As energy prices creep steadily higher, there's a growing segment of America that believes short-term relief can literally be tapped from fossil-fuel resources in the Western states. But many of those resources are found on public lands that buffer national parks, national wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas, and their development could have dire consequences for those landscapes.
Still, energy companies and more than a few politicians are clamoring for greater energy development in the West, from tapping the coal, oil, and natural gas fields in Montana and Wyoming to the oil shale and tar sands deposits buried beneath southwestern Wyoming, Utah, and western Colorado and to the oil beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
But development of these resources carry more than a few impacts. Already there have been concerns expressed about how development of the massive Jonah Gas Field in southwestern Wyoming will or already is impairing air quality over Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks and impact wildlife corridors that animals from those parks utilized.
Then, too, there have been fears expressed about how oil shale and tar sands development could tarnish the landscapes around Arches and Canyonlands national parks, Dinosaur National Monument, and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in Utah. Such developments would require massive amounts of water and, some believe, generate two-and-a-half more greenhouse gases than traditional oilfield development does.
And then, of course, there are the analysts who say there's no way we can sate our energy hunger with domestic resources. Here's a snippet from a fact sheet compiled by The Wilderness Society:
At current consumption levels, U.S. resources are inadequate to achieve energy independence. The United States contains 2.5 % of the world's oil resources and 3% of world natural gas resources. But we account for 24% of total world consumption of oil and 22% of natural gas consumption. Opening more areas to drilling in the U.S. can never make us less dependent on foreign oil or natural gas. The only way we will ever reduce our dependency is to reduce our consumption.
Yet in spite of these dire predictions of environmental degradation and the analysts' opinions that the proposed developments would not solve our current energy plight either in the short- or long-term, more and more Americans seem to favor drilling our way to lower energy costs, conservation of energy or natural resources be damned. Here's the bottom line from a national survey the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted late last month:
Amid record gas prices, public support for greater energy exploration is spiking. Compared with just a few months ago, many more Americans are giving higher priority to more energy exploration, rather than more conservation. An increasing proportion also says that developing new sources of energy - rather than protecting the environment - is the more important national priority.
The latest nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 18-29 among 2,004 adults, also finds that half of Americans now support drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, up from 42% in February.
What's shocking about this report, at least to me, is not only the overall trend, but which demographic groups are moving into the "drill for our salvation" camp: "Young people, liberals, independents, Democrats, women and people who have attended college," according to the Pew survey.
You can find the rest of the survey here.
The Traveler is interested in your thoughts on this issue. Does this survey reflect your beliefs? Are our domestic energy resources a panacea for the current energy crisis? Or, should we as a nation be more focused on researching and developing alternative energy sources, both to preserve our public lands and to try to stem anthropogenic contributions to climate change?
What about conservation of our national parks and other federal lands? Would you mind if they suffered from greater energy exploration as long as the price of gas went down a nickel or dime and you saved $10-$25 a year on your heating bills? Do you care what future generations think of our conservation practices?
Comments
Kath, what would recover faster from environmental degradation, heavy tourism in Denali or a major oil spill in ANWR...remember the Alaskan oil spill at the Port of Valdez? How long did it take to recover after the major spill (plus the local fishing industry has not fully recovered yet)? According to local fisherman, the place still stinks with oil. What is more tragic and shocking, is that the oil companies had to pay a pittance in penalties and compensation to the citizens of Alaska. Cry foul...yes!
I would rather see the landscape dotted with solar and wind power energy then a exploding oil rig (or pipeline) thats going take decades to clean up. I think the hypocrisy lies, is when you drive a hybrid car and park it in your driveway, next to your four bedroom home that burns enough electrical juice to light up a neighborhood in New Delhi. The classic example of a pig out without a conscientious in how much energy we burn to keep are toes warm. Again, Ed Begley's (Life Boat Foundation) books has an answer to all this sloppy living and careless waste.
Also just returned from a cruise of Prince William Sound where the Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilled the oil. I saw no evidence of the oil spill, thankfully. It has been 19 years. Since then the Port of Valdez requires a harbor escort further out into the sound, which is dotted with islands and underwater rocks. Prince William Sound is as beautiful as any national park. Truly a blue and green gem with whales, salmon, puffins and seeing it I can really understand why the oil spill evoked such an emotional response. Oil is messy, but the 800 mile pipeline across Alaska hasn't had any major spills. Solar farms like the one in the Mojave desert is a really unsightly glaring blot on the land. Wind farms are not only unsightly but chew up migratory birds.
In pointing out the footprint of visitor's services at Denali my point was this. We park fans are willing to degrade the parks somewhat for our comfort. The park service is willing to degrade the pristine nature of the parks to attract visitors. We are willing to have the wildlife subject to the noise of the Denali buses, the tramping of hikers across the tundra. The animals don't seem to mind.
I think it is a bit hypocritical to say that the oil exploration in the ANWR, 2,000 acres only in a vast wilderness, just five miles across the refuge's borders, would destroy the ecosystem when we are willing to venture a hundred miles into Denali, bringing sewage systems, water systems, the diesel exhaust of the buses etc. With ANWR, compromises need to be made, and we all have to think about our own impacts on the national parks.
Sounds to me Kath your afraid to give up your SUV or make alternative lifestyle changes just yet...just kidding! They just did news brief a couple weeks ago on the decline of the fishing industry in the Port of Valdez and how poorly it has recovered. Did you talk to the local fisherman in Valdez or physically inspect the beaches of Valdez to make your claim there's "no evidence" of the past spill? Looking from a boat while cruising through Prince William Sound isn't quite like making a thorough investigation to see if there's been a FULL RECOVERY of the past Valdez oil spill. I think your looking at the cosmetic factors that makes the boat cruise so enticing to visit Prince William Sound. Get out and talk to the local fisherman and visually check and see under the rocky beaches along the Port of Valdez and you will still see remenants of the past oil spill. Yeah sure, emerald green slick under the rocks if you look hard enough in the right places.
Kath, give the oil companies an inch they will take a foot...and you say compromise with ANWR. No way! Look what they have mapped out in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah in our National Parks for gas and oil exploration...and you worry about influx of visitors in our National Parks. Shame on you!
I wouldn't approve of drilling in the traditional national parks. But ANWR is huge and the oil drilling would be on a tiny percentage of the land. The 800 mile pipeline crosses Alaska and has had no significant problems. We have to remember that most of the national parks were not virgin territory. They were mined, logged and ranched. And now they're parks. In other words, drilling is not forever.
It's easy for some to be elitist about this. It's as though some are doing a Marie Antoinette impression and saying "Let them walk or ride bikes". But we have to remember that many people will really suffer if oil goes any higher.
re Kaths' "But we have to remember that many people will really suffer if oil goes any higher. Many people are already suffering from pollutants in our air and water. Having to stay inside for most of the summer because of air pollution is no fun ! And if you are worried about wind farms killing birds, how many do you think are killed each day by moving vehicles. I love birds and butterflies and all things natural but I would much rather see solar panels and wind farms than drilling rigs, blowoffs and potential spills. The Alaska pipeline is already past its expected lifespan. I just hope we don't suffer a disaster with it.
In my opinion, American technology is way behind in the renewable energy area. We tend not to do things until our backs are against the wall.........I think our new president MUST throw down the gauntlet like Kennedy did with the space program. We can get it done in less than 10 years and in the mean time we must conserve and be very carefull as we extract the crude and coal that is available without destroying our precious saved wild places.
Thank you Kath for the strongest comment on the board. Exploration/drilling is not the complete answer; but it sure makes sense to take advantage of it in a regulated way. I'm a life long Democrat but Harry Reid is convincing me to never vote straight ticket again. Sure we need to focus on alternative energy but we also need to stop sending our wealth to the Middle East.
With all of the near surface thermal energy available, we should tap Yellowstone for massive geothermal energy development. It could power the entire western US and help to greatly reduce our fossil fuel consumption as well as provide additional electrical power generation we'll need for switching over to plug-in electric cars.
Thermo, there's no question that there's a lot of high-quality energy that could be tapped in the Yellowstone caldera, and we might even get the high net useful energy yield you assume. But even if we could agree that it's ethically acceptable to use and abuse one of the greatest natural treasures on the planet this way, we'd still be running two risks of absolutely gargantuan scale. The mind absolutely boggles at the thought. The first enormous risk is rooted in the fact that Yellowstone is unstable. You have no earthly idea what will happen when you start drilling here and there in the Yellowstone caldera. In the back of your mind lurks the knowledge that every once in a while (is it a 600,000 year cycle?) the Yellowstone caldera produces a volcanic eruption so cataclysmic that it almost defies description. You want to take the risk -- even a small one -- of triggering something like that? Not me. The second enormous risk is the one inherent in putting your energy eggs in one huge basket. Large-scale, centralized, capital intensive energy supply systems like the one you propose are not only extremely difficult and expensive to create and maintain, but also vulnerable to disruption, being no stronger than their weakest link ( the kind exposed by natural disasters, human frailty, and perhaps even terrorists). The general principle involved here is expressed in the statement "The more tightly we are wired together into the same complex grid, the greater the likelihood that a short-circuit anywhere in the system will fry us all.") Before taking such enormous risks, I'd like to see us use our money and brains to create a dispersed collection of small- and medium scale systems utilizing a mix of alternative energy sources appropriate for each local situation. It'd be quicker, cheaper, easier, and we could all sleep better. And yes, Thermo, I do understand that the typical smaller-scale system would have substantial front load costs and only a low- to moderate net useful energy yield. Energy security makes that kind of return worthwhile.