On any given day when you wake up in the morning, how many times have you wondered what life is like in the Arctic?  If you answered none, then you have given the answer that many politicians and their oil-developing buddies in D.C. want you to.  That way, they can get away with drilling for oil in the protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) off the North Slope of Alaska without anyone making a big fuss.  If no one knows about the irreversible ecosystem disaster caused by drilling in such a delicate environment, the no one will complain, right? 

Oil developers and their government representatives claim that drilling operations will bring jobs to the poor constituents of the Alaskan North Slope.  A similar argument was made by Pacific lumber companies as they clear-cut across the coast in the recent past.  Although drilling may bring jobs, it won't be for very long, according to a study from the U.S. Geological Survey.  They estimate that the oil reserves under ANWR may only hold 3.2 billion barrels of oil, or a 6 month supply.

Or maybe you have heard that drilling in ANWR would free us from dependence on imported oil. A recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) assessment says there is "considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR." Even if 7.7 million barrels a day could be recovered (as estimated in oil company study), "the current upper limit to ANWR oil production is the transportation capacity of TAPS" (Trans Alaska Pipeline System), or 2.136 million barrels per day. To put this in context, the U.S. burns 21 million barrels per day.

President Bush argues that Alaskan oil will help ease the power problems experienced in California.  What he didn't tell you is that nearly 90% of power in California is fueled by natural gas, not oil.  Nor did he mention that it would take ten or more years of production before any oil from ANWR makes it to the commercial market; DOE says that the maximum potential capacity - accessing all the oil that's available to be pumped - would not be realized until 2026.  That's ten years of no air conditioning for those folks in California who are waiting for that oil to solve their problems.

And ANWR isn't our only option for domestic drilling either. There are millions of acres already open to drilling where oil companies have not yet explored. As Mom used to say, finish what's on your plate before you ask for seconds.

On the other hand, Economist Gernot Wagner explained why any drilling in the US won't lead to lower oil and gas prices anyway. What's mainly driving high oil prices today, he said, is increased demand. And the increase, in large part, is due to the newly mobile millions around the world who've been lifted out of poverty in the last few decades--particularly in China and India.

World oil demand between 2010 and 2015 will increase by over 7 percent, and 30 percent by 2030. The U.S. only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, and one-fifth of that is in federal offshore waters. So even if we were able to tap into the full 3 percent--Off-shore and Alaskan drilling, it would scarcely make a dent in the demand-supply balance.  Then there is this inconvenient fact: OPEC would have the final say on whether increased U.S. production lowered world prices. OPEC easily could scale back total production by the same amount to wipe out any price effects. They did it just this week in response to falling oil prices.

ANWR oil would be too little too late. Drilling will not reduce fuel prices, will not create long-term employment, and will not make us more energy independent. It is not a solution to our nation's energy problems. The only way to achieve these goals is to reduce our dependence on oil - foreign or domestic - through fuel economy, a cap on carbon emissions, and focusing on new energy technologies. 

If drilling for oil in ANWR could possibly do us some good, then perhaps there might be validity in the argument that we should do it - even if it did bring harm to wildlife and ecosystems. But to harm ecosystems for no benefit at all is just plain stupid - and there's no question that it would do harm. Oil spills in nearby Prudhoe Bay are common and the consequences are devastating.

Oil companies make lofty claims that drilling for oil in the arctic comes with little environmental and ecological damage, yet hard evidence suggests otherwise.  On April 15th of this year, nearly 93,000 gallons of crude oil and salt water erupted from a corroded pipeline in Prudhoe Bay, 100 miles to the west of the coastal plains of ANWR.  There are an estimated 409 spills from Prudhoe Bay and the TranAlaskan Pipeline every year, releasing toxins such as acids, waste oils and crude oils into the rivers and onto the tundra.  Accidents like this happen at an alarmingly high rate; they will inevitably occur also at ANWR.  Knowing this, it is ironic that Athens' Congressional Representative John Linder claims “there is a general misconception that opening [ANWR] for oil exploration will harm the environment.  American operators have consistently demonstrated that development can occur without compromising the environment.” 

Yet the “American operators” that want to open ANWR for drilling - British Petroleum, Exxon, Chevron and Arco - leave a trail of leaks, accidents, violations and explosions in their wake.  In Prudhoe Bay alone, a BP subcontractor was fined $15 million for injecting hazardous waste into groundwater, while Arco is potentially responsible for 3 toxic waste sites in the area.  Chevron has been charged with 65 violations of the Clean Water Act for illegally disposing of waste products in oil production areas.  As Nathan Manuel of the Public Interest Research Group has said, “Behind the oil industries' rhetoric lurks a long list of corporate irresponsibility.” 

Drilling in ANWR will unavoidably and irreparably damage the ecosystem of that area.  The coastal plain of ANWR is a vital breeding ground for polar bears, grizzlies, Arctic wolves, caribou, the shaggy musk ox, migratory birds, and many others.  Life becomes rather cumbersome for these nomadic animals when they have to cross pipelines, hazardous waste sites, gravel pits, well rigs, and other ruins of the industrialized landscape.  Studies show that over 22,000 acres of tundra wetlands and floodplains, the heart of Arctic life, have suffered direct losses since the opening of the oil fields in the area.

Nor does it make sense to argue that the area opened for drilling would be very small. First of all, these areas tend to expand. The nearby Prudhoe Bay oil fields were originally supposed to comprise 2100 acres, but today they spread over 640,000 acres. Plus, as wildlife expert Michael Bean notes, "The effects of development extend well beyond the physical limits of that footprint." Drilling in a wildlife refuge is a slippery slope. What's next? Drilling in wilderness areas? National Parks? Your backyard? What's the value of a protective designation if the land isn't protected?