oil
on ice
Alaska--the
last frontier
whose business is wilderness in Alaska
do we want to do things differently this time?
Why should we care?
- do we only care
about
places that affect us personally?
- NIMBY:
not in my back yard
- whose opinion should
count
how much--locals, that state, everyone in the U.S.
- but local issues
turn out
to involve state and federal laws and policy
- In Alaska probably
all of
the land at issue was owned by the federal government
- some people come to
believe
these issues important on principle
- one reason is that
it is an
example of the commons--land and resources that are not
privately owned
- tragedy
of
the
commons: if a fisherman catches more fish that
will benefit him but
if lots of fishermen do the same they will all lose out
as the population
of fish declines. If
you have something that belongs to everyone, individuals
try to take as
much as possible, the result can be damage to the
resource that harms
everyone. More
- looking out for our
individual interests doesn't always work (we tend to
think it does
because capitalism is such a success, but not for all
things)--it
doesn't
work where a resource is shared or people don't suffer
the costs of
problems they create
- if we don't want to
be
harmed
these problems need to be managed on a larger scale,
usually government
regulation
How is Alaska unique?
- a very fragile
environment
because the growing season is so short
- hard to develop--you
can
provide water in the desert but not a longer growing
season in Alaska
- lots of technology
is
needed to do anything in Alaska, but the technology was
available
- we don't always know
how
the technology will behave in Alaskan conditions
- a very large amount
of
federally owned land
- the native people
live on
their ancestral lands and control those lands
- what settlers saw as
wilderness the natives saw as land they had always used
- great popular
enthusiasm in
the lower 48 states for wilderness
Muir had visited Alaska
and
written about the awe he felt:
- wilderness
symbolized
divinity
- the wilderness in
Alaska
was pure and grand
- seemed new
Muir's writings led to
cruise
ships visiting Alaska as early as the 1880s, by the 1930s
tourists
traveled around in small aircraft
Preservationists wanted
wilderness to be preserved in Alaska whether
the citizens of the state wanted that or not
- much land in the
state was
owned by the federal government, so decisions were made
in Washington
rather than Alaska
- it was clear by the
1970s
that Alaska was important is a wilderness reserve
- big political fight
in
which wilderness advocates were very effective
result was the setting
aside of
104 million acres of federal land as wilderness in 1980
Recent controversies have
centered on the Artic National Wildlife
Refuge, 19 million acres in northeast Alaska
- should oil drilling
be
allowed there? It is located just east of the
Prudhoe Bay, a
major oil field
- the refuge was
created in
1960 and mining and drilling were prohibited
- the refuge was
increased to
its present size in 1980, but only 8.6 million acres
were designated as
wilderness
- definitely no
drilling in
the wilderness area
- in the
non-wilderness
refuge area drilling may take place only if Congress
decides to allow it
- in 1987 the Dept. of
the
Interior released a report recommending oil drilling in
the coastal
plain, but the Senate voted that down in 1991
- wildlife need this
area:
- the coastal plain is
a
major calving area for caribou and on-shore den area for
polar bears
- will oil drilling
threaten
the wildlife:
- consider the
experience of
the Alaska
Pipeline (mid 1970s)--frequent leaks
- the Bush
administration
tried several times between 2002 and 2005 to get
legislation passed to allow
drilling, but it never passed
both houses of Congress
- one effort has been
to
count the ANWR reserves as part of the national
stockpile
- another is to allow
offshore drilling--in July 2008 President Bush lifted a
ban on offshore
drilling, but Congress is still fighting over whether to
allow it
- both presidential
candidates oppose drilling in the ANWR, but what about
the details?
- currently under
debate in
an Omnibus
Public
Land Management Act
- again we have human
needs--we are running out of oil--vs. protecting
wilderness. Do
we have the right to use the wilderness to meet our
needs?