- The Washington Times - Tuesday, December 23, 2003

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Leigh Ann Bauer, who has lived in Alaska for 12 years, calls herself a “big-time animal lover.” She also considers herself “pretty pro-oil development.”To many people in Alaska, those two descriptions are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, sometimes it seems as if people outside Alaska see a bigger conflict between the environment and oil and gas drilling than those living here do — a phenomenon made clear during the recent debates over exploiting new sources of energy in Alaska as existing stores become tapped out.

Alaska’s economy is heavily dependent on oil, while its vast wilderness is a lure for outdoors enthusiasts. As far as many people are concerned, those two interests exist in remarkable harmony, with about 150 million acres of national parks, refuges and forests where development is either restricted or prohibited.

Since 1986, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, an industry group, has tracked public opinion on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration. Pollster Dave Dittman said 500 or more Alaskans are surveyed each year.

Throughout the years, public support has hovered at about 70 percent, while the opposition average is 23 percent. Support dipped sharply only after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. That year, 54 percent supported development of the refuge, and 40 percent opposed it.

In a recent survey, 81 percent said they thought oil and gas development has been environmentally safe. Fifteen percent disagreed.

“There may be a perceived paradox between development and the beautiful wilderness, but it’s largely held outside Alaska,” Mr. Dittman said. “Most Alaskans believe the oil industry and the environment have gotten along just fine.”

Independent polls on the issue are hard to find, but one gauge of public opinion might be found at the ballot box. Alaskans tend to elect pro-development candidates, including Democrat Tony Knowles, Alaska’s only two-term governor in two decades. The former governor is running for the Senate and plans to push oil and gas development.

“He has always said development and environmental stewardship go hand in hand. Because we have the development, we can take the steps to protect the environment,” Knowles spokesman Bob King said. “I don’t see a contradiction.”

The history of Alaska since the arrival of the Europeans in the 18th century is all about making money off of natural resources. The Russians came for fur, followed by people looking for gold, fish, timber, oil and gas.

“Most Alaskans are realistic about the fact that Alaska is a natural-resource state. That’s what pays the bills,” said Terrence Cole, a history professor at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. “If you take that away, I don’t know what’s left. The whole idea of statehood was to develop the heck out of it.”

Alaska’s most recent economic boom started in late 1960s and early ‘70s when oil was discovered on the North Slope; the population more than doubled between 1963 and 1984.

“I’m a big-time animal lover, and I love the wildlife up here. It’s just awesome, but there needs to be a balance,” said Miss Bauer, a criminal defense lawyer in Anchorage. “Responsible development is the key. I think the oil companies are doing their job well.”

Without oil, she said, the state would lose much of the revenue it needs to maintain the benefits to which Alaskans have grown accustomed.

Because of its oil riches, Alaska abolished its state income tax in 1979, soon after crude began flowing through the Alaska pipeline.

Also, practically every man, woman and child in the state gets a dividend check from the state’s oil-royalty fund every year just for living here. This year’s check was for $1,107.56. The state distributed more than $663 million to nearly 599,000 Alaskans.

But Alaska’s oil production has declined steadily since 1988, putting a squeeze on the state’s budget. Gov. Frank H. Murkowski, a Republican, last week proposed a series of taxes targeted at the estimated 1.8 million visitors who travel to Alaska each year.

As for the effects on wildlife, oil drilling at Prudhoe Bay has not hurt the Central Arctic caribou herd, supporters say. In fact, the herd has increased almost six times in size — from 5,000 animals in 1974 to nearly 32,000 in the latest count by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Caribou commonly are seen grazing near oil rigs and pipelines.

The sheer size of Alaska means that drilling on the Arctic Circle is not exactly next door to the places most Alaskans live. For someone in Anchorage to get upset about drilling in ANWR would be, geographically speaking, like someone in Memphis, Tenn., worrying about the environment in Detroit, more than 600 miles away.

Not everybody in Alaska feels that way.

Some environmentalists in Alaska, along with their lower-48 counterparts, are vocal in their opposition to development of the Arctic refuge and, more recently, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The refuge proposal was dropped recently from an energy bill in Congress.

“We’re not opposed to oil development,” said Stan Senner, executive director of the National Audubon Society’s Alaska office. “The problem we’ve got with oil industry is that it’s not willing to acknowledge that some places are so sensitive it should stay out of them.”


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide