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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS