The Obama administration announced Friday that over 1.5 million acres of Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A) would be leased for drilling. Â The Reserve is an ecologically sensitive area west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and is important to bird migration. Â Lake Teshekpuk is located within the NPR-A and is the nesting ground to many species of migratory birds.
The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which totals 23.5 million acres, is (to this point) "the largest tract of undisturbed public land in the United States." (Wikipedia) Â The Interior Department's announcement indicated that the Reserve will be cut up and 190 tracts for oil exploration will be leased away to the highest bidders. Â The auction begins August 11, 2010 in Anchorage.
Brendan Cummings, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, says that it's not just birds being put at risk with this move, but also caribou, wolves, and waterfowl.
The move is sure to gather criticism; aside from the wildlife implications, the Reserve was initially set aside to be a "last resort," an emergency petroleum supply for times of war or other crisis. Â This author wonders if perhaps there is a deeper reason for this move beyond the obvious money-grabbing scheme. Â Is our oil situation worse than we thought? Â Are we running out of oil reserves? Â Or is this just about the money? Â It seems that oil policies need to be changed and our reliance on fossil fuels needs to end.
Sources: Treehugger and Wikipedia
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 7
He sure is making it tough to be a Democrat these days.
Listen closely, is that the sound of $$$$$$$$$$$$$ hitting the pockets of our corrupt politicians???
However, at the risk of sounding like an Obama apologist, I am thinking that the deeper reason Rebecca seeks is that this is evidence of the politics of compromise. In order to get a comprehensive energy and climate change bill passed, I'm thinking that the Obama administration is throwing this bone to the pro-business conservative types (who likely see no evidence of climate change, still, or, if they do, do not place any blame upon humans) to pacify them. A sort of way for the Obama administration to pick and choose its battles (to their mind) carefully to get something large-scale done. Also, as Treehugger points out in quoting the AP (who also quote Mr. Cummings), the use of the NPR-A is, in a warped way, better than drilling in the ANWR, which I'm sure many of us here protested during the years of the Shrub's administration.
As Rebecca says and further alludes, we have to break or at least reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. (Yes, that means me and you. That means things as seemingly simple as refusing to use plastic water bottles, taking your own shopping bags to the stores, using no or fewer petroleum-based disposable diapers, recycling, combining trips/carpooling, using public transportation whenever possible, buying fewer boxed/packaged foods, buying or growing local produce and goods, etc.) They say charity begins in the home; well, so does energy efficiency. (And no, it definitely isn't always that convenient or easy. But it's the right thing to do for our children and planet.) And if even people of very moderate means like my family and I can make at least basic changes, I'd venture to say that just about anyone can.
Addenda: Politico says that Harry Reid may have a full Senate debate as early as July 26 on the controversial issue of energy/climate change, despite not yet having 60 votes. In addition to making changes for and within our own families, perhaps another step might be to pressure our legislators to support energy reform as vehemently as some do (what I believe is) misguided immigration reform a la Arizona.