It is described as the last great American wilderness and has been the battle ground between the US' most powerful oil interests and environmentalists for more than two decades. But last week the giants of the energy industry were celebrating a significant victory and looking forward to the chance to move into one of the most lucrative oil fields left in the US, following the Senate's narrow 51 to 49 decision to open up the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska
On the day that oil hit a record high of US$56.46 a barrel, the soaring price of oil and US energy insecurity were blamed for the decision. But Americans were divided on whether the decision made economic or ecological sense.
US President George W. Bush said that exploiting oil in the Alaskan wilderness was good for security and the national economy.
"This is a way to get some additional reserves here at home on the books. In terms of world supply ... demand is outracing supply, and supplies are getting tight. This project will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, eventually by up to a million barrels of oil a day," he said.
But for the Democrats and ecologists, who have fought the oil lobby to keep the arctic wilderness as a symbol of pristine America almost since it was first protected in 1960 by president Dwight Eisenhower, it was an irreversible tragedy.
"Is it worth forever losing a national treasure, one of our last great wild places, for a six-month supply of oil 10 years from now?" asked Senator Joe Lieberman, one of the refuge's staunchest defenders.
The oil is expected to be found on the northern Alaskan coastal plain, but drilling is not expected to start until 2007 at the earliest, taking 10 years to come fully on stream. The US Geological Survey estimates there could be anywhere between 5.6 billion barrels and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil there, with the most likely amount being 10.4 billion barrels.
The US government expects US$2.5 billion in revenue from oil leases and taxes over the next 10 years, with production peaking at one million barrels a day by 2025.
But opponents said that the decision would not solve US energy problems. A 10 billion barrel find, said Charles Clusen, Alaska project director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, would represent only about six months' supply of oil for the energy-voracious US economy which currently uses 20 million barrels a day. The oilfield is expected to be roughly the same size as those of Norway or Algeria.
"It makes no sense to industrialize the few pristine wildlife areas left," Clusen said. "The United States has only 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world's produced oil. Do the math. We could destroy every last wilderness area in the country, but we will never be able to drill our way to oil independence. We have to wean ourselves off oil."
Senator Maria Cantwell, who led the attack against drilling in the refuge, said the US should focus on conservation and on developing alternative and renewable forms of energy instead of depleting the nation's last known onshore oil reserves.
"By simply encouraging proper tyre pressure on cars and trucks, the US could save more oil than the wildlife refuge could produce", she said.
However, Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski argued that the refuge could provide enough fuel to "replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for 25 years."
Backers of the drilling say there will be no damage to the environment because modern drilling methods are far less damaging.
"There will not be any damage to the environment and that is a fact," Senator Larry Craig said.
But major oil developments at Prudhoe Bay, to the west of the arctic refuge, suggest damage is inevitable. The coastal oil belt there is marked by industrial sprawl, the building of thousands of kilometers of roads and pipelines, as well as air strips, drilling platforms and gravel mines.
Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold and nutrient-poor soils, any physical disturbance such as bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration or spills of oil and other toxic substances can scar the land for centuries.
The gravest concern is for wildlife. Opponents say the area which has been opened up for oil exploration is the biological heart of the refuge and the impact will be devastating. The arctic refuge is home to 45 species of land and marine mammals, including polar bears, grizzly bears, black bears, musk ox and caribou, arctic foxes, wolverines and snow geese.
Millions of migratory birds use its coastal plain.
Although oil developments will initially be limited to a small part of the coastal plain, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has said oil activity there risks "irreversible" population drops for migratory geese, which rely on lakes there.
But environmentalists had not given up.
"The decision only strengthens our resolve to protect America's most pristine wildlife refuge for our children's future," said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation.
Carol Browner, chair of the National Audubon Society, said: "There simply are some places that should be off limits to oil drilling and industrial development, and the arctic refuge is one of them. Since the days of Roosevelt, all Americans have shared a common ethic to protect our country's most beautiful places."
Senator John Kerry was more succinct: "It's a sad day when the Senate sells off America's public lands to the highest bidder," he said.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS