The Journal

Issue date: 11/10/05 Section: Opinion/Editorial

Amy Swanson

I was very lucky to grow up in an area of northern Illinois that was home to a state park. Even now, on my trips home, I make sure I take a quick drive along the river to the beautiful bluffs and hills that overlook my town in the Mississippi Palisades State Park. It is probably my favorite place in the whole world.

Another reason it is so important to me is because my dad has been a park ranger there my whole life. I feel like it gives me a special claim to the park. My father watches over it and nurtures it, so I too have an exclusive connection to it. I have often thought about the possibility of it being destroyed by natural disaster or human greed and the thought makes my heart sink. Even a small portion being harmed would cause me pain. It is hard to protect things we love, even those that are already "protected" by the government.

In Alaska, the federal government has been trying for several years to approve oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which is in northeast Alaska and covers about 19.6 million acres. The target area would only be about 8 percent of the refuge, totaling 1.5 million acres. But the area is roughly the size of South Carolina.

Now, in the wake of the heavily destructive Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it looks like supporters of the drilling have found their vehicle to pass the bill once and for all. They argue the bill is necessary to decrease foreign dependency on oil and will create much needed funds to recover money spent on disaster relief. Also, they believe it would be beneficial to have vital oil resources somewhere other than hurricane-prone areas.

As a result, ANWR drilling was included in the 2006 Budget Reconciliation Package because Congress estimates it will create about 2.4 billion dollars in revenue. But many believe that estimate is speculative, especially considering the small area of drilling would cause expensive and long-term damage that is possibly irreversible.

A report from the Department of Energy estimated that when the Arctic Refuge oil is about or at its peak production capability, which is in 20 years, gas prices could only be affected by a mere penny per gallon.

This seems hardly worth the trouble considering the long-lasting effects it could potentially cause on the environment and the indigenous people who live there. I am not willing to wait 20 years for gas prices to drop by barely a penny.
This decision would also put an end to a federal ban that has lasted 24 years which protects the United State's coastal waters, besides the central and western Gulf of Mexico, from energy development.

If the reconciliation bill passes it then proceeds through the normal legislative process in both houses of representatives and onto the president for signature. Congress passed a similar bill in 1995 but President Clinton vetoed it.

Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts proposed getting rid of the ANWR legislation and taxing the oil industry instead. It seems a much more logical explanation to the issue. Why not tax the wealthy oil companies, which would really only have a small affect on them?

The ANWR is home to a wide range of wildlife with 45 species of mammals, 36 species of fish and 180 species of birds. Their livelihood would indefinitely be affected by the drilling. And even after the drilling is complete, there would be equipment, buildings and roads left over, which would be expensive to remove and restore.

I don't understand why we even fight to protect land and preserve the beautiful assets this country holds if the government can swoop down and reduce their intrinsic value to a dollar sign. It really puts the future of this country into perspective. Anything has a price and anyone can be bought. We are a constantly expanding and growing nation and we consume at rapid rates but the majority of us never seem to calculate the cost of our actions.



Amy Swanson, a senior journalism major, is a staff reporter for The Journal.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools