RSS
Home
President Obama and his Administration appreciate ANWR
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
When the new Congress convened in January 2005, both houses became firmly under GOP control, and opening the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge up for oil drilling was one of the issues on the agenda. Many eyes were turning to the ANWR. Then, on Wednesday, March 16, 2005, the United States Senate voted on a provision that would bring President Bush and many Republicans closer to achieving their desired result: legislation that would approve drilling in the wildlife refuge. Opposition to drilling in the wildlife refuge was led by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington. John Kerry started the Citizen’s Roll Call and it already has more than 400,000 signers. Wednesday’s vote was held because oil prices reached an all time high of over $56 a barrel, prompting President Bush to complain (that oil prices are draining his budget?). Throughout Bush’s Presidency, this issue was debated time and again. But drilling in the National Refuge (Coastal Plain) would curtail its overall purpose and would most likely destroy its beauty.
Now that President Obama is in office, advocates can rest easy. During his President campaign and his work in the Senate, President Obama proclaimed that he would not support drilling in the ANWR. He said "I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernable impact on U.S. energy security.” While he was in the Senate, President Obama was involved in over 100 pieces of green legislation. For more information on President Obama's stance go here.
But some people see him as a Moderate, as his support for ANWR clashes with his support of corn derived ethanol and liquid coal. Not much has been mentioned about ANWR lately though, except that some House Democrats have asked President Obama to help ensure that ANWR is safe from drilling. In March, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that drilling right outside of the boundaries of ANWR will be considered, as long as the wildlife is safe, but that the Obama administration is firm on his stance that ANWR stays drill free. He said that it is a special place that must be protected and we cannot guarantee that drilling will dull America’s energy crisis. There are currently many pro and anti-ANWR bills in the House and Senate. For more information please click here.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was created on December 6, 1960 after the Tanana Valley Sportsmen Association felt that there should be a place to recognize the many game species in the Alaska area. The Refuge is approximately the size of South Carolina and is home to a variety of plants and wildlife. The caribou are the most numerous, with 123,000 of them roaming the refuge. The Refuge is also home to polar and grizzly bears, migrating birds, wolves, musk oxen, moose, and whales. It is a magnificent area that could be damaged by oil drilling.
Sadly, many Alaskan residents don’t feel the same way. More than 75% of Alaskans support exploration and production on the Coastal Plain. All of the residents of Kaktovik, the only human inhabitants of the Coastal Plain of ANWR, support oil and gas development in their “backyard”. They don’t care that oil drilling and exploration would most likely disrupt wildlife. How can anyone else care about their backyards when they don’t appear to?
The United States Geological Survey estimates that the ANWR could have up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Many other people have speculated about how much oil the ANWR contains. Geologists also estimate that the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain in the Alaska refuge has about 10.4 billion barrels of crude oil.
If the proposed estimates are true, because the United States consumes 7.1 billion barrels of oil a year, then translating the coastal plain’s output would only consist of a six-month supply. At its peak the refuge would still only produce 2% of the U.S.’s energy needs. We should definitely not risk endangering the lives of millions of plants and animals because there is a chance that the refuge has oil. The reserve could be saved as a last resort when we’ve exhausted other supplies decades from now. That makes more sense than putting unnecessary potential harm on the wildlife. Americans have been debating the issue for over 25 years and still have not come to a compromise.
Mardy Murie, a 101 year old naturalist who died a couple of years ago, was one of a few to testify at a Congressional hearing 25 years ago regarding the ANWR. At the hearing she said, "Beauty is a resource in and of itself and Alaska must be allowed to be Alaska. That is her greatest economy. I hope the United States of America is not so rich that she can afford to let these wildernesses pass by. Or so poor, she cannot afford to keep them.” Before and after the ANWR was created, she and her husband, Olaus, would explore some of the most remote areas of the Alaskan wilderness, challenging snow, clouds of mosquitoes in the summer, wild animals and physical toil. How can we not care about a place that is so picturesque, a vast, vibrant wilderness?
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not be opened to oil drilling. A six-month supply of oil would not seriously lesson our dependence on foreign oil and the economy could be saved without drilling. Drilling for oil should not be used as a way to create jobs. The risk is too great to bear. The real cause of oil shortage is our excessive consumption. Energy preservation should become a top priority before we decide to drill, risking oil spills. Eventually oil and minerals will have diminished but the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has the potential to last forever. All we have to do is let it!
