it looks like ANWR is safe again. it seems that every year there is a ploy to open up drilling there and each time it is narrowly averted. i actually thought they would get away with it this year. and they would have done it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids.
here's what always bugged me about the entire ANWR debate: putting aside the environmental issues (e.g. just how much impact drilling will have on the area) and the issue of just how much oil there is under there, the republicans' annual proposal to drill in ANWR offends my basic sense of fair play.
ANWR's defenders often describe the area as "pristine" but it wasn't all that long ago that all of northern alaska was unspoiled. when this country had it's original debate about the environmental impact of drilling in north alaska, it featured some of the same cast of characters as we find in the current ANWR debate, pitting proponents of people who wanted to exploit the regions oil reserves against environmentalists who wanted to keep the wilderness unsullied.
in 1980 the parties reached a compromise. 95% of the area would be opened up to oil exploration and drilling. 5% of the area--the 5% that was least likely to have a lot of oil--became the artic refuge where drilling was prohibited. a 95 to 5 compromise was hardly an even split, but the mainstream environmental movement learned to live with it. the oil industry and its backers have not. you never hear major environmental groups demanding that oil rigs in prudhoe bay or other oil-producing regions be shut down and returned to the wilderness. but the oil industry has never given up on ANWR. immediately after they were given the right to drill in 95%, they started going after the other 5%.
no matter what the environmental impact drilling in ANWR would really have, or how much or little the area really is capable of producing, i'm against drilling in ANWR simply on the principle that parties should live with their compromises.
