Arctic drilling makes no sense

U.S. facing energy crisis as severe as 1970s oil embargo!”

This is the news the Bush administration has been declaring across the front page of every paper throughout the United States and the world. Rolling blackouts in California have increased concerns about meeting electricity needs.

Electricity prices are normally around 3.8 to 6 cents per kilowatt- hour. With gas prices predicted to reach a high of $3 a gallon, the public is easily swayed by the hype and convinced that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is necessary. Many Americans support drilling in the refuge because they believe gas prices will go down as oil is produced.

What seems like an immediate solution is actually a 10-year process involving drilling and pipeline construction before the oil could finally reach the refineries. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the best U.S. Geological Survey estimates that less than a six-month oil supply could be economically recovered from the refuge.

The claim that 16 billion barrels of oil would be pumped from the refuge is a gross exaggeration that ignores the U.S. Geological Survey’s conclusion that about 60 percent of the oil in the refuge would not be economically feasible to produce. In its peak year of production, 2027, the refuge would yield less than 2 percent of projected U.S. consumption in that year. The United States is estimated to run out of oil in 2040 and drilling in the arctic refuge will do little to lengthen this time period.

Sen. Frank Murkowski, R- Alaska, pushes for drilling by spreading the myth that it could boost Alaska’s employment rate and state revenue, but statistics from the Alaska Conservation Foundation show that each year Alaska’s economy is less and less dependant on oil. In fact, 55,000 jobs including those in commercial and sport fishing, tourism, recreation and hunting depend on a clean, healthy environment. This figure is twice that of jobs in the petroleum, mining and construction industries.

The coastal plain where drilling would occur has the most value, because it is the most biologically productive part of the refuge. The 1.5 million acres host hundreds of bird species including northern pintail ducks, mallards, red-throated loons, tundra swans and white-fronted geese. It is the most important land denning habitat for wolves, polar bears, grizzly bears and brown bears and the home to muskoxen, arctic foxes, porcupine caribou and wolverines.

Not only is the loss of wildlife inevitable but additionally drilling in the refuge puts a culture at stake. The Arctic refuge is home to the Gwich’in Nation, a native Alaskan tribe, which has lived in the region for hundreds of generations. Their lives and culture depend on the porcupine caribou as a chief source of food, clothing, tools, and ornaments. The caribou migrate to the coastal plain, a calving ground that is crucial to the survival of the herd and in consequence crucial to the survival of the Gwich’in Nation.

Alternative energy sources that could prevent oil drilling are jeopardized by President Bush’s proposed budget for 2002 which cuts more then $200 million from federal renewable and energy efficiency programs. More time and money needs to go into alternative energy research. Many opportunities lay in solar power, wind power and hydropower alone.

A survey taken by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that the energy of the sunlight falling on the Earth each day is equivalent to all of the energy used worldwide in 27 years (at the 1995 consumption level).

A good example of the possibilities that solar power yields is the Million Solar Roofs initiative announced by President Clinton in June 1997. Responding first, the state of Maryland began the “Maryland Solar Roofs Program,” which will enable the state, in partnership with the U.S. department of Energy to install solar energy systems on 20,000 Maryland roofs by the year 2010.

Ten percent to 20 percent of the United States’ electricity supply could be derived from wind power. The environmental savings are great as well. National Geographic News reported that one-megawatt turbine of wind, powers the equivalent of 300 average U.S. households and means that 4.65 million pounds of carbon dioxide, 24,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and 15,900 pounds of nitrogen oxides are not released into the atmosphere. All of which are products that contribute to acid rain, the greenhouse effect and smog.

Hydropower is currently the most available alternative energy source, providing 20 percent of the world’s electricity. The National Hydropower Association reports it to be a clean and renewable source that prevents the burning of 22 billion gallons of oil or 120 million tons of coal each year. The leading countries which use hydropower as a main energy source are Norway, with 99 percent, and New Zealand with 75 percent of its electricity coming from hydropower.

Often too little attention is paid to the opportunities that lay in alternatives. Quick fixes are sought which ignore the devastating environmental impacts. These solutions will only leave beautiful areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge buried under roads, pipelines, power plants, air pollution, oil spills, drilling waste and sewer sludge.

The facts demonstrate that drilling for oil in the arctic refuge is a nonsensical idea and will not provide the solution to the energy problem. The Bush administration is not preparing the nation for the day when there is no oil left to drill, no alternatives to turn to, and we are faced with a real energy crisis.

Cecilia Royal and Aline Koenig are seniors at Maine Central Institute.