Americans’ dependence upon petroleum-based energy sources has required the United States to consider a variety of options to fulfill ever-increasing energy needs, even drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). While the federal government and a variety of private entities are engaged in research and development activities intended to provide alternative energy in order to decrease our dependence upon petroleum, such efforts will not address the current level of acute need and may not come in time to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). As a result, the United States is compelled to consider how oil can be sourced immediately, a complicated task as theUnited States is already responsible for much environmental damage as a result of its decades-long obsession with oil consumption. One of the proposals supported by the current presidential administration is drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This measure, however, has caused controversy and intense debate among proponents of domestic drilling and among opponents of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, especially environmentalist groups. While drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge might provide a temporary supply of petroleum, it will not resolve long-term energy needs. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, federally protected land, would also be likely to cause severe environmental problems that would persist long after the oil in the region dries up.
It is important to understand that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not just any piece of land; rather, it is a federally protected property that, while different from a national park in that it does not prohibit all types of high-impact activity, does establish boundaries and limits for the use of the territory it occupies (Loomis, 2002). As Loomis (2002) notes, “many motivations and techniques are used” to designate land as a national wildlife refuge, but generally speaking, the purpose of declaring land a refuge area indicates that it has a specific mandate to protect the habitats of marine plantsas well as land-dwelling flora and animals so that they can propagate without significant human threat (p. 73). Most wildlife refuges, however, are mixed use, meaning that in addition to the wildlife protection activities that occur on the land, the land may have specifically defined recreational and even economic purposes (Loomis, 2002).
The first national wildlife refuge was established in the United States in 1906 (Loomis, 2002), and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1960. In truth, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was established with a eye cast toward its future potential as an oil drilling site (Herndon, 2002). Herndon (2002) writes that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s status in this regard has always hung suspended in a sort of “legal limbo” (p. 72). A coastal plain totaling more than 1.5 million acres was earmarked as a site that warranted further federal study to assess the plain’s oil stores and the feasibility of drilling for petroleum (Herndon, 2002). Despite this particular use designation, however, competing interests, namely the oil drilling industry and environmental conservationists, have always kept the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a pawn in their oppositional debates.
Petroleum companies and individuals and groups that advocate the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling contend that the oil reserves beneath the Alaskan shoreline represent a significant source of energy for petroleum-needy Americans (Grover, 1998). The country’s energy needs have escalated exponentially in recent years as more Americans gain access to wealth and spend their disposable income on energy dependent appliances, and as the popularity of gas-guzzling vehicles, especially sports utility vehicles, has increased. Advocates of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contend that sourcing petroleum domestically will reduce the country’s dependence upon foreign oil, and as such, represents not only a practical and economic benefit for the United States, but also a diplomacy and foreign policy advantage (Herndon, 2002).
Given the country’s current political embroilment in conflicts in the Middle East, as well as the lack of other viable sources of petroleum, advocates view drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—purported to be the single-largest reserve of petroleum in the United States—as a necessary measure to secure and protect the interests of the country (Herndon, 2002). Advocates of drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge also understand that any current efforts to identify and implement alternative energy sources, such as biodiesel and other energy-efficient fuels, will take years to transition into widespread use. At present, even those alternative fuels that are available lack widespread utility for the simple fact that the production, delivery, and distribution infrastructures are not yet in place to allow consumers the option of choosing an alternative fuel source.
Opponents of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to petroleum companies also offer legitimate claims to defend their position (Loomis, 2002). Environmentalists acknowledge and bemoan the fact that Americans are addicted to oil, and they agree with drilling proponents that the progress towards implementing alternative energy sources is painstakingly and frustratingly slow. Drilling opponents contend that this fact is not a viable argument for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, however. First, perpetuating Americans’ habits of energy-dependence, they claim, will not help shift the culture away from petroleum. In other words, drilling for more oil will only give the impression that there is always more oil to be had, which, in turn, would be likely to reduce the motivation of individuals to pursue the advocacy and use of alternative energy sources. Second, the fact that Americans need more petroleum does not justify causing what environmentalists believe will be massive ecosystem damage as the result of drilling (Herndon, 2002; Loomis, 2002). In fact, opponents of drilling have suggested that despite the large reserves believed to be in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the extraction of the petroleum in this region will not meet the country’s energy needs for more than a few years—perhaps a decade at the most—and that the costs of environmental devastation caused by drilling are not worth such a meager supply of oil.
The proponents and opponents of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge seem to be engaged in a debate that always ends up in a stalemate. While various politicians periodically revive the possibility of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, opposing groups always flex their political power and influence, killing legislative initiatives before they can pass into federally supported law (Grover, 1998). Most recently, President Bush supported opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and enjoyed unprecedented support for his proposal, possibly because of the war in Iraq; however, as the Taking Sides text notes, his proposal was quickly rescinded, the victim of intense political conflict. Each side in the debate about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has valid and respectable points, many of which are substantiated on both sides by empirical scientific evidence. The fact of the matter is that there are profoundly different and competing interests that drive both sides, motivated by economic and political concerns, on the one hand, and environmental preoccupations on the other.
While the United States is entirely too dependent upon petroleum and does indeed evidence an acute need for a new supply of oil to meet its energy demands, I oppose the initiatives that have been proposed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling. Although I recognize and respect that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was established with the proviso that its future oil potential always be kept on the back burner, the fact that the oil reserves there would hardly meet our national needs seems justification enough to avoid drilling there and, by extension, to avoid doing harm to the natural environment of the refuge. Already, concerns about global warming, the extinction of species, habitat disturbances and destruction, and environmental degradation are rampant, and we are confronted with serious moral, ethical, political, social, economic, and environmental concerns about the degree of responsibility that we have played in the destruction, as well as the degree of responsibility that we will take to ensure the protection and integrity of the planet for future generations. Making the decision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be disastrous for the Alaskan environment, posing threats to valuable plant and animal species that exist in no other place on the planet. It would be hard to justify and explain this decision to future generations, for such a decision would be incredibly selfish. Rather than perpetuate our dependence upon oil, whether domestic or foreign, I think that we need to begin seriously considering ways to reduce our dependence and to transition ourselves to alternative energy systems. Each individual needs to begin considering how his or her personal habits and decisions affect the greater good, and based on improved awareness, each individual needs to make better decisions that are not only in his or her self-interest, but in the interest of the physical and natural environment. Short-term gains cannot justify long-term devastation, and the kinds of environmental threats posed to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if drilling occurs there may very well be irreparable and irrevocable. For this reason, drilling should not occur.
Other essays and articles in the Arguments Archive related to this topic include : The Contributions of the United States to Global Warming & Climate Change • Wetlands : The Ecological Effect of Loss
References
Grover, T. (1998). Arctic equity?: The Supreme Court’s resolution of United States v. Alaska.Environmental Law, 28(4), 1169.
Herndon, M. (2002). The last frontier: The last true wilderness is increasingly at risk in the current political climate, with calls for less dependency on foreign oil focusing attention on the Alaskan preserves. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 16(4), 72.
Loomis, J.B. (2002). Integrated public lands management: Principles and applications to national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and BLM lands. New York: Columbia University Press.
