« Dean to Appear on Meet the Press Sunday | Main | Oil Patch Democrats Launch Blog and Yahoo Group »
May 21, 2005
Energy vs. the Environment in Alaska (Rounds 2 and 3)
Now that it seems the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will be open to drilling, the push to open new wildlife refuges to drilling has shifted to new regions in northern Alaska. These two new regions are Teshekpuk Lake National Wildlife Refuge and the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Get ready for these names to become as common and as well known as ANWR.
It's always dangerous to set a precedent because it just makes it that much easier to make the case that it's acceptable to drill in wildlife refuges the next time the issue comes up. Now before the ANWR issue is even totally settled (there's still one last vote to be held before it is final), oil and energy lobbyists as well as the Bush administration are pushing to open other untouched wildlife refuges in Alaska. As oil prices rise, drilling in these region becomes more economical.
Teshekpuk Lake National Wildlife Refuge includes Alaska's third-largest lake. Teshekpuk Lake is ringed by marshes that are home to migrating birds from as far as Mexico and Russia. Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge straddles the Arctic Circle that is a moist environment for moose, furry mammals, and waterfowl.
Teshekpuk, meaning "big enclosed coastal water," is Alaska's third-largest lake. It and its nearby wetlands draw huge flocks of birds each summer, there to shed their feathers and fatten up. Most notable are the Pacific black brant: Nearly 30 percent of the geese head to Teshekpuk for their annual molt."There is nowhere else in the circumpolar Arctic that attracts so many molting geese," says Stan Senner, executive director of Audubon Alaska.
Even President Reagan's pro-development Interior Secretary deemed Teshekpuk to sensitve to drill. While the Clinton administration chose to open the majority of the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve in 1998 to oil leasing, Teshekpuk remained out of bounds.
Alaska is the last frontier of America's westward expansion. Much of the inland areas that have been designated wildlife refuges still enclose pristine environments, where evolution still occurs unchanged by humans, and upon which many migratory species both in Alaska and others from many thousands of miles away depend for survival. I just wish as a society that we could agree to put these areas, as they are at the moment, above financial gain and corporate greed for the benefit of future generations. Even more importantly by preserving these areas, we provide some guarantee that the wildlife that depends on them will be around for future generations to experience as well.
Click here to read the entire article "Arctic oil search moves to new turf, new controversies" from the Christian Science Monitor.
Posted by at May 21, 2005 02:20 PM | Permalink
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.houstondemocrats.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/239
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Energy vs. the Environment in Alaska (Rounds 2 and 3):
» slr from slr cameras
[Read More]
Tracked on December 24, 2005 09:25 AM
Comments
Continuing in the vein of finding renewable sources of energy as opposed to drilling in protected areas, I have pasted an article I saw this morning on www.commondreams.org. The article was written by the U.S. PIRG (Public Interest Research Group). We have somewhat debated the use of nuclear power on this blog as an alternate source of energy. This article gives some interesting information regarding why we SHOULD NOT use nuclear energy.
Nuclear Power Not Needed to Reduce Global Warming Emissions
WASHINGTON -- May 25 -- With the nuclear industry running an aggressive public relations campaign to promote itself as the solution to global warming, a report released today by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) demonstrates that the goals of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act can be met while slashing America's reliance on nuclear energy in half.
"Nuclear power is not a solution to global warming. We can meet our energy needs, tackle global warming, and save consumers billions of dollars by taking advantage of America's vast supplies of renewable energy and energy efficiency," said U.S. PIRG Legislative Director Anna Aurilio.
The report, "A Responsible Electricity Future: An Efficient, Cleaner and Balanced Scenario for the U.S. Electricity System," conducted for PIRG by Synapse Energy Economics, shows the potential for a clean and secure energy future that relies on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources such as wind, biomass, and solar instead of polluting fossil fuels and nuclear power. Under this "balanced case," the U.S. could reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the electricity sector by 16 percent by 2010 compared to business-as-usual, while holding nuclear power generation steady and saving $3 billion annually.
Shifting investments to energy efficiency and renewable energy would pay off even more in the long run, according to the report. By 2025, the U.S. would reduce its CO2 emissions from power plants by 47 percent, reduce nuclear power generation by nearly half, and save $36 billion annually compared to business-as-usual.
The Climate Stewardship Act would reduce CO2 emissions from the electricity sector by 12 percent in 2010 compared to business-as-usual, according to the Energy Information Administration. The bill does not require deeper cuts after 2010.
"Nuclear power is the most dangerous and expensive of all energy sources. We shouldn't give even more hard-earned taxpayer dollars to the nuclear industry," said Aurilio.
Aurilio noted that none of the nuclear power industry's financial, security, safety, waste, or proliferation problems has been solved. For instance:
* The nuclear industry has received at least $70 billion in direct federal subsidies in the last 50 years and still cannot finance a new plant on its own.
* While the 9/11 Commission concluded that al Qaeda considered attacking nuclear plants, nuclear reactors and irradiated fuel pools still remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
* Nuclear waste remains a serious problem without a safe solution.
"There is no need to jeopardize our health, safety, and economy with increased nuclear power when we have cleaner, cheaper solutions to reduce global warming pollution," concluded Aurilio.
U.S. PIRG is the national advocacy office for the state Public Interest Research Groups. State PIRGs are non-profit, non-partisan public interest advocacy organizations.
Posted by: Kris Graham at May 26, 2005 08:22 AM