Local View: But it IS about the environment

 No comments  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

By Ron Marquart

George Will’s recent opinion “It’s Not About the Environment” contains so much misleading information that it’s hard to know where to begin correcting it.

Will’s ignorance of biology and his conspiracy notion concerning the philosophical intent of environmentalists is bizarre. His most glaring misleading points concern biology, oil reserves and environmentalists’ motives.

Will’s comment about trees is a sarcastic implication that environmentalists want to see trees growing in Area 1002 of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

A quick reading of a high school biology textbook would educate Will that a defining characteristic of tundra biome vegetation is the absence of trees. No environmentalist I know, including myself, expects to see trees growing in Area 1002.

Lichens, mosses, shrubs and sedges grow there and provide food to nourish the caribou during the short two-month growing season when they give birth and nurse their calves.

Perhaps after a thorough study and appreciation of the tundra ecosystem, he would understand that “pristine” to an environmentalist means the most intact, least human-disturbed natural ecosystem in North America. For many environmentalists, designation of ANWR as wilderness would permanently preserve and lock open this precious natural area for all future generations to enjoy. They do not necessarily have to visit it; just knowing that it’s there is reward enough.

It is misleading to compare an increase in the size of the smaller Central Arctic caribou herd of Prudhoe Bay to the much larger (about 130,000) Porcupine River caribou herd. The birthing/nursery ground in Area 1002 used by the Porcupine herd is only one-fifth the size of the birthing/nursery ground of the Central herd.

The Porcupine herd does not have the extra birthing/nursery habitat area that the Central herd has. Thus, industrial disturbance will most likely have a detrimental, disruptive impact on the reproductive status of the Porcupine herd compared with the Central herd.

In light of this important difference between the two caribou herds, Will’s presumed joke, “Perhaps the pipeline’s heat makes them amorous,” shows his ignorance of biology, and his comment is not funny.

It is misleading to print only the high number in a range of two numbers for an estimate of recoverable oil in ANWR. The recent, updated September 2005 Issue Brief for Congress prepared by the Congressional Research Service reports that the U.S. Geological Service estimates at least 4.3 billion to 11.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

But it is even more important to point out that there is a 95 percent chance of finding 4.3 billion and only a small, 5 percent chance of finding 11.8 billion barrels. Thus, a more realistic expectation is just 4.3 billion barrels of oil in ANWR.

Is this small quantity of oil (compared with the fact that more than 95 percent of the world’s proven reserves are located outside the U.S.) worth the cost of ruining a precious, priceless potential wilderness area that would preserve a major intact ecosystem in North America?

The rational answer is NO, because there are more sensible ways of achieving energy independence, such as conservation, fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources.

Will’s statement that if “there were only three thimbles of oil beneath Area 1002,” it would be worth drilling for oil says something about the irrational pursuit by those who would develop all land at any cost.

According to Will, this should be done because of his conspiracy notion that some environmentalists have an underlying motive and primary goal of “collectivism — of socialism in Europe and contemporary liberalism in America.” America should drill for three thimbles of oil to prove that this nation cannot be “forever paralyzed” by people using environmentalism as “a cover for collectivism.”

Does Will know that some conservatives are environmentalists too? They are the REP America (Republicans for Environmental Protection). Maybe contemporary conservatism is also part of Will’s perceived problem in America!   I am a dues-paying member of 15 non-governmental organizations.

The NGOs I belong to do not oppose drilling for oil, in an environmentally responsible way, on all land in the United States. In fact, the vast majority of land is already open to drilling. For example, about 90 percent of the public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and more that 90 percent of the Alaska North Slope are open to drilling.

We oppose drilling on that small percentage of environmentally sensitive land necessary for a healthy, functioning natural ecosystem. It really IS about the environment.

Ron Marquart, M.S., recently retired after 31 years of environmental public health service and five years of teaching science in Nebraska public schools.