Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Water

Offshore Drilling in Alaska: Obama Must Slow the Rush

By Margaret Williams, Yale Environment 360. Posted November 19, 2008.


Obama must reverse Bush policies to avoid irreparable harm to Arctic wildlife and to some of the most biologically productive waters on earth.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

 

Now that the presidential campaign is over and gasoline has -- for the time being — fallen well below $3 a gallon, the chants of "Drill, Baby, Drill!" have died down. That is a welcome development, for during the campaign voters were lured by the siren's song of offshore drilling and its supposed benefits, while hearing virtually nothing about its costs.

But the truth is that the environmental price of offshore drilling could be very high, and in no place more so than the state where I live: Alaska. And those of us who care deeply about Alaska's offshore waters -- encompassing some of the cleanest and most biologically productive seas on earth -- are hopeful that the Obama administration and the new Congress will act decisively to reverse many decisions of the Bush White House, which moved recklessly to drill off Alaska's coast, with little concern for the environment. Today, few Americans are aware that, during the past eight years, the Bush administration has quietly opened a vast swath of offshore Alaska -- an area more than twice the size of New York state -- to drilling.

While some of the Bush administration's decisions can be undone with the stroke of Barack Obama's pen, others cannot. A concerted effort must now be launched -- in the Congress, the Interior Department, and in the courts -- to rein in the oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development that gathered significant momentum in the U.S. Arctic since 2000.The task is urgent not only because America's "Polar Bear Seas" — the Beaufort and Chukchi seas -- and the salmon-rich waters of Bristol Bay are home to an extraordinarily rich assemblage of fish, seabirds, whales, sea lions, and other marine mammals.

That urgency is compounded because global warming is rapidly altering the marine environment. Regions now open to oil drilling are losing their sea ice, which is very bad news for the creatures, such as polar bears and ringed seals, that depend on that ice to survive, though probably good news for those who would turn this pristine environment into the Saudi Arabia of the Far North.

To slow down the offshore oil rush in Alaska, the new Obama administration should take the following steps.

First, as president, Obama should sign an executive order reversing the Bush administration's decision to drill on 5.6 million acres in Bristol Bay -- home to what may be the greatest run of salmon on earth.

Second, President Obama's Secretary of the Interior must reform the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS), which oversees oil drilling. During the Bush administration, the MMS — plagued by corruption and sometimes staffed with former oil industry executives -- has failed to ensure that proper environmental safeguards are in place before offshore drilling begins.

Third, under leases granted by the Bush administration, MMS has the right to suspend operations for environmental reasons. The Obama administration should invoke those rights until the oil industry demonstrates that it can operate in these extreme environments without risk to wildlife and marine resources. The new administration must prohibit drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, including prime polar bear habitat and whale migration routes.

Finally, working through the Department of the Interior and the Coast Guard, the Obama administration must vastly improve the ability of oil companies to respond to spills of heavy crude oil in Alaskan waters.

Conservation groups such as World Wildlife Fund (WWF) -- where I am managing director of the Kamchatka-Bering Sea Ecoregion Program -- are staunchly against drilling in biologically rich environments such as Bristol Bay. We also believe that any new offshore development in the Arctic should only be part of a transitional effort to a new energy policy. Before such drilling is considered, however, scientists must gather baseline biological data and quantify the cumulative impacts on the marine environment.

In recent years, the troubled Minerals Management Service has moved to develop offshore Alaska with an alacrity rarely seen in a federal agency. In the past year alone, the MMS has expanded the territory available for leasing in Alaska's offshore waters from roughly 10 million acres to more than 80 million. Earlier this year, MMS leased 2.9 million acres of that newly opened territory to oil companies in the remote Chukchi Sea. In addition, another 25 million acres of state and federal lands in the U.S. Arctic -- onshore and off — are open to oil and gas leasing; of that,13.5 million acres have already been leased. The only area that now remains totally off-limits to oil drilling is the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

 

 

What's the worry? Comforted by massive oil industry advertising campaigns paid for with record profits, the average American could not be blamed for believing that the oil companies can drill oil on land and sea and transport it without a drop being spilled. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The threat of a major oil spill off Alaska's shores is growing rapidly as oil exploration and extraction expand into the Arctic.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: oil, arctic, drilling, offshore, spill

Margaret Williams is the Managing Director of World Wildlife Fund’s Kamchatka-Bering Sea Ecoregion Program, which is working on an international conservation strategy for this region.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Save the trees - kill an SUV
Posted by: 2thepoint on Nov 19, 2008 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets hope the environment is on the top Obama's agenda. I suspect though he just might give in to the pressure, $$$ and lobbying efforts that will be brought to bear to continue ruining our last remaining open spaces in the name of big gas guzzeling rides!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The polar bear is as good as extinct already. And the Arctic Ocean is loaded with dioxins.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 19, 2008 10:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And the other megafauna in ANWR likewise, due to global warming that is
already "in the pipeline."

Those polar animals need a polar climate to survive. In particular, the polar bear
needs an ice covered ocean from which to hunt. The arctic sea ice could be
completely gone by 2015. The seals hunted by polar bears could go through a
population explosion then crash without the polar bears. The seals could go
extinct when they eat up all of their food because, without the bears, there will be
too many seals. There are already fewer polar bears.

The melting of sea ice that has already happened means that there is less ice to
reflect sunlight back into space. Open water absorbs much more sunlight than ice.
That is one of those natural threshholds [tipping points] that we have already
crossed in our rampant destruction of the environment and climate. We cannot
undo the damage now. Sea ice will keep on melting.

Because of global warming, it doesn't really matter to the polar creatures any more
whether we drill in ANWR or not. Because our need for oil is so great, ANWR
doesn't matter to the price of gasoline either. ANWR is a moot subject, no longer
interesting. You should quit caring what happens there because it is all over but
the funeral. There is a much more pressing problem: Will the HUMANS survive
or go extinct because of global warming?

Read:
summary of Six Degrees

'Six steps to hell' - summary of Six Degrees as published in the Guardian
23 April 07:

6ºC ....shortened... end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago. By the end
of this calamity, up to 95% of species were extinct. The end-Permian wipeout is
the nearest this planet has ever come to becoming just another lifeless rock drifting
through space. ....shortened... most of the world’s plant cover was removed in a
catastrophic bout of soil erosion. Rocks also show a “fungal spike” as plants and
animals rotted in situ. Still more corpses were washed into the oceans, helping to
turn them stagnant and anoxic. ....shortened...

One scientific paper investigating “kill mechanisms” during the end-Permian
suggests that methane hydrate explosions “could destroy terrestrial life almost
entirely”. Acting much like today’s fuel-air explosives (or “vacuum bombs”),
major oceanic methane eruptions could release energy equivalent to 10,000 times
the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Whatever happened back then to wipe out 95% of life on Earth ....shortened... If
they tell us one thing above all, it is this: that we mess with the climatic thermostat
of this planet at our extreme – and growing – peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here may be one of the reasons for the large number of people who don't take global warming seriously:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 19, 2008 10:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Google and the myth of universal knowledge"
by Jean-Noel Jeanneney 2007 The original is in French.

When you do a Google search, you get "sponsored" links
on the right side and "non-sponsored" links on the left.
The "NON-SPONSORED" links on Google ARE LISTED
IN THE ORDER OF THE HIGHEST BIDDER to lowest
bidder. Companies pay dollars to Google to get web sites
other than their own that lie in favor of the paying company
to be at the top of the "non-sponsored" list. Google search
results in your getting nothing but corporate propaganda.
Since the coal industry has a $100 Billion per year income
at stake, they can and must share a lot of money with
Google.

Page 32: 62% of internet users questioned make no
distinction whatever between advertising and other
information, and only 18% proved capable of telling which
data were paid for by companies for their promotion and
which were not."
"92% of users of search engines have full confidence in the
results of their search, and 71% (users for less than five
years) consider that information from this source [Google]
is never biased in any way."

Suggestion: Use only Google Advanced or Google Scholar.
On Google Advanced, specify either the .gov domain or the
.edu domain. Otherwise, use only web sites that
www.RealClimate.org uses.

There should be a law requiring Google to disclose the above
and the donors and the dollars for each "non-sponsored" link.
Environmentalists should work on Google legislation first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Worry about the humans going extinct, not the bears.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 19, 2008 10:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Warming can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of
the oceans. Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo
Sap will go EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken NOW.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:

Scientific American

....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
PennState

"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

Astrobiology 1

Astrobiology 2

Astrobiology 3

Astrobiology 4

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
Six Degrees

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

OIL SHALE, TAR SANDS AND COAL MUST BE LEFT IN
THE GROUND TO AVOID THE EXTINCTION OF US
HUMANS.
We have to convert to plug-in hybrid cars so that electricity made
by low-CO2 methods powers most of our driving. Nuclear power
produces the least CO2 of ANY source of electricity.
32 countries have nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb.
The top 4 producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal
fired power plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China,
India and Russia. Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050
requires drastic action in the USA, China, India and Russia.
Coal, oil shale and tar sands must be left untouched in the ground.

I have no connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement