The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) (and
later, regions of the Atlantic seaboard) have been federal protected areas since
1960. In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act, which enlarged the areas protected and included congressional
authorization before commercial oil recovery could proceed. Protecting valuable
resources for future generations was the vision behind these actions. Yet with fuel
prices consuming so much of a family's budget, many people are becoming convinced that the future is now. There appears to be two clear sides to the debate, a closer look,
however, questions whether this is the case. A viable third option, rarely
discussed, is to reconfigure our county’s energy consumption into a mosaic of
alternatives and defer the debate into the future. In 2011, many underexploited
forms of energy already exist to satisfy the needs of America well
into the future, yet a minority of self-interested men and women actively
obfuscate this solution. An investigation into the political and corporate
relationships of the loudest of the proponents of drilling reveals a picture
filled more with personal interests, than for an energy and geo-politically independent
America.
 |
| Sources of Energy |
More oil as the only solution to our energy needs
is by far the loudest voice in print and electronic media. Yet, according to
the U.S. Energy Information Administration, petroleum constitutes just 40% of
our nation’s energy use, and of that, only 29% is imported (Appendix 1, Energy
Flow 2007, see graphic, right).
The cost of fuel is most directly affected by global markets based
on the price of international oil – not from where it's drilled. Petroleum fuel
prices affect every aspect of our economy, from manufacturing the goods and
services we need to their final delivery. The price of oil from other countries
is not something we control, yet the largest percentage of U.S. private
spending is siphoned off into this single division of the economy. This imbalance
weakens the economy, exacerbates inflation, creates job losses, and debilitates
our geopolitical sovereignty. The problem with the two-argument debate is that
it does not allow room for alternatives; either you are for drilling, or you
are against it, and this is not constructive. Contrary to the views of persons
intimately invested in petroleum’s continued, dominate role in our energy
picture, a logical approach to America’s energy needs is to scatter our
consumption over many technologies and fuel sources. Realigning the balance of how
energy resources are acquired and used should be the primary concern of the
American public.
Prominent public officials such as former Idaho U.S. Republican Senator Larry
E. Craig, and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defenseof Free Enterprise spokesperson Paul K. Driessen, would have us believe that
the only solution to America’s
energy needs is to burn more oil. A cursory investigation (see links) of the support behind
these men puts into question their motives for strongly arguing in favor of the
continued unfettered consumption of oil.
Paul K. Driessen’s 2005 article, “Solar and Wind Power Are Unproductive and Environmentally Harmful” is
typical of the pro-oil propaganda his lobbying organization routinely supplies
to public officials. In his 2001 article "The False Promise of RenewableEnergy" published by the Heartland Institute, he insists we abandon alternative energy sources
in favor of additional drilling. The Heartland organization has a warm sound to
it; however, Heartland enjoys oil industry support. According to Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website, Heartland
received $791,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and
2006. Figures after that are unavailable, as Heartland has since declined from honoring future requests for contributor data.
Larry E. Craig’s 2004 article, “We Must Stabilize Gas Prices with EnergyProduction”
published by Human Events,
a weekly, conservative, U.S. magazine, extols the need to keep America firmly
on track with oil as a single energy source, and insists that offshore and ANWR
drilling will lower the price of fuel. Mr. Craig ignores however, that
the price of oil is set internationally, not domestically. Since it is highly
unlikely that any U.S. Senator could be unaware of this, the primary intent of his article can have no other intention
than to deliberately misinform.
The basic argument these proponents use against
alternative fuels is usually predicated on the idea that any one alternative is insufficient to
replace America’s
dependence on oil. Since any one will
not do it, goes the argument, we should abandon all of them. To quote Mr. Driessen again:
“On a national scale, the environmental impacts of solar and wind power become truly staggering. Former Deputy Energy Secretary Ken Davis has calculated that, to produce the 218 gigawatts of additional electricity America will need by 2010, using only wind or solar power, [my emphasis added] we would have to blanket 9,400,000 acres with windmills or solar panels. That's nearly 10 percent of California ... an area equal to Connecticut, Delaware, and Massachusetts combined.”
Since nobody in any alternative fuel industry is
currently claiming that ‘their’ energy will replace oil, Mr. Driessen’s
pronouncements raise distortion of the facts to a completely new level. The
solution that Mr. Driessen dismisses is actually very achievable without
creating farms of anything: adding just eight 216 watt solar modules to 50 percent
of the roofs of America’s
130 million private homes would create 2,594,225 acres of collection or 63
gigawatts. Using Mr. Driessen’s figures, by 2013, private homes alone could
supply 28 percent of the projected energy
needs. Adding solar collection to every available roof and business would escalate
that number past 50%.
Rebalancing America’s energy needs cannot be
solved with one solution. Since transportation of commodities and goods will be largely dependent on petroleum
fuels into the foreseeable future, a paradigm change must begin with
automobiles.
According to the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Institute, alternative
fuel vehicles (diesel, electric, hybrid, propane and others) currently
constitute less than 4% of America’s
automobiles – including fleets. Assuming on average that most daily drivers
travel less than 40 miles, this is well within the technological capacity of
electric cars available today. Considering only those households that
own two or more cars, increasing only the use of electric cars by 50
percent (which effectively burn coal through power plant distributions – a
resource America
has in plentiful supply) would substantially drive us towards energy
independence.
This solution works because the reduction in electrical consumption by homes and business is offset by the increase in transportation usage. American coal jobs are not lost. The only thing actually reduced is foreign petroleum consumption. [Ironically, the most vociferous opposition to electric cars comes from environmentalists that claim the increased use of electricity will further the fouling of the air we breathe. Now, I admit I'm not an expert in these things, but wouldn't it be easier to control pollution at a few central locations, instead of trying to control it from the position of millions of cars like we do now?]
This solution works because the reduction in electrical consumption by homes and business is offset by the increase in transportation usage. American coal jobs are not lost. The only thing actually reduced is foreign petroleum consumption. [Ironically, the most vociferous opposition to electric cars comes from environmentalists that claim the increased use of electricity will further the fouling of the air we breathe. Now, I admit I'm not an expert in these things, but wouldn't it be easier to control pollution at a few central locations, instead of trying to control it from the position of millions of cars like we do now?]
Many of those
opposed to opening the ANWR and Atlantic shelf to drilling offer solutions that
the oil camp simply will not accept. Besides the practical alternatives I've already
listed above, there is the issue of how current technologies are applied.
According to the 2010 DOE Annual Energy Review, in 2009, transportation accounted for only 27 percent of petroleum consumption , yet under economic
incentives introduced under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, fuel
economy has dropped – not increased, and fuel consumption has skyrocketed as a
result.
Massachusetts U.S. congressman Edward J. Markey said,
“According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists, if cars, mini-vans, and SUVs improved their average fuel economy just three miles per gallon, we would save more oil within 10 years than would ever be produced from the Refuge. Can we do that? We already did it once. In 1987, the fleetwide average fuel economy topped 26 miles per gallon (MPG), but in the last 13 years, we have slipped back to 24 mpg on average, a level we first reached in 1981. Simply using existing technology will allow us to dramatically increase fuel economy, not just by 3 mpg, but by 15 mpg or more—five times the amount the industry wants to drill out of the Refuge.”
This is the reason
democrats have successfully fought off drilling in these areas to date. It
boils down to simple numbers. ANWR and Atlantic
coast drilling will neither solve our energy problems nor stave off higher fuel
prices. To achieve independence we need to decentralize our use and consumption
from any single source of energy. The strategies listed above, along with commercial
wind and solar collector farms, and increased use of modern nuclear energy
technologies, creates a balanced mosaic of domestic energy consumption, while
simultaneously invigorating the economy with new employment opportunities. In
his paper, Senator Craig reported that, “$55 billion a year (goes out of) out
of America
and into oil-producing countries.” Realigning America’s energy needs removes us
from the effects of international price increases and keeps America’s
economic strength where it belongs, in America, benefitting Americans.
Sources:
[1]Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Will Decrease America's
Reliance on Foreign Oil
Table of Contents: Further Readings
"ANWR
Oil: An Alternative to War over Oil," The American Enterprise, vol. 13, June 2002, p. 54.
Copyright © 2002 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
Research. Reproduced by permission of The American Enterprise, a magazine of
Politics, Business, and Culture. On the web at www.TAEmag.com.
Walter J. Hickel
served as U.S.
secretary of the interior under President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1974. He
was elected governor of Alaska
in 1966 and again in 1990.
The
coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
in Alaska may
contain enough oil to replace all oil imports from Saudi Arabia and Iraq, both
unstable Middle East countries with links to
terrorists, for a generation. Oil drilling in ANWR will not disturb the
migratory caribou herd that congregates in the region from early fall to early
May; the caribou will either coexist with the drillers or will simply move to Canada during
the calving season. The techniques used to find and develop oil in Alaska are also highly
advanced and will have little impact on the environment. Drilling for oil in ANWR
will make America
both safer and stronger economically.
The Senate Democrats
have stubbornly refused to allow any oil exploration along the rim of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska.1
Despite this latest vote, however, the issue is not going to go away. Given our
continuing precarious dependence on overseas oil suppliers ranging from [former
Iraqi president] Saddam Hussein to the Saudis to Venezuela's [Fidel]
Castro-clone Hugo Chavez, sensible Americans will continue to press Congress in
the months and years ahead to unlock America's great Arctic energy storehouse.
I'm an Alaskan who
believes the coastal plain of ANWR should be opened for
intelligent exploration of its energy potential. ANWR
is owned by all Americans. The very small portion of the refuge with oil
potential can be explored and drilled without damaging the environment. At a
time when America is dependent for vital energy supplies on overseas
oil-producing countries, some of which are allied with terrorist groups, it
makes no sense for us to ignore a region within our own borders that could
supply up to a third of a trillion dollars worth of domestic energy—enough to
replace completely all imports from Saudi Arabia or Iraq for a generation.
There are already 171 million acres of land in Alaska fenced off for conservation and
wilderness preservation. That's an area larger than the state of Texas.
ANWR's
coastal plain, the only part of the refuge where oil is suspected to exist, is
a flat and featureless wasteland that experiences some of the harshest weather
conditions in the world. Temperatures drop to nearly -70 [degrees] F. There are
no forests or trees. At all.
For ten months a year,
the plain is covered with snow and ice and is devoid of most living things.
Then, for a few weeks, a carpet of lichen and tundra emerges from beneath the
snow. During that brief period, the migratory Porcupine caribou herd (named for
the Porcupine River), one of Alaska's 20 caribou herds, may graze and
calve on the plain. The animals seek breezes from the Beaufort
Sea to help them cope with the blizzard of mosquitoes that hatch
with the spring.
In 2001, the Porcupine
herd didn't calve on the coastal plain. It gave birth to its young many miles
to the east, across the Canadian border. It calved in Canada the
previous year as well. There is nothing magical about the area.
It's unlikely that
exploration and drilling on the coastal plain will harm the caribou. Most
biologists expect the animals will react to the presence of human activity the
same way the Central Arctic herd adjusted to
oil development at Prudhoe Bay (the region to
the immediate west of ANWR's coastal plain).
That herd has not only survived, but flourished. In 1977, as the Prudhoe region
started delivering oil to America's
southern 48 states, the Central Arctic caribou
herd numbered 6,000; it has since grown to 27,128.
It is important to
note that in the Arctic, oil drilling is
restricted to the wintertime. And from early fall to early May, the Porcupine
herd is not on the coastal plain at all. It roams south to the Porcupine Mountains and east into Canada.
ANWR
covers an enormous area—nearly as much as New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut combined. The most beautiful
sections of ANWR—8 million acres—are
federally mandated wilderness areas where the only tolerated human activity is
hiking, backpacking, camping, and rafting. No motorized vehicles are permitted,
and no development of any kind is allowed. This wilderness heart of ANWR
includes the mountains of the Brooks Range.
Journalists often use images of these mountains when describing the coastal
plain region and its rich energy supplies, but the Brooks
Range will not be touched by development.
The key to America's energy future
When it set up ANWR,
Congress recognized that the 1.5 million acre coastal plain possesses unique
potential for large oil and gas reserves. It was stipulated that these
resources could be developed at any time if Congress so voted. As a result,
scientists have studied this area for more than 20 years, and their work has produced
estimates of recoverable oil ranging up to 16 billion barrels. Most of these
scientists recommend that exploration be allowed.
To compare how much
petroleum may lie beneath ANWR, consider that the
entire rest of the U.S.
contains 21 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The monetary value of ANWR's
pumpable oil is projected by the U.S. Energy Information Agency to be between
$125 billion and $350 billion. This doesn't even count the region's vast
natural gas potential.
How much would an oil
reservoir that size, just a few miles from the already-built-and-paid-for
trans-Alaska pipeline, mean to America
and our energy future? The government estimates the coastal plain could produce
600,000 to 1,900,000 barrels of oil per day. This new source of Alaskan oil
could more than supplant all of our annual oil imports from Saudi Arabia or
Iraq and ensure that the trans-Alaska oil pipeline would continue to deliver
domestically produced energy to American consumers for decades to come.
I have visited many
oil-producing regions throughout the world. The production techniques are often
primitive and risky, both for the workers and the environment. The technology
used in Alaska's
Arctic to find and develop oil is the best in
the world. When and if development takes place on the ANWR
coastal plain, there will be little traceable disturbance. Seismic tests to
locate the oil, and the actual drilling after that, will take place in the
winter, using ice roads that will melt later. Small gravel drilling pads, only
six acres in size, will be used to tap vast fields and will be removed when
drilling is complete. Alaska's
"North Slope" oil workers take pride
in challenging visitors to find any trace of winter work activities after the
snow melts.
If oil is discovered
in ANWR, the size of the surface area disturbed will
be dramatically less than when Prudhoe Bay was
developed 30 years ago. Experts estimate that less than 2,000 acres will be
touched—out of the 1.5 million acres on the coastal plain, and the 19 million
acres in ANWR as a whole.
The opposition to
opening ANWR "isn't really
economic, humanitarian, or even environmental. It is spiritual," wrote a New
York Daily News columnist. "If all the oil in the refuge could be
neatly sucked up with a single straw, the naturalists would still oppose it
because [to them] human activity in a pristine wilderness is, in itself, an act
of desecration."
That is an extreme
philosophical position. America's
access to energy is a serious national security issue. Over-dependence on
foreign oil exposes us to energy blackmail and compromises our ability to
protect our citizens and assist our friends in times of crisis. Our goal as
Americans must be to produce as much energy as we can for ourselves. This need
not undermine efforts to conserve energy nor undercut the push to discover
alternate energy sources. We must extend the energy sources that are practical
today, even as we pursue possible alternatives for the future.
Rather than shutting
down the Alaska
pipeline and our other Arctic oil infrastructure we should be linking them to
the vast untapped resources that await us on ANWR's coastal plain. That
will not only make America
safer and stronger economically; it will provide the rest of the world with an
environmentally responsible model of how to produce energy the right way.
Footnotes
1. In April 2002 and again in March 2003, the U.S. Senate voted not to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). As of summer 2003, Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski was attempting to authorize drilling in ANWR through a Senate budget resolution.
[2]Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Would Reduce U.S.
Dependence on Foreign Oil
Table of Contents: Further Readings
Larry E. Craig, “We
Must Stabilize Gas Prices with Energy Production,” Human Events, May 10, 2004. Copyright ©
2004 by Human Events, Inc. Reproduced by permission.
Larry E. Craig is a
U.S. senator from Idaho.
Cheap
and reliable energy is the lifeblood of any flourishing and stable economy. As
gas prices continue to rise and political instability in the Middle
East worsens, the United
States must increase its domestic oil
production. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
in Alaska is
estimated to have as much as 16 billion barrels of oil under its coastal plain.
Drilling in ANWR will add to national
economic output, create jobs, and improve national energy security. Moreover,
it will not disrupt the natural habitat of Alaska.
In [an] appearance on
"Meet the Press," Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) indicated he was
"ready to negotiate" on the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy)
standards that he has proposed in legislation that would raise the average fuel
economy standards to 36 miles per gallon (mpg) on the automotive industry. With
rising gasoline prices hitting consumers at the pump and continued instability
in the Middle East, I have tried to make
energy production a point of debate this year in the U.S. Senate.
The President, as most
Americans know, understood when he took office that our nation's powerful
economy is dependent on cheap and reliable energy and that our growing
dependence on foreign sources of energy threatened the stability of our
economy—indeed, threatened our national security. Upon taking office he quickly
assigned the Vice President [Dick Cheney] to review the status of both world
energy markets and our domestic energy needs. The Vice President swiftly and
comprehensively completed the task and the President, in May 2001, published
his National Energy Policy.
The document contained
105 suggested actions aimed at overhauling our nation's energy policy. More
than half of the domestic recommendations in that document are focused on
conservation, environmental protection, renewable and alternative energy
production, and measures to assist consumers hurt by high-energy prices. The
energy bill currently stalled in Congress adopted those recommendations.
Democratic Opposition
Apparently, that was
not enough for Sen. Kerry and many other Senate Democrats that continue to
oppose energy legislation by refusing to allow an up or down vote on the
pending Conference Report for HR 6, "The Energy Policy Act of 2003."1
Ironically, that bill does have a majority in the Senate supporting the bill.
President [George W.]
Bush and Sen. Kerry have starkly different views of how best to improve the
quantity and reliability of America's
energy supplies. For proof, let's take a look at the key elements of their
energy proposals. President Bush supports exploration of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to make use of
untapped oil resources in the region. Sen. Kerry favors increasing Corporate
Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, mandates. Deeper examination of those policies
shows us that President Bush has a more reliable plan for overcoming the energy
challenges America
now faces.
Raising CAFE standards
would not increase America's
energy supply by a single barrel. The possible benefits of higher CAFE
standards depend on the reduced use of gasoline in cars. The government
measures the fuel economy of every automobile that enters the U.S. market (the
number is marked on the sticker you find on new cars) and mandates that the
average fuel economy across an automotive company's entire fleet of cars meet a
certain target—currently 24 mpg. Sen. Kerry's plan is to raise that average to
36 mpg, in hopes it would lead to less oil consumption in the United States.
Untapped Oil
On the other hand, the
U.S. Department of the Interior estimates that at least 9 billion and as many
as 16-billion barrels of oil lie untapped under the coastal plain of ANWR.
Pumping such vast oil resources to the surface would reduce America's
dependence on foreign oil—a situation that currently results in our sending
more than $55 billion a year out of America and into oil-producing
countries.
Raising CAFE standards
or obtaining oil from ANWR would also have a
vastly different impact on job creation and economic growth in America.
In a time when our
economy is recovering and beginning to add jobs, Sen. Kerry's proposed 50%
increase in CAFE standards would cost jobs and reduce economic output. The
government's Energy Information Administration estimates that Kerry's increase
would lead to 450,000 job losses—most concentrated in the automotive industry.
Those massive job losses explain why the United Auto Workers are firmly opposed
to raising CAFE standards as drastically as Sen. Kerry proposes.
In addition to job
losses, higher CAFE standards would result in $170 billion in lost economic
output. Losses to U.S.
automakers alone are estimated at about $9 billion.
In contrast, tapping
into the oil reserves in ANWR would produce jobs
through the construction of temporary facilities to access the coastal plain
and to bring up the oil from deep under the surface. American workers would
build those facilities and American workers would operate the pumps. All told,
developing oil production facilities on the ANWR coastal plain would
generate anywhere from 250,000 to more than 700,000 jobs. Unlike Kerry's plan,
major labor unions have endorsed the President's plan for ANWR
exploration.
Those jobs and the oil
we bring to market would also have an extraordinarily positive impact on America's
economy. From 1980 to 1994, oil production on the North Slope of Alaska added
more than $50 billion to our nation's economy and directly benefited every
state in the union. Oil production in ANWR would likely produce
equal or greater economic gains.
Higher CAFE standards
also pose potential threats to highway safety. Because CAFE by definition mandates
certain "average fuel economy" levels, the fuel economy of individual
cars in any automaker's fleet may fall above or below that level. Americans
love sport utility vehicles (SUVs), which generally get lower fuel
economy—often under 20 mpg—and U.S. manufacturers have regained their strong
position in the American marketplace by producing SUVs. For that reason, SUVs
will continue to be a major presence on American roads.
To balance the low
fuel efficiency ratings of SUVs, automakers produce cars with high fuel
efficiency—over 30 mpg. The easiest way to do that is to make cars lighter and
smaller. However, the drivers of these smaller cars are placed at increasing
risk of serious injury or death if they are involved in an accident. The
National Academy of Sciences [NAS] found a decade ago that
"downweighting" and downsizing vehicles led to as many as 2,600
deaths and 26,000 serious injuries in one year alone. And the NAS stated that
"any increase in CAFE as currently structured could produce additional
road casualties."
A Minimal Environmental Threat from Drilling
Seizing the oil that
lies under the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would pose
no such threat to American drivers. Despite arguments to the contrary, oil
production in ANWR would pose little
threat to the habitat and animals of Alaska
either. Of ANWR's 19-million acres,
less than 10%, or 1.5-million acres, would be affected by development. The rest
of ANWR would be permanently closed to development
of any kind.
Meanwhile, the caribou
who make their home in ANWR show no signs of
being adversely affected by development. Rather, they seem to be thriving.
During operation of the Prudhoe Bay oil
production facilities, numbers of a local caribou herd grew from 3,000 to more
than 18,000 two decades into production. And most important, the people of Alaska overwhelmingly
support development in ANWR, rejecting the
spurious claims of extreme environmental activists who have never lived north
of Manhattan.
Developing ANWR
to make use of America's
own untapped oil resources is a far more preferable method of increasing
domestic energy production and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil than is
raising CAFE standards. Oil production in ANWR will create jobs, add
to national economic output, and bolster U.S. energy supplies without
threatening the natural habitat of Alaska—or threatening the safety of American
drivers and the health of the U.S. automotive industry and its workers.
President Bush is
committed to finding the right solutions to America's energy challenges. On ANWR
he's hit the mark.
Footnotes
1. The bill did not pass, and Kerry’s amendment lost.
[3]Solar and Wind Power Are Unproductive and Environmentally Harmful
Table of Contents: Further Readings
"The False
Promise of Renewable Energy," www.heartland.org, May 2001. Copyright ©
2001 by the Heartland Institute. Reproduced by permission.
Paul K. Driessen is a
senior fellow with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the
Defense of Free Enterprise, nonprofit public policy institutes that focus on
energy, the environment, economic development and international affairs.[1] [2] [3]
Environmentalists
try to prevent oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power development in the United States by
arguing that alternatives such as solar collectors and wind mills are superior.
In reality, these sources of "green" energy can only provide a
fraction of the energy needed to keep the American economy strong. And if solar
panels and wind farms were built in the numbers necessary to supply more power,
they would create visual blight and environmental harm nearly equal to
traditional energy sources.
A cacophony of calumny
has greeted suggestions that America
begin drilling in Alaska's
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR], Outer Continental
Shelf, and other public lands, in search of oil and natural gas, to ease our
spreading energy crisis and help rein in prices. The Sierra Club, Senator
Barbara Boxer (D-California), and others say drilling is unacceptable and
multiple use is "out of the mainstream" of American thought.
Accompanying the
chorus of condemnation for fossil fuels, predictable paeans of praise are being
warbled for renewable fuels, as the only true, "appropriate" path to
energy security. But all renewables are not equal in the eyes of the
environmentalists.
·
Hydroelectric
power dams up streams, interferes with migratory fish, and impairs the
"wilderness experience" of river rafters.
·
Burning
wood causes serious air quality problems (hydrocarbons and soot, in particular)
and requires that trees be cut down, a definite no-no among greens.
·
Geothermal
suffers from the insurmountable problems that natural heat sources are few and
far between ... and located near magnificent wonders like Yellowstone,
Lassen Volcanic, and Hawaii
Volcanoes National
Parks.
·
And
soaring natural gas prices have sent fertilizer prices into the stratosphere,
making biomass more costly to grow and ship than it will fetch on the open
market.
So these renewable
fuels are no longer quite politically correct, environmentally defensible,
economically possible, or socially "responsible."
That leaves us with
but two alternatives to the nuclear and fossil fuels that have powered our
progress and prosperity for decades. Solar and wind power have long been touted
as the answer to prayers for inexhaustible, non-polluting energy sources. But
can they live up to their advance billing?
Vast energy farms
Even today, their
total contribution stands at less than 0.5 percent of America's energy
needs. Aside from their still-high cost, the primary drawbacks for solar and
wind power are that they are intermittent; there is no economic way to store
the electrical energy for use at night, on cloudy or windless days, and during
peak usage hours; and their environmental impacts are significant and negative.
Producing 50 megawatts
of electricity using a gas-fired generating plant requires between 2 and 5
acres of land. Getting the same amount from photovoltaics means covering some
1,000 acres with solar panels (assuming a very optimistic 10 watts per square
meter (W/m2) or 5 percent peak efficiency), plus access for trucks to clean the
panels. Using the sun to meet California's energy needs would require paving
over tens of thousands of acres of desert habitat, sacrificing what the
Wilderness Society calls "some of the most beautiful landscapes in
America," and with it their resident plant and animal life.
A 50 mw wind facility
requires even more land: some 4,000 acres (assuming an optimistic 6 W/m2). Even
wind power's most ardent supporters grudgingly admit that the notion of
thousands of these "futuristic looking" (a euphemism for ugly) towers
looming 100 to 200 feet above the rolling hills is not something they yearn to
have in their own back yards.
Wind facilities in Texas and California have been
called a "visual blight." Residents near Texas' Altamont Pass
facility say noise from the turbines is "unbearable."
Vocal California activists
have railed for years against offshore oil platforms on the horizon off Santa Barbara. Are we to
believe they will find vast "energy farms" of giant windmills more
tolerable?
Killing birds
Noise and visual
blight are only the beginning of wind power's adverse environmental
consequences, however. Even the relatively small number of wind turbines that
exist today kill some 500 hawks, vultures, eagles, and other raptors every
year, along with thousands of other birds. The Sierra Club has aptly called
them "Cuisinarts of the air," and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has actually suggested that wind farm operators might be prosecuted and jailed
for killing federally protected birds. How's that for an incentive to get into
the business?
On a national scale,
the environmental impacts of solar and wind power become truly staggering.
Former Deputy Energy Secretary Ken Davis has calculated that, to produce the
218 gigawatts of additional electricity America will need by 2010, using
only wind or solar power, we would have to blanket 9,400,000 acres with
windmills or solar panels. That's nearly 10 percent of California ... an area equal to Connecticut, Delaware, and Massachusetts combined!
Perhaps some
photovoltaic panels will be located on roofs, and some of the land in between
windmills can be used for farming and grazing (which [environmentalists] also
dislike). However, the total acreage affected by these
"Earth-friendly" energy sources would still run into the millions. By
contrast, developing the 6 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil estimated
to be in ANWR's distant coastal
plain would disturb only 2,000 acres.
Our nation—and California in
particular—has lived in a world of energy alchemy and make-believe for long
enough. It's high time we recognized there is no free lunch or magic elixir.
Tough decisions must be made if progress, prosperity, and opportunity are not
to become only a dim memory.
[4]The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Should Remain Off-Limits to Oil Drilling
Table of Contents: Further Readings
Edward J. Markey,
statement introducing H.R. 770, Washington,
DC, February 28, 2001.
Edward J. Markey is a
Democratic U.S. congressman from Massachusetts.
Opening
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), a pristine
wilderness area in northern Alaska,
to oil exploration and drilling will have adverse environmental impacts and
will not solve the problem of U.S.
dependence on foreign oil. The section of ANWR presumed to hold oil
reserves is a critical habitat for the Porcupine caribou herd; the industrial
blight that accompanies oil exploration, such as toxic spills and chemical
waste, may destroy the herd's habitat. Using existing technology to increase
automobile fuel economy will prove much more effective at reducing dependence
on foreign oil than domestic drilling, which will only reduce foreign oil
dependence from 56 percent in 2001 to 50 percent in 2011.
One of the most
magnificent wildlife reserves [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)]
in America
has been targeted for oil and gas development. It is threatened as never before,
and will lose its wild, untrammeled character forever if we do not organize to
fight this threat. Today, Representative Nancy Johnson (CT-R) and I are
introducing the Morris K. Udall Arctic Wilderness Act of 2001,1 with
more than 120 cosponsors, Republican and Democrat, all united in their goal to
preserve this precious wilderness in its current pristine, roadless condition
for future generations of Americans.2
Protecting a bipartisan legacy
We have a bipartisan
legacy to protect, and we take it very seriously. It is a legacy of Republican
President [Dwight] Eisenhower, who set aside the core of the Refuge in 1960. It
is a legacy of Democratic President [Jimmy] Carter, who expanded it in 1980. It
is the legacy of Republican Senator Bill Roth [Delaware] Democratic Representative Bruce
Vento [Minnesota],
and especially Morris Udall [Arizona-Democrat], who fought so hard to achieve
what we propose today, and twice succeeded in shepherding this wilderness
proposal through the House of Representatives.
Now is the time to
finish the job they began. Now is the time to say "Yes" to setting
aside the coastal plain as a fully protected unit of the Wilderness
Preservation System.
Every summer, the
Arctic coastal plain becomes the focus of one of the last great migratory
miracles of nature when 130,000 caribou, the Porcupine caribou herd, start
their ancient annual trek, first east away from the plain into Canada, then
south and west back into interior Alaska, and finally north in a final push
over the mountains and down the river valleys back to the coastal plain, their
traditional birthing grounds. This herd, migrating thousands of miles each year
and yet funneling into a relatively limited area of tundra, contrasts sharply
with the non-migratory Central Arctic herd
living near the Prudhoe Bay oil fields.
The coastal plain of
the Refuge is the biological heart of the Refuge ecosystem and critical to the
survival of a one-of-a-kind migratory species. When you drill in the heart,
every other part of the biological system suffers.
The oil industry has
placed a bull's eye on the heart of the Refuge and says hold still. This won't
hurt. It will only affect a small surface area of your vital organs.
Nevertheless, the oil
industry has placed a bull's eye on the very same piece of land that Congress
set aside as critical habitat for the caribou. The industry wants to spread the
industrial footprint of Prudhoe Bay into a
pristine area.
Let's take a look at
the industrial footprints that have already been left on the North
Slope. Look at Deadhorse and Prudhoe Bay.
They are part of a vast industrial complex that generates, on average, one
toxic spill a day of oil, or chemicals, or industrial waste of some kind that
seeps into the tundra or sits in toxic drilling mud pits. It is one big energy
sacrifice zone that already spews more nitrogen oxide pollution into the Arctic
air each year than the city of Washington,
D.C.
Allowing this
industrial blight to ooze into the Refuge would be an unmitigated disaster. It
would be as if we had opened up a bottle of black ink and thrown it on the face
of the Mona Lisa.
An unnecessary invasion
But why invade this
critical habitat for oil if we don't have to? The fact is, it would not only be
bad environmental policy, it is totally unnecessary. Here's why.
Fuel economy:
According to EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] scientists, if cars,
mini-vans, and SUVs improved their average fuel economy just three miles per
gallon, we would save more oil within 10 years than would ever be produced from
the Refuge. Can we do that? We already did it once. In 1987, the fleetwide
average fuel economy topped 26 miles per gallon [mpg], but in the last 13 years
[as of February 2001], we have slipped back to 24 mpg on average, a level we
first reached in 1981.
Simply using existing
technology will allow us to dramatically increase fuel economy, not just by 3
mpg, but by 15 mpg or more—five times the amount the industry wants to drill
out of the Refuge.
Natural gas: The
fossil fuel of the future is gas, not gasoline, because it can be used for
transportation, heating, and, most importantly, electricity, and it pollutes
less than the alternatives. The new economy needs electricity, and it isn't
looking to Alaskan oil to generate it. California
gets only 1 percent of its electricity from oil; the Nation gets less than 3
percent, while 15 percent already comes from natural gas and it's growing.
Alaska has huge potential
reserves of natural gas on the North Slope,
particularly around Prudhoe Bay and to the west,
in an area that has already been set aside for oil and gas drilling called the
National Petroleum Reserve. Moreover, we have significant gas reserves in the
lower 48 [states] and the Caribbean. The
coastal plain of the Refuge has virtually none.
Oil not in the Refuge:
The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
has been specifically set aside for the production of oil and gas. It is a vast
area, 15 times the size of the coastal plain, and relatively under-explored by
the industry. Anything found there is just as close to Prudhoe
Bay as the Refuge, but can be developed without invading a
critical habitat in a national refuge.
In fact, just last
October [2000], BP [British Petroleum] announced the discovery of a field in
this Reserve that appears to be as large as Kuparuk, the second largest field
on the North Slope. While the potential for
oil in the Refuge still appears larger than in the Reserve, the Reserve holds
much greater promise for natural gas, so that every exploratory well has a
greater chance of finding recoverable quantities of one fuel or the other.
Our dependence on
foreign oil is real, but we cannot escape it by drilling for oil in the United States.
Energy legislation introduced in Congress [in 2001] attempts to set ambitious
new goals for independence yet it would only reduce our foreign oil dependence
from 56 percent today to 50 percent 10 years from now, which simply underlines
the futility of trying to drill our way to independence.
We consume 25 percent
of the world's oil but control only 3 percent of the world's reserves.
Seventy-six percent of those reserves are in OPEC [Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries], so we will continue to look to foreign suppliers as long
as we continue to ignore the fuel economy of our cars and as long as we
continue to fuel them with gasoline.
Sensible fuel economy should preclude domestic
drilling
The public senses that
a drill-in-the-Refuge energy strategy is a loser. Why sacrifice something that
can never be recreated, this one-of-a-kind wilderness, simply to avoid
something relatively painless—sensible fuel economy?
A 2001 poll, done by
Democratic pollster Mark Mellman and Republican pollster Christine Matthews,
shows a margin of 52 to 3S percent opposed to drilling for oil in the Refuge.
The public is making
clear to Congress that other options should be pursued—not just because the
Refuge is so special, but because the other options will succeed where
continuing to put a polluting fuel in gas-guzzling automobiles is a recipe for
failure.
Sending in the oilrigs
to scatter the caribou and shatter the wilderness is what I call "UNIMOG
energy policy." You may have heard about the UNIMOG. It is a proposed new
SUV that will be 9 feet tall, 71/2 feet long, 3½ inches wider than a Humvee [a
type of SUV], weigh 6 tons, and get 10 miles per gallon.
That's the kind of
thinking that leads not just to this Refuge, but to every other pristine
wilderness area, in a desperate search for yet another drop of oil. And it
perpetuates a head-in-the-haze attitude towards polluting our atmosphere with
greenhouse gases and continuing our reliance on OPEC oil for the foreseeable
future.
Now that our energy
woes have forced us to think about the interaction of energy and environmental
policy, it is a good time to say "NO" to a UNIMOG energy policy and
"YES" to a policy that moves us away from gas-guzzling automobiles to
clean-burning fuels, hybrid engines, and much higher efficiency in our energy
consumption.
If we adopt the UNIMOG
energy policy, we will have failed twice. We will remain just as dependent on
oil for our energy future, and we will have hastened the demise of the ancient
rhythms of a unique migratory caribou herd in America's last frontier.
We have many choices
to make regarding our energy future, but we have very few choices when it comes
to industrial pressures on incomparable natural wonders. Let us be clear with
the American people that there are places that are so special for their
environmental, wilderness, or recreational value that we simply will not drill
there as long as alternatives exist.
The Arctic Refuge is
Federal land that was set aside for all the people of the United States.
It does not belong to the oil companies, it does not belong to one State. It is
a public wilderness treasure; we are the trustees.
We do not dam Yosemite Valley [in Central
California] for hydropower. We do not stripmine Yellowstone
[National Park] for coal. We do not string wind turbines along the edge of the Grand Canyon.
And we should not
drill for oil and gas in the Arctic Refuge. We should preserve it, instead, as
the magnificent wilderness it has always been, and must always be.
Footnotes
1. As of fall 2003, this bill remained in congressional committee.
2. In April 2002 and again in March 2003, the U.S. Senate voted not to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In the fall of 2003, Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski was attempting to authorize drilling in ANWR through a Senate budget resolution.
1. As of fall 2003, this bill remained in congressional committee.
2. In April 2002 and again in March 2003, the U.S. Senate voted not to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In the fall of 2003, Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski was attempting to authorize drilling in ANWR through a Senate budget resolution.
Addendum
[1] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Defense_of_Free_Enterprise
Since the late 1980's, CDFE has been at the center of the 'Wise Use'
movement. CDFE was originally founded by Alan Gottlieb July 4, 1976, "the
bicentennial of the American Revolution" as CDFE points out in its
statement of purpose. [1].
"The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise's programs include research, publication, conferences, consulting, training and media awareness on threats to free enterprise. We operate a book publishing division, the Free Enterprise Press, to disseminate important investigative and analytical research, and have a variety of programs to help individuals and businesses face free enterprise-related crises," it states. [2]
"CDFE has received national recognition for its programs and services, particularly in tracking the money of non-profit groups opposing free enterprise. Although we receive no government funding, we are dedicated to providing information and assistance to those struggling with government interference and civilian opposition to free enterprise," it states. [3]
In December 1991 Gottlieb, a direct-mail fundraising specialist, told New York Times reporter Timothy Egan that he shifted his focus away from the threat of gun control and Senator Edward M. Kennedy to environmentalism when he realized the fundraising potential.
Gottlieb explained that direct mail fundraising works best when there is "an evil empire" perceived as posing a threat that will prompt mail recipients to contribute. "For us ... the environmental movement has become the perfect bogeyman," Gottlieb said.
In June 1993, Arnold told Washington Times reporter Valerie Richardson that "since the Democrats got into power, our income has doubled."
According to the CLEAR website, CDFE and Ron Arnold, its Executive Vice President, are "considered by many to be the founding and principle strategy-setting forces in the grassroots anti-environmental movement."
In Ron Arnold's essay "Overcoming Ideology" he depicts environmentalists as "eco-ideologists" whose stand "against promoting economic growth, technological progress and a market economy" stands in sharp contrast to the wise use movement's actual stewardship of the land, the water and the air." Environmentalists are portrayed as "eco-fetishists" whose moral self-righteousness is "about the people, but not by or for them."
The Environmental Working Group, in a Wise Use group analysis, says it is ironic that the CDFE website represents a credible, rational opposition to the environmental movement given Arnold's role:
"The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise's programs include research, publication, conferences, consulting, training and media awareness on threats to free enterprise. We operate a book publishing division, the Free Enterprise Press, to disseminate important investigative and analytical research, and have a variety of programs to help individuals and businesses face free enterprise-related crises," it states. [2]
"CDFE has received national recognition for its programs and services, particularly in tracking the money of non-profit groups opposing free enterprise. Although we receive no government funding, we are dedicated to providing information and assistance to those struggling with government interference and civilian opposition to free enterprise," it states. [3]
In December 1991 Gottlieb, a direct-mail fundraising specialist, told New York Times reporter Timothy Egan that he shifted his focus away from the threat of gun control and Senator Edward M. Kennedy to environmentalism when he realized the fundraising potential.
Gottlieb explained that direct mail fundraising works best when there is "an evil empire" perceived as posing a threat that will prompt mail recipients to contribute. "For us ... the environmental movement has become the perfect bogeyman," Gottlieb said.
In June 1993, Arnold told Washington Times reporter Valerie Richardson that "since the Democrats got into power, our income has doubled."
According to the CLEAR website, CDFE and Ron Arnold, its Executive Vice President, are "considered by many to be the founding and principle strategy-setting forces in the grassroots anti-environmental movement."
In Ron Arnold's essay "Overcoming Ideology" he depicts environmentalists as "eco-ideologists" whose stand "against promoting economic growth, technological progress and a market economy" stands in sharp contrast to the wise use movement's actual stewardship of the land, the water and the air." Environmentalists are portrayed as "eco-fetishists" whose moral self-righteousness is "about the people, but not by or for them."
The Environmental Working Group, in a Wise Use group analysis, says it is ironic that the CDFE website represents a credible, rational opposition to the environmental movement given Arnold's role:
"in developing the radical, polarized and extreme early version of
'wise use' that vilified environmentalism and environmental activists,
threatening that his goal was to 'kill the bastards.' (CNN interview, May 30,
1993) The[n] again, Arnold
has also been quoted as having said that "Facts don't matter. In politics,
perception is reality." (Outside magazine, December, 1991)" [4]
[2] In its 2005 annual return to the Internal
Revenue Service, Heartland disclosed its 2005 annual revenue as being $4.52
million while its total expenses were only $2.368 million.
