Another Look at ANWR

The following editorial by MSGA President Kristin Weeks Duncanson has been submitted to all of the daily newspapers in Minnesota.

A yes vote on ANWR makes sense for the environment, the economy and energy security.

In mid-March, the U.S. Senate narrowly voted down an amendment that would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil exploration. Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman voted against the amendment, citing his campaign pledge not to open up ANWR to oil drilling. But during his campaign, Senator Coleman also pledged to do everything possible to advance the production and use of domestic, renewable fuels - for the betterment of the environment, the economy, and our nation's energy needs.

In the Washington, DC world of "Let's Make a Deal," Coleman resisted offers of key incentives for the development of renewable fuels, like biodiesel, ethanol and even biomass, in exchange for a vote "yes" on the ANWR amendment. Without federal incentives, Minnesota may lose out on an opportunity to play a major role in the development of the biodiesel industry in the U.S. And therein lies the complex position Senator Coleman finds himself in.

Let's look at the issue from different sides. Environmentalists see ANWR as a "pristine wilderness" that is "environmentally sensitive" and should not be touched. But the scientific community and supporters of domestic energy production argue that up to 21 billion barrels of oil can be responsibly recovered from this miniscule area within the 20-million acre refuge. This area, known as Area 1002, covers less than 10% of the 19.5 million acre refuge. It was designated for possible oil and gas exploration in 1980 under the administration of President Jimmy Carter.

There is, however, a third opinion to consider - the opinion of the Inupiat people of the North Slope, who have called the Arctic their home for thousands of years. They are in favor of drilling for oil and know that ANWR holds resources that can be extracted safely, with care and concern for the entire eco-system it encompasses.

"The Inupiat people, working through the North Slope Borough, will act in the same careful, caring and cautious manner we always have when dealing with our land and the seas," says Benjamin P. Nageak, former mayor and a native Inupiat.

Nageak learned from his father to respect the land and its resources. Just as his father did, Nageak uses the land to hunt for food for his family. He also knows from experience that oil drilling can be managed in an environmentally-friendly way, using the land's resources to benefit his people.

"The oil beneath the surface of ANWR can provide jobs, schools and a thriving economy for my people," Nageak says. "We have the greatest stake possible in seeing that any and all development is done in such a way as to keep this land safe. It is our world. It is where we live. It holds the remains of our ancestors. It holds the future of our children."

More than 75% of Alaskans support careful energy exploration in ANWR. They've seen the Prudhoe Bay caribou herds grow nine times larger in the 34 years since oil was discovered there, and the environment negligibly affected. They've seen oil produced under the world's strictest environmental standards, and Alaskans would have it no other way.

If oil drilling in ANWR is favored by its native residents, can be achieved in an environmentally-friendly way, has far-reaching economic benefits, helps our nation reduce its dependence on foreign oil, AND can trigger incentives for alternative fuel production in Minnesota, Senator Norm Coleman should not be criticized for voting in favor of ANWR drilling if the vote comes up again. A vote "yes," it seems to me, is a vote FOR the environment, the economy and the nation's energy security. It also grants the people who live in the Arctic the development and economic benefits they desire.