Editorial 6.6, June 2004, by Deirdre Helfferich Oily Illusions The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner’s June 1 editorial, "On the bright side," was such an egregious example of fostering extravagant hopes for the value of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a source of oil—and supposed relief from high gas prices or dependence on foreign oil—that I simply could not let it go unaddressed. This issue of the Republic was shaping up to be focused on energy conservation and recycling anyway, so the subject matter fits in quite well. The reason I think the mildly worded News-Miner editorial with its cheery title was so terrible is simple: it fosters the illusion that it is a reasonable thing to look to the wildlife refuge as an answer, or even part of one, to our energy needs. In essence, the editorial said that it would “benefit Alaska” to “elect U.S. Senate candidates who favor opening a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil production.” It concluded with these ludicrous sentences:
Horsefeathers. The only thing that will reduce U.S. reliance on oil imports is a reduction in U.S. reliance on oil. Opening ANWR to oil exploration won’t reduce our reliance on oil one jot—it will only encourage us to think that we can continue as we have. We may have already passed the world's peak in oil production, and oil would not be coming out of ANWR any sooner than 2010 or so (2013 by some estimates) even if the US Senate approved opening the Refuge right after the 2004 elections (always assuming, of course, that the refuge proves economically viable enough for oil companies to pursue—still an unknown). Yet we continue to slurp down oil, driving SUVs and Humvees and 4-wheelers, growing obese because we incessantly drive everywhere in our highway-obsessed culture. A major argument in the push by Alaska’s congressional delegation for opening ANWR is that it will create jobs for Alaskans and boost the economy. Pork, in other words. But all of these jobs would be temporary, most more so than others, and would result in the old boom-bust cycle we know so well in the Last Frontier. As before, the jobs available would be taken in part by those with the appropriate skills—many of whom, if not most, would come from Outside. Where is the long-term benefit? The long-term, career employment and business development that leads to a stable economy and lifelong prosperity? Where is the support for energy industries that will heal us from our fossil fuel jones? The false “hydrogen economy” measures that have been supported by the White House all depend on fossil fuels to generate that hydrogen, rendering the value of hydrogen power generation hollow and the term “clean energy” a lie. What perplexes me is why our congressional delegation doesn’t use its considerable clout to support wind power in this state. Wind power, as Richard Seifert pointed out in the last issue, is a potential bonanza for Alaska—and the jobs generated by that industry would be much longer lasting than those generated by the oil industry. Oil and coal get used up eventually, but the wind is always blowing somewhere, and in some places in this state, it never stops. We could have a real hydrogen economy in Alaska. If our national government quit subsidizing fossil fuels, or started subsidizing renewable energy in the same measure, it would rapidly become economically feasible. The technology is already developed and working well in Europe, where consumers pay the real cost for gasoline. Here we squawk about $2/gallon—but folks, we’ve seen nothing yet. We have incredibly cheap gas, with artificially low prices. One has only to look at the kind of incentives offered by our governor and legislature to see the amount of government money being poured into these industries—what if they did it for clean ones? Wouldn’t that also boost the economy of the state? It might also save lives, reducing deaths from pollution-related causes. Of course, we’d have to pay attention to our zoning and community planning if we wanted to do it right, and encourage the use of alternative vehicles or public transportation. We might have to consider our communities from a pedestrian’s or a bicyclist’s perspective. We might have to look at our consumption patterns, and provide incentives for recycling—and disincentives for waste. We could end up with a prosperous, stable, clean, and healthy place to live, independent of all those things that use up oil—and independent of foreign countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq. We might not have to worry about where our next oil field would be. Wouldn’t that be novel? | ||
 | | |
