***********************************************

WORLDWIDE FOREST/BIODIVERSITY CAMPAIGN NEWS

Gas Price Increases Lead to Calls to Open Up American Wilderness

***********************************************

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org

     http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Archives

      http://forests.org/web/ -- Discuss Forest Conservation

 

3/12/00

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY

Due to recent increases in gasoline prices in the United States,

there are calls to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to

oil drilling--a huge wilderness area full of caribou, polar bears,

swans, snow geese, musk oxen and many other species, that has been

called "America's Serengeti".  This is a shockingly stupid policy

proposal.  American gas prices while increasing, are still less than

half of what most of the rest of the world pays, and have held steady

in real terms for over 25 years.  Oil should be expensive to cover

its costs to the environment and to spur alternatives.  It is

criminal that slight cost increases for oil should lead to loss of

some of the last wilderness in America.  Few new wildernesses are

being made currently, and under no circumstances should those

remaining be sacrificed for a few more years of gluttonous, under

priced, polluting fossil fuel consumption.  The "Climate Ark" at

http://www.climateark.org/ has many resources on climate change, and

how fossil fuels and inappropriate land use are causing the problem. 

Shame on those in America that call on everyone else to save their

natural ecosystems and wildernesses, while proposing to liquidate

their own to save a few cents at the gasoline pump.

g.b.

 

*******************************

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

 

Title:   Gas prices fuel drilling, tax debates

         Some want to drill in protected areas, others see  

         alternatives

Source:  MSNBC

Status:  Copyright 2000, contact source for permission to reprint

Date:    March 9, 2000

Byline:  Miguel Llanos

 

Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge covers 19 million acres. Part

of its coastal plain, seen here, would be open to oil drilling under a

new Senate bill.

     

March 9 -  At what price are Americans willing to open some of the

nation's last pristine wilderness to oil drilling? Some senators think

it's the $1.50 a gallon many motorists are paying for unleaded, and

they are pushing legislation to drill in Alaska's Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge. Environmentalists aren't happy, and neither is the

Clinton administration, which suggested the president would veto the

bill if it reached him.

     

"HOMEOWNERS ARE STRUGGLING to pay their heating oil bills, truckers

are fighting to stay in business and motorists this spring may well be

boiling over prices at the pump," Senate Energy Committee Chairman

Frank Murkowski said at a news conference Wednesday to unveil the

legislation. "We are going to continue on this rollercoaster of price

shocks and economic disruption until we learn from our mistakes and

take action to produce more energy here at home."

 

Murkowski proposed suspending 4.3 cents per gallon of the federal

gasoline tax to ease the pain of the soaring prices.

 

Congress narrowly approved a 4.3 cent increase in 1993 as part of the

Clinton administration's budget deficit reduction plan. Republicans

staunchly opposed the increase. Murkowski's measure would suspend it

until the end of the year.

      

House and Senate tax writing committees were cool to the idea, but a

number of Republican senators said the proposal might gain momentum if

prices at the pump, now at more than $1.50 a gallon in many places,

continue to climb.

             

ARGUMENTS FOR    

 

The entire refuge is spread over 19 million acres of Alaska's North

Slope, 95 percent of which is already available for oil and gas

drilling.

      

The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated the coastal plain could

contain from 5.7 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil. Even if

drilling was approved, it could take a decade before production

begins.

      

Murkowski said his legislation would allow oil development on only a

small part of the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain. Even if only 7

billion barrels were produced, he argued, that's the equivalent of 30

years' worth of oil imports from Saudi Arabia.

      

Murkowski said that drilling is less of an environmental risk than

importing oil, because the latter entails supertankers and the

possibility of oil spills.

 

Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, ridiculed Energy Secretary Bill Richardson's

recent overseas trip to persuade OPEC oil producers to raise

production. "We've seen this administration in the unseemly process of

traveling the world begging oil producers to increase production," he

said. "Our point is we need to start at home producing more oil and

gas in America."

 

Murkowski noted that U.S. oil production has fallen 17 percent during

the Clinton administration, while consumption has risen by 14 percent.

It's time to open more U.S. areas to exploration, he argued, not just

in Alaska but in other Western states and offshore along the outer

continental shelf.

      

His bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Ted Stevens, also an Alaskan

Republican, and 31 other senators, including three Democrats.

      

ADMINISTRATION DRAWS LINE

Congress approved legislation to allow oil development on the coastal

plain in 1995. But President Clinton vetoed that measure as part of a

broader budget package, and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt suggested

Wednesday he'd do so again.  

                        

"We've made it clear again and again," Babbitt said in a statement.

"We will protect this last undeveloped fragment of America' arctic

coastline for the thousands of caribou, polar bears, swans, snow

geese, musk oxen and countless other species who use it to birth and

shelter their young."

      

The federal government allows "environmentally sensitive" oil

production in a large part of the National Petroleum Reserve in

Alaska, Babbitt said. But there is a big difference between that and

allowing oil exploration in a National Wildlife Refuge, he said.

      

ENVIRONMENTALISTS ANGRY

The legislation also drew negative reviews from environmental groups,

who have long fought to keep oil companies out of the refuge.

      

The Sierra Club accused Murkowski of potentially destroying "America's

Serengeti," while resisting efforts to raise automobile fuel

efficiency standards and other "common sense" measures to lower oil

prices.

       

The Wilderness Society said "this bill isn't about filling America's

fuel tanks, it's about lining the pockets of special interests in

Alaska."

      

For environmentalists, measures to save energy and develop

alternatives like solar and wind power are better options, especially

given what's at stake in the Arctic refuge.

      

"Developing the arctic refuge," said Allen Smith, the society's Alaska

director, "would be a senseless act equivalent to burning a painting

by Picasso to warm yourself."

      

Activists are also unhappy about how some drilling has been going in

approved areas. As part of its "Arctic Action" effort, Greenpeace this

month set up a base camp near a BP Amoco drilling site to protest the

offshore project.

 

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS### 

This document is a PHOTOCOPY for educational, personal and non-

commercial use only.  Recipients should seek permission from the

source for reprinting.  All efforts are made to provide accurate,

timely pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all

information rests with the reader.  Check out our Gaia's Forest

Conservation Archives & Portal at URL= http://forests.org/ 

Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org