These points appear highly credible considering the range of interests in
the area. But one concern missing is the longer term impact on the Inuit
peoples in this area. What will happen to their economic and social future
if this area is damaged by the ecological impacts of oil exploration,
extraction, and transportation? The Exxon Valdez is one example only in a
litany of oil related accidents. One large tanker breaking apart in the
Arctic or one large oil spill on land could have very serious impacts.
Environmental Issues
with Patricia Michaels
"Because of the large number of environment groups opposed to opening ANWR
to drilling, specific opposition positions change from group to group.
Assuming a modicum of diversity among the groups, it's also fair to suggest
that their views can be reduced to three or four general consensus points.
The amount of potentially recoverable oil is insufficient to meet any
perceived or real oil shortage or reduce American dependence on imported
oil.
The mainstream groups are pro-economic development. The great majority of
the Alaskan coastal region and the North Slope region has been open to oil
development. The Clinton Administration approved a variety of oil leases in
the neighboring National Petroleum Reserve. Environmental groups are only
trying to preserve a very small portion of the coastal land.
Alternative and more environmentally friendly means of meeting United States
oil needs are readily available. For example, automobile fuel efficiency
standards in the United States have remained close to constant for well over
16 years. Increasing the fuel efficiency standards would do more to save oil
than would drilling for more oil.
Wildlife Refuges and wilderness areas are important biological, recreational
and scientifc areas for the entire American public.
http://environment.about.com/newsissues/environment/library/weekly/aa020501a
.htm?iam=dpile&terms=%2Barctic+%2Bnational+%2Bwildlife+%2Brefuge
|