Opening refuge a threat to nature

Recent steps by President George W. Bush may fulfill a campaign promise to overturn the 1980 ban on drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. First protected under the Republican administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have secured its preservation, though it now faces its most viable threat. The issue, however, is not strictly a political debate. With adequate information, the larger picture will undoubtedly be illuminated; to sustain nature's precious resources, it may be necessary to alter the economic "needs" and the consumer demands of our society.\nDoes curbing U.S. dependency on foreign energy sources really merit the ground construction, air cargo traffic, river and noise pollution, and the mining of streambeds for gravel, all of which would plague the Refuge's Coastal Plain? For those citing that North Slope oil development has brought immense profits to the petroleum industry, it does. But the loss is thousands of acres of local wildlife habitat, the significant decline of wildlife populations, and the open pits containing gallons of oil industry waste, in addition to the air pollutants pumped into the fragile Arctic ecosystem and the spilled gallons of crude oil, diesel, and toxic chemicals. \nA wealth of habitats nestled between the peaks of the Brooks Range and the shores of the Arctic Ocean support a diverse array of wildlife, an environment that is virtually at our disposal to destroy or salvage. The U.S. Department of Interior has even warned of the drilling's threat to the populations of golden eagles, musk ox wolves, foxes, snowy owls, bears and porcupine caribou.\nIf the argument to save the earth is not enough, one should then consider the human toll. Alaskan natives of the Yup'ik and Gwich'in people are outspoken opponents of the bill, saying the oil exploration threatens their very culture and livelihood.\nThough proponents of the project say both Alaskans and the federal treasury would benefit economically from increased oil production in the area, they claim the environmental impact would be negligible. Perhaps then, it is necessary to examine the supposed efforts by North Slope oil companies to improve upon methods of operation in newer oil fields.\nStudies by environmental organizations show the oil industry has displayed a repeatedly troublesome record of non-compliance with laws and regulations designed to protect the environment. While their own attempts to study and evaluate potential effects of oil and gas development are noble, these efforts are seen as minimally effective by most environmentalists. \nAccording to the United States Geological Survey, there is likely only enough oil under the Arctic Refuge to supply America's needs for six months. If the issue at hand is to ensure an alternative source to support national energy needs, it should very well be enough to endure indefinitely while posing such great risks to the environment. The fundamental argument is best stated by William H. Meadows, president of the Wilderness Society, "The coastal plains of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not critical to the survival of the oil industry -- but it is critical to the survival of thousands of migratory birds, polar bears, caribou, and other animals"