Arctic Technology". Retrieved November 6, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.anwr.org/techno/techno1.htm
Burns, Conrad.  "Beyond the Middle East: In Search of Energy Security".  Heritage Lectures
March 19, 2003 Reprinted in: Hanley, James, ed.  At Issue:  Foreign Oil Independence.  Farmington Hills, MI:  Greenhaven Press, 2004, p. 76
City of Kaktovik.  "ANWR Survey".  Retrieved November 6, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.kaktovik.com/anwr_survey.htm
City of Kaktovik.  "Subsistence".   Retrieved November 6, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.kaktovik.com/subsiste.htm
Ebel, Roger E. Director of the Energy Program at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, quoted in Hanley, James, ed.  At Issue:  Foreign Oil Independence.  Farmington Hills, MI:  Greenhaven Press, 2004, p. 10
Gwich'in Steering Committee.  " Gwich'in Steering Committee Homepage".  Retrieved
November 6, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.alaska.net/~gwichin/index2.html
Gwich'in Steering Committee.  " Gwich'in Steering Committee".  Retrieved November 6, 2004
from the World Wide Web:  http://www.alaska.net/~gwichin/culture1.html.
Hayes, David.  Excerpted in Congressional Digest.  Vol. 80, No. 6, June-July 2001 p. 185 from
testimony given April 23, 2001 before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Hickel, Walter J. "ANWR Oil:  An Alternative to War over Oil". The American Enterprise. Vol.
13, June 2002, reprinted in: Hanley, James, ed.  At Issue:  Foreign Oil Independence.  Farmington Hills, MI:  Greenhaven Press, 2004, p. 76
Hildebrand, John. "A Northern Front:  Seeking refuge in oil and in wilderness".  Harper's
Magazine.  Vol. 307, No. 1842, November 2003.  p. 67
Interior Department. "ANWR Oil Reserves Greater Than Any State". U.S. Department of the
Interior News.  March 12, 2003 n.p.
Manuel, Athan.  "Green Words, Dirty Deeds:  A PIRG Expose of BP Amoco’s Greenwashing".
February 2001.   Retrieved November 4, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.savethearctic.com/PDFS/bpamoco01.pdf
McNally, Robert Aquinas.  "White Bears, Black Oil".  E The Environmental Magazine.  Vol.
XII, No. 6, November-December 2001, p.10
Murkowski, Frank H.  "Oil Drilling in the Arctic:  Vital for America's Economy and Security".
 Excerpted in Congressional Digest.  Vol. 80, No. 6, June-July 2001 p. 174 from his Senate website, no longer available.
Roberts, Paul. The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World.  Boston/New York:
Houghton Mifflin, 2004. p. 214
Rubin, Mark, American Petroleum Institute.  Excerpted in Congressional Digest.  Vol. 80, No. 6,
June-July 2001 p. 180 from testimony given April 23, 2001 before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Satchell, Michael.  "Gentler footsteps on the tundra".  U.S. News & World Report.  March 25,
2002 p.52
Sibley, David.  "Birding In An Untamed Land."  National Wildlife. Volume 41, Number 5,
August-September 2003.  p. 34
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. "Potential impacts of proposed oil and gas development on
the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain: Historical overview and issues of concern". Web page of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Fairbanks, Alaska. January 17, 2001.  p. 9 Retrieved October 4, 2004 from the World Wide Web:  http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.html
U.S. Geological Survey.  1998 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum
Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis.  USGS Fact Sheet.  Retrieved Oct. 1, 2004 from the WWW:  http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
 
 

     In the first two sections of this report, I reviewed the history behind the debate over opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and drilling, went into some detail about the various forces for and against, and what arguments they used to support their positions.  In this section, I will review my thoughts about the points made, and reach my own conclusion about whether or not the proposed action would be ethical.  My decision will be made coming from my personal ethical bias, altruistic with a bit of the relativistic system.
     To begin my evaluation, let me here summarize the arguments pro and con, and then detail my thoughts on them.
 
 
 

    In response to the contention that improvements in technology have made the process of seeking and extracting oil from the Earth less damaging and more cost-effective, I agree that the facts are persuasive, but the overwhelming fact remains that extensive damage to the land in question is unavoidable.  Claims that the Caribou will simply find somewhere else to calve, or indeed that their behavior is in any way predictable based on the indicators of another group of animals is simplistic and unrealistic.  The focus of drilling proponents' arguments on drilling pad size betrays their efforts to downplay the true negative impact of miles of roads, airfields, housing, and various other support structures.  And finally, while the value of untouched wilderness is sometimes hard to put into words, as referred to earlier, the complex and interrelated nature of life's cycles in this area means that any negative impacts may be felt worldwide.

    For the inhabitants of Kaktovik, Alaska, I have sympathy.  It is simple human nature to want to improve one's economic status, to be able to provide better for one's children.  Not being a part of those affected, however, I have the ability to take the long view.  The amount of potential oil in the region is finite, and would eventually run out, forcing these same people to confront the issue of self-improvement once again, this time surrounded by the detritus and poison of mineral exploitation.  Delaying finding a sustainable local economy is  an unacceptable reason to strip yet another group of native people from the means of maintaining their culture, their identities, and their lives.

    While protection of American citizens has practically become a catch phrase in national discourse, many of the proposed methods seem hasty and poorly thought out.  While the American economy is dangerously linked to the whims of foreign exporters, the truth is that the American economy has been steered to a path of rampant consumption and waste.  Proclaiming that conservation is a joke seems to be a flat rejection of a proud American history.  Patriotic Americans were once exhorted to save every scrap and do without whenever possible, most dramatically during World War II, the so-called "Greatest Generation".  Since this is the generation that is now aging beyond having grips on the reins of power, I am forced to wonder whether the country is suffering from something of a general backlash, as a reaction to our leaders' hardships in youth.

    One simple fact about oil that many people seem to either ignore or are oblivious of, is that it is a finite substance.  Only so many dinosaurs ever lived, so there was only so much carbon matter to be decomposed into oil.  Having a worldwide energy technology based on hydrocarbon fuel simply cannot last.  And since there are a vast number of other things that require petrochemicals to manufacture, the most ubiquitous of which is plastic, to waste what remains without thought for tomorrow is doubly a sin.

    The logistical problems of moving a significant quantity of such a toxic substance such a great distance, through such harsh conditions, could be looked at as simply a magnificent challenge, the kind that Americans love to rise to meet.  The simple fact is, however, America hasn't had that attitude for decades.  America is more used to simply conquering and ignoring the cost.  The cost in this case includes not only money, but also lives; the lives of people, animals, and plants, and could come to a truly staggering total.

    To formalize my evaluation of the question, let me review it in light of obligations and ideals, since I have addressed consequences in the previous paragraphs.  What obligations, if any, are valid?  As thinking beings, humanity as a whole can be expected to be obligated to choose the wisest course, but defining that is difficult.  The leadership of America, the President and other lawmakers, are obliged to make choices that are of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people, but again, defining what the greatest benefit is, is part of the debate.  Perhaps the most valid statement of obligation I can make is this:  As cohabitants on the planet, humanity is obliged to treat their fellow living creatures with respect.  James Sterba spelled it out as A Principle of Disproportionality:

Actions that meet nonbasic or luxury needs of humans are prohibited when they aggress against the basic needs of individual animals and plants, or of whole species or ecosystems.1

     What ideals have a bearing on this question?  Most prominently is the moral concept of temperance.  As stated policy, our current presidential administration has rejected any thought of conservation, restriction or self-limitation.  A policy of glorying in excess clearly goes against the ideal of temperance.  The ideals of justice and compassion are certainly relevant to this debate.  It is neither just nor compassionate to wreak destruction and havoc on an area nature has structured to be nursery and breeding ground for so many different species.  It is neither just nor compassionate to even contemplate depriving an entire people of something central to every aspect of their livelihood.  Compassion has nothing to do with an attitude that even though there will be damage, it will only be a little, and besides, the animals can always go somewhere else.  As I pointed out earlier, many of the drilling advocates' argument betray a deceptive focusing on certain facts, and lack of acknowledgement of others, showing a conscious lack of the ideal of honesty.  Most compellingly, for me, the attitude of drilling proponents displays a glaring absence of two particular ideals.  There is a lack of gratitude for the bounty that they wish to profit from - no thankfulness for the good things around us, merely irritation at the obstacles to their consumption of them.  There is also a total absence of simple loving kindness, a feeling that those around you have value and worth inherent simply by being what they are, and thus are worthy of our taking care of them and around them.  The predominant feeling running through the pro side of this debate has been one of; it's ours for the taking.

     I believe that animals and plants have just as much right to live undisturbed as people.  Perhaps more, since humans have the ability to move to a new area, and not only survive, but prosper.  Animals are tied to a particular place, a particular range of plants and fellow animals, a particular ecosystem.  Simply because humans have the ability to transform an area into an arrangement more to their liking does not mean in any way that they should.

     There is another choice.  The political system in America is set up a particular way, and certain forces working within that system have influenced it to their benefit.  Auto manufacturer, autoworker, and energy production lobbies have worked for a very long time to resist any changes in the way they do business.  Expensive implementation of higher standards cut into their level of profits, and decrease the amount of money the workers can take home.  While this is not a desirable state of affairs, the simple fact is that the people who would be affected by this possibility do not outrank those who would be hurt by oil drilling in ANWR.  The fact that ANWR could provide only a finite amount of oil, meaning we would be back to the same question eventually, added to the scale of damage that would inevitably done by mineral exploitation in the area, means that opening ANWR to oil exploration and drilling would be unequivocally wrong.  The only ethical choice in this situation is through restriction on consumption, particularly higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, and an overall conservation effort.

Notes/Works Cited
1 - Sterba, James P. Three Challenges to Ethics:  Environmentalism, Feminism, and Multiculturalism.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2001  p.37