“Like most Gwich'in his age, Tritt has no front teeth. When he was a boy, Western civilization introduced soft drinks and sugar to[word missing here? “his”?] Arctic Village (pop. 152) before it brought toothbrushes. In the old days Tritt's grandparents had chewed on hardwood sticks to prevent tooth decay, and some elders had kept their teeth for 90 years.” —E. M. Swift, “Pipeline Dreams”
The spread of Western civilization across the American continent has been hazardously short-sighted. As E. M. Swift alludes to in the above quotation, we often gobble up the luxuries presented to us without any consideration of the consequences that may stem from their extended use. This ultimately destructive characteristic of humans, this thrill of living in the exceedingly comfortable, but hollow, bosom of the present, is the foundation of the current American addiction to oil. It is this dependency that has driven us to even consider the development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), specifically the 1002 Area, the coastal plane. Despite Big Oil's claims that opening ANWR to drilling will bring Americans lower gas prices by reducing dependence on foreign oil, as well as creating much-needed jobs and providing growth to the slumping Alaskan economy, it will undoubtedly have a severe negative effect on the environment of the refuge. By harming the ecological integrity of the ANWR region through oil development, we not only put a price tag on the ancestral identity and culture of the local Native Americans, but also force them to assume the greatest cost brought by the proposed development. For they will be the ones who ultimately suffer the greatest from the environmental impact the oil industry will have on the region, their homeland.
The debate over the development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has its roots in the Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, in which the Native Americans of Alaska were awarded an unprecedented amount of land as tribal property as well as market value compensation for the areas that would become state owned (Chance). The indigenous tribes formed corporations in order to handle this newfound wealth, and these organizations often held opposing views concerning the management of the remaining Native American lands. Some of the corporations were ardently opposed to letting the oil industry within their tribal borders, but others, typically those who had the most to gain economically from extraction, saw the proposed development as a miraculous way to increase native wealth. Consequently, the act opened up the region of Prudhoe Bay to oil development, and the Trans-Alaska petroleum pipeline was soon under construction.
With the completion of the pipeline in 1977, Alaska experienced profound economic growth, with per capita income rising massively throughout the state, to the point where the government suspended the requirement for its citizens to pay taxes and, in fact, began to award them annual dividends upon qualification. This prosperous boom made oil the industry of Alaska: it now accounted for roughly 85% of the state’s revenue, replacing the traditional exports of furs and timber. However, as illustrated by directors Bo Boudart and Dale Djerassi in their film, Oil on Ice, it also carried with it a manifold slew of environmental issues previously unheard of in the 49th state, and the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989 is a prime example of their titanic culmination
On March 24th, 1989, the U.S. experienced the greatest ecological catastrophe within its borders to date. The Exxon Valdez, a massive single-hulled oil tanker, ran aground on the coastal reef in Prince William Sound, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil into the ocean. Captain Joseph Hazelwood, skipper of the Valdez, was drunk when he was supposed to be manning the bridge and had set the auto-pilot on a course that collided with the Bligh Reef (“The Two Alaskas”). The oil from the vessel was a terrible death sentence to much of the wildlife within the waters. Time magazine reported that as many as 80 dead waterfowl could be seen per 100-meter stretch of beach and that the otters had been decimated because the oil destroyed the natural insulation of their fur, leaving them exposed to the bitter temperatures of the Arctic Ocean. Even scavenging creatures, such as the highly revered bald eagle, were deeply affected by the spill. Gorging themselves on the contaminated bodies of dead fish, birds, and mammals, they themselves became tainted with the oil's toxicity. Boudart and Djerassi emphasize that Exxon's response was less than noteworthy, with the majority of its cleanup effort being focused on scrubbing the beaches clean in an attempt to better its public image. This superficial attempt at making amends with the natural world and environmentalists alike starkly illuminates the oil industry's feelings of nonchalance towards the environment it exploits. That apathy was not greatly affected by the federal government’s imposition of new environmental laws after the spill, and the oil industry continued to boom on the North Slope.
Oil is not a renewable resource because its formation relies on eons of geological time, and the reserves in Prudhoe Bay began to dry up at the same moment that U.S. consumption soared, compelling the industry to look elsewhere for new development. It set its eyes on the coastal plane of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had conducted studies that claimed there might be upwards of 13.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil below the hardened tundra (“Get Moving on the ANWR”). This number pales in comparison to the vast reserves of Prudhoe Bay, but the oil companies had already made up their mind: the 1002 Area would be theirs.
The oil industry's case for the necessity of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to development centers around the undeniable fact that doing so would invariably create a massive source of employment within the area. Jobs are scarce in northern Alaska. With the large tracts of federally protected land limiting natural resource development and extraction, the traditional Alaskan occupations of lumberjack, gold speculator, and trapper are not as lucrative as they once were. Arctic Power, a conservative lobbying group pushing for the rights to drill in ANWR, states that anywhere between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs would be created as a direct result of development in the 1002 Area. These employment opportunities would primarily occur in the oil service industry rather than the actual drilling of wells, and the relevant unions, such as the Teamsters, are ardent supporters of Arctic Power's argument. But the lobbyists' assertion that oil would provide much-needed jobs ignores the facts that an equal amount of labor could also be invested in sustainable energy research and development, and that oil has actually harmed some aspects of the Alaskan economy. As Michael D. Lemonick and Eugene Linden point out in their essay “The Two Alaskas,” oil spills in open waters have severe impacts on the fishing industry. After the Valdez disaster, the herring season had to be canceled in Prince William Sound, resulting in the loss of roughly $12 million in revenues. This facet [what facet? specify again] of the oil industry's argument is based upon the ill-informed ideas that Alaska is an economic monoculture and that oil is the only industry worth pursuit in its borders. This view completely ignores the other thriving businesses and trades within Alaska, as well as the impact that oil development will have on their prosperity. While drilling may create jobs, it will inherently have consequences on other labor markets, and these effects need to be taken into account if an accurate picture of the economic implications of expanded oil development is to be made.
Proponents for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge insist that the proposed development of oil extraction in the coastal plane will also benefit the national economy and the American consumer by reducing the U.S.'s need for foreign oil, particularly from OPEC (“Get Moving on the ANWR”). The fact of American reliance on Middle Eastern oil puts it in a strange position because while the U.S. may be fighting its worldwide war on terror, it also buys massive amounts of fuel from the very regimes that it combats. This hypocritical cycle, the oil companies say, will be lessened if the 1002 Area is opened up to drilling, since it would provide America with another domestic source of petroleum. The U.S. Energy Information Association (EIA) conducted a study in 1998 that found that there would be roughly 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the 1002 Area, and that with the technology of the day the oil could be expected to reach American markets twenty to thirty years after the initial groundbreaking at a flow of between 1–1.35 million barrels per day (“To Drill or Not to Drill”). With recent technological advancements, these numbers would undoubtedly be greater, but still, as of 2005, the U.S. was consuming oil at a rate of 7.6 billion barrels per year, with no sign of slowing. When put in the perspective of total U.S. consumption, the oil from ANWR would barely make a dent, even with the highest estimate of recoverable fuel from the EIA study. Other, more recent research has stated that ANWR may contain as little as 3.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil, with an expected daily extraction rate of only 156,000 barrels per day (“Fall of the Wild”). Using this likely more accurate estimate (technological advancements since 1998 having made the prediction of oil field quantities more reliable), the oil extracted from ANWR would only give the U.S. enough oil to fuel 2% of the cars and light trucks on the road. As Swift notes in “Pipeline Dreams,” that amount of oil could be easily saved if car companies increased the average mile per gallon rate of light vehicles by 0.4, a minuscule adjustment. The oil companies also like to suggest that fuel prices would drop if drilling were to take place in ANWR, but that statement is completely preposterous and overlooks two key factors of the oil market. First, oil is sold on a global market. The chances of fuel from ANWR going directly to the American consumer is ridiculously small (Oil on Ice). Second, if the price for petrol began to drop in the United States, OPEC could easily drive prices back up by cutting supply because, despite what figure is chosen as the concrete amount of recoverable oil in the 1002 Area, it would not be enough to stave off U.S. dependence on imports from the organization (“Arctic Wildlife”).
With the economic benefits of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge questionable, other than the creation of jobs, it is important to examine how the environment would be affected by the proposed development. The refuge houses 36 land mammal species, 9 marine mammal species, 36 species of fish, and 135 bird species, 70 of which annually nest in the arctic wilderness (Swift). All these animals would inevitably be put in jeopardy if drilling were to take place. The oil companies do not have a good track record of maintaining their promised environmental policies and often act irresponsibly in the face of ecological emergency, as the history of the Valdez catastrophe illustrates. The preservation movement has come to rely on anonymous whistleblowers, employed by the oil industry, to supply objective information about companies' environmental practices because the industry cannot be trusted to report its own violations to the DEC (“Alaska’s Crude Threat”). These informants have routinely pointed out that despite the passing of more and more restrictive laws and the development of new, ecologically safer equipment and technology, spills still happen regularly and are often unreported.
Despite the number of toxic spills that routinely occur on the North Slope, poison is not the greatest problem that wildlife will face if development takes place in the 1002 Area. The largest ecological impact will lie in the very presence of the oil industry's infrastructure in the wilderness. The 1002 Area is the calving ground for the Porcupine caribou herd, and has been for eons. The land there is vital for the survival of the herd since it is where the calves and mothers gain crucial sustenance from the lush grasses to ensure proper development. The caribou mothers tend to shy away from the structures the oil industry builds on the North Slope, forcing them to seek other, often nutritionally less rich grounds to rear their young (Oil on Ice). Proponents for drilling often point to the growing population of the Central caribou herd, which is located in the area of the Prudhoe Bay infrastructure, as a sign that resource development and wildlife can live together, but this assertion is faulty. As Swift states in “Pipeline Dreams,” comparing the two herds is “like comparing apples to oranges.” The nonmigratory Central herd and the Porcupine herd inhabit different habitats, with the Central laying claim to five times more area than the Porcupine. The migratory nature of the Porcupine herd makes the 1002 Area all the more crucial because constant travel burns a massive amount of calories. If the calving grounds are stolen from the caribou in the name of economics, the herd will have to find somewhere else, which will likely be less bountiful in terms of nutritious grasses, as well as more dangerous because of higher predator populations, and their numbers will begin to decline. The Native Americans of ANWR, particularly the Gwich'in tribe, rely on the Porcupine herd as their primary food source and as a spring of raw materials that are essential to their traditional way of life (Oil on Ice).
The arrival of the oil industry on the coastal plane of ANWR will jeopardize the ancestral way of life for the Gwich'in people. The majority of the Gwich'in continue to live off the land, and its environmental integrity, specifically the stability of the caribou population, is crucial to their continued survival (Oil on Ice). They have been able to gather everything they need for sustenance and shelter for thousands of years, and they have prospered, as attested to by the intactness of their culture in this modern age. But how long will that last once the oil companies move into their territory? The caribou will be frightened away, forcing the tribal hunters to voyage farther and farther for their necessary materials, bringing great hardship. This will cause the Gwich'in to contemplate following in the footsteps of their neighbors, the Inupiat, who have embraced the westernization and luxury brought by oil revenue. But as the documentary Oil on Ice points out, even the Inupiat are growing weary of the industry's proposals. Suspicion is growing that the oil companies will use the coastal plane as a staging ground for future exploration of the Beaufort Sea, the primary source of traditional resources for the Inupiat people. Fear of losing their time-honored customs, the same fear felt by the Gwich'in, has caused some Inupiat to reevaluate their economic interests.
The oil that lurks beneath the tundra in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a temporary solution to the long-term problem of U.S. reliance on fossil fuels. The benefits resulting from the development of the 1002 Area do not outweigh the harsh environmental and cultural damages that will occur in its wake because they betray our obligations to preserve natural history. It is clear that oil offers no long-term benefits to the local Native Americans, as the reserves are not infinite or even large enough for prolonged extraction. If development takes place, the tribes will essentially be trading their ancestral way of life, traditions that have been formed over thousands of years, for several decades of economic prosperity. This will take the American population one step closer to an ethnic monoculture, and yet another indigenous society will have been left toothless by the endless hunger of American consumption.
Works Cited
ANWR.org Jobs and Energy for America. 2007. Arctic Power. 25 Nov. 2007 <http://www.anwr.org>.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Help Save the Arctic Refuge—A National Treasure. 2004.
Alaska Coalition. 25 Nov.
2007 <http://www.arcticwildlife.org>.
Bourne, Jr., Joel K. “Fall of the Wild” May 2006. General OneFile. Gale. Ithaca
Coll. Lib., Ithaca, NY. 25 Nov. 2007
<http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/?db=ITOF>.
Chance, Norman. "Indigenous Rights and Northern Lands." Alaska Natives and the Land Claims Settlement
Act of
1971. University of Conneticut. 10 Apr. 2008
<http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/Landclaims/ancsa1.html>.
“Get Moving on the ANWR.” The Oil Daily 12 Jan. 1987. General OneFile. Gale.
Ithaca Coll. Lib., Ithaca, NY. 25 Nov.
2007
<http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/?db=ITOF>.
Lask, Ellen. “To Drill or Not to Drill.” Petroleum Economist July 2005. General
OneFile. Gale. Ithaca Coll. Lib., Ithaca,
NY. 25 Nov. 2007
<http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/?db=ITOF>.
Lemonick, Michael D., and Eugene Linden. “The Two Alaskas.” Time 17 Apr. 1989.
General OneFile. Gale. Ithaca
Coll. Lib., Ithaca, NY. 25 Nov. 2007
<http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/?db=ITOF>.
Leopold, Jason. “Alaska’s Crude Threat.” Earth Island Journal (Fall 2005).
General OneFile. Gale. Ithaca Coll. Lib.,
Ithaca, NY. 25 Nov. 2007
<http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/?db=ITOF>.
Oil on Ice. Dir. Bo Boudart and Dale Djerassi. DVD. Oil and Ice Partners, 2004.
Swift, E. M. “Pipeline Dreams.” Sports Illustrated 13 May 2002. General
OneFile. Gale. Ithaca Coll. Lib., Ithaca, NY.
25 Nov. 2007
<http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/?db=ITOF>.
