An Environmentalist's Argument for Oil Development in Alaska

As the US heads into the 2008 presidential election, a key issue the candidates are wrestling with is the assortment of the problems connected to energy.  There are the intermingled problems of our addiction to oil, energy independence, the drag of energy prices on the economy, greenhouse gases, and environmental degradation caused by collecting oil, coal, and natural gas.  One of the political footballs that has been kicked around Washington DC for the last 30 years is energy development in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). 

ANWR is a 19 million acre tract of land that is controlled by the National Park Service and is protected from development by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, passed in 1980 and signed by Jimmy Carter.  Development in the park cannot proceed without permission from Congress.  It is inhabited by many wildlife species living on a variety of unique ecosystems.  It is also home to native subsistence hunting communities.  And underground, there is an estimated 8 billion barrels of oil.  The political right wants to drill for the oil that is stored there for economic reasons.  The political left wants to leave the area as it is to protect one of the few pristine wilderness areas left in the US and the world.

Personally, I am a left-wing, tree-hugging, enviro-nut.  I love the idea of saving such a huge expanse of land in its most natural state for all of the standard tree-hugging reasons.  However, I think that the Democratic presidential candidate should propose supporting oil development in ANWR.   It would not be a surprise for the Republican candidate to push for development in the park, as the political right has been pushing for it for years.  And for the same amount of time, the political left has opposed the idea.  For a number of reasons, I think it is time to develop the petroleum reserves in the park.  And the plan should be proposed and executed by a Democratic president.

The idea that we will never develop the oil fields in ANWR is simply unrealistic.  Anyone can tell you that oil is a vital cog in the world's economic machine.  Since oil is a non-renewable resource, developing new sources of energy development is unavoidable.  Today, alternative energy is getting a lot of serious attention and a lot of money is being funneled toward its development.  But right now, there is nothing that can replace oil.  And there will be nothing to replace oil for quite some time.  And even when ethanol from switchgrass is finally able to take the place of oil for energy, oil will still have a niche role in industry as a raw material in manufacturing.

When OPEC nations eventually do begin to run out of oil, ANWR will be developed.  I do not believe that there is a scenario where the world will have replaced oil so efficiently and completely that there will not tremendous economic, political and technological pressure to start drilling in ANWR.  If, at that point, United States' will power is so strong that it will not develop the land even in a world without sufficient oil supplies, there may be a threat of war against the US from well armed countries who need the oil and have not developed or cannot afford the technology to replace oil (China comes to mind).  Obviously, a war in Alaska is worse for the environment than oil development, not to mention all of the other problems of war.

As far as the wildlife, human populations and ecosystems that exist there, I think that the ones that are there now have the same right to environmental protection as the ones that will be there in 50 or 100 years.  So if we are going to drill there anyway, I think it should be done sooner rather than later.  If we wait to do it when we are desperate, the effect will essentially be going into the park and ripping the top off with a can opener.  In the past few years, we have seen how poorly government thinks when it is scared (think the vote to go to war with Iraq and the current plan to stimulate the economy).  There will be no-bid contracts awarded to well-connected companies, there will be fast track legislation which will allow the companies to ignore environmental regulations and environmentally sound practices, and they will be encouraged to drill as much as they can as fast as they can.

If we start to develop it now, we can do it with environmental protection in mind.  Oil drilling methods have improved their footprint and their environmental impact.  Obviously, all of the technical details will have to be worked between government, the oil companies, and environmental groups.  And that is why I think a Democratic president would be best to propose and execute the plan.

I think a Democratic president would be mindful of the importance of disturbing the area as little as possible.  He/she also would have their core constituents, who would be very skeptical of the plan, watching very closely for the first misstep.  He/she would have credibility and relationships (relative to those of a Republican president) with groups such as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund who could have input as to how the plan is executed and can act in an oversight role.  Additionally, it would give the president some credibility with the right and moderates who are concerned about energy independence and the economy.

In February 2007, daily world oil consumption was about 87 million barrels per day.  The United States' oil consumption was about 21 million barrels per day.  There is a wide range of estimates of the amount of accessible oil in ANWR.  A mid-range estimate is about 8 billion barrels.  So at February 2007 rates of consumption, the supply available in ANWR would feed the world's need for about 3 months and the United States' need for a little over a year.  Obviously, compared to the supply available from OPEC nations, this is a tiny fraction of the world's need for oil.  But, it would buy the US another year to develop alternative energy technologies.  It would also give the Democratic party some "street cred" with the political right.  Most importantly, it would mitigate what the political left wants to prevent, which is environmental destruction of the park.