The fate of the Arctic reserve will be decided by politicians in Washington
Nicholas Kristof, New York Times
Direct link to this page: https://www.hayadan.org.il/alaska040903.html
Part A - in the place where bears are driven
4/9/03
Arctic Nature Reserve, Alaska. I write these things while curled up in a tent in the tundra, the wildest place in America, about 280 km above the Arctic Circle, the last area untouched by human hands, except for Eskimos and Indians.
The fate of the Arctic reserve will be decided by politicians in Washington at the end of one of the most charged environmental debates today. A favorite argument of the supporters of oil drilling in the reserve is that almost none of its defenders have seen it and will never see it. In addition, they claim that there is nothing there but a frozen wasteland, even though the visits they themselves make to the place usually amount to watching from an airplane.
Therefore I decided to get up and go to this primitive land and travel it for a week with a backpack. That way I can tell what it's really like and also formulate a position regarding the drilling.
Most of the area in the arctic reserve is not beautiful in the classic sense of the word. It undoubtedly has spectacular areas, but the place for the most part is not as beautiful as it is awe-inspiring. The reserve includes endless bare tundra, mountains, rivers and bays, and there is hardly a single tree around.
Above all, this is an inhospitable land. The wind blows from the arctic ocean and in winter comes the cold that it brings with it at least 70 degrees (celsius) below zero. There are no hiking trails here, as only a few people visit here, usually in June.
But everywhere there are trails and tracks of caribou (North American rams) and bears. The Arctic Reserve is one of the last places left more or less as it was in the days of the famous travelers Lewis and Clark. Still, an argument can be made for the right to drill. The reserve is so isolated that almost no one will be deterred by the sight of the oil wells.
It is also true that most of the Eskimos living on the reservation support drilling. They want better schools and a more comfortable life, and most believe the way to get that is through oil drilling. Some of them react with resentment to the idea that Americans who live 8,000 km away from the place want to imprison them forever in the Land of Yeshimon, just for the psychological value inherent in knowing that the place exists.
But south of the reservation, the Gwich'in Indians want to keep the reservation as it is. "Everyone here is against the drilling," said Marjorie John, a store owner in Arctic Village, the tiny Indian village of 120 people. "We want to protect the calving area of the caribou. The caribou are part of our culture. They are our culture."
Oil drilling, if it does happen, will not be carried out in the area of the reserve itself which extends over 195 million dunams (about the size of South Carolina) but in a coastal strip that is 15 million dunams in size. The Indians depend for their sustenance and food on the 120 caribou that make their homes in the coastal area. I understand their fears, but my guess is that drilling won't hurt his carbo.
Yet! I hear the hail falling on my tent and my fingers are frozen, but I feel a sensation of the canals. This land is the last place in America untouched by human hands. If we open it, we will rob our descendants of the opportunity to see our country as it was originally. There is something very exciting about wandering around with a backpack in a place where humans are invaders and bears are kings.
One of these bears, a grizzly, approached my tent as I was preparing lunch, then went on his way. The backpacks also have a spray designed to repel grizzly and polar bears. Walt Woody, a legendary pilot here, explained to me how to use the spray: "If a bear attacks you, just spray yourself in the face and you won't see it." So it's hard to feel that this is a place where humans are in charge, which is exactly what makes the arctic reserve so special.
Part II: ancient oil or landscape
By Nicholas Kristof New York Times, Arctic Nature Reserve, Alaska
8/9/03
Last March, Home Secretary Gail Norton described this area as a "flat white nothingness" that was best used as an oil tap. I thought about this as I was rafting down the river, with a huge grizzly bear on my left and a herd of caribou (North American rams) on my right. A short while before I was sitting on a sandbar cooking lunch in my portable oven as four musk sheep, huge buffalo-like creatures, watched me with great interest.
A pilot dropped me and two other friends on a shoal north of the Brooks Range more than a week ago, and since then we've been rafting and hiking through these pristine landscapes, perhaps the wildest left on Earth. I want to understand this land - whose fate causes heated debate between people who have never seen it - so that I can decide whether the big oil companies should indeed be allowed to drill there.
When you are here, it is clear that the place is far from being an arid Yeshimon land. It is full of life, even at the beginning of winter. I saw here side by side the tracks of a grizzly bear and a wolf - evidence of how this reserve, which is the size of South Carolina, preserves a part of America as it was before the arrival of the Europeans.
Indeed, the animals here seem completely unaccustomed to humans. When we first saw a herd of caribou, we dragged the raft ashore and crept closer to them. Suddenly they noticed us and immediately came closer to better see what it was about. They looked like they had decided to find out if we were some twisted type of caribou.
A similar thing happened when we approached the first musk-lamb we saw. He too came closer to observe us and then called his friends to come join in the joy.
And yet I believe that environmentalists exaggerate the extent of the damage that oil drilling will cause to nature and wildlife. Humans and animals can live in coexistence. Around Prudhoe Bay, the oil drilling center west of here, there are plenty of caribou, grizzly and polar bears, and even musk sheep.
A few months ago, scientists, oil consultants and ecologists completed a two-year study on the impact of drilling on the Arctic coast. The conclusion of the report was that the animals adapt to drilling, but the land itself and the feeling of the wild spaces are much more vulnerable. There has been a tremendous improvement in drilling technology that has greatly reduced the area required for setting up the drilling facilities. But the tundra is still very sensitive - ruts from vehicles that passed through the area decades ago are visible Until today, there is no doubt that the presence of the oil companies will fundamentally change the region.
True, the drilling will be limited to a coastal lowland of six million dunams in a reserve that is 78 million dunams. And to be honest, the coastal lowlands are mostly nothing but arid tundra. But as I write these words with frozen fingers, curled up in a tent in this coastal depression, I saw here - at the place intended for drilling - many more animals than in the mountains I passed when I sailed up the river.
I admit that there are moments - when the raft gets all wet and my feet turn into blocks of ice, when the freezing fog hides the view - when I am ready to exchange this view for a hot drink and pizza and give it to the oil companies. But then the sun rises, the mountains are visible through the mist, the caribou come closer and this land warms my heart with its wild majesty.
For the whole week we saw no sign of humans. It is an unusual place, where people feel not as owners or tenants, but simply as guests.
And that's a problem. As a geologist told me: “We can build in a way
Clean, and we can drill without damaging its core. But we cannot drill and leave the place wild. So this is the choice: you want oil or you want to leave the place wild."
What is my answer? Wait for the next column.
Those who see only oil
By Nicholas Kristof 14/9/2003
Arctic Nature Reserve, Alaska
Here's a helpful hint for backpackers in the North Pole: if you're lying in your sleeping bag and suddenly feel someone outside the tent patting you on the butt - shout! Several hikers were recently exposed to this type of sexual harassment and when they opened the tent, they found polar bears smiling at them. After all, this reserve is to some extent a reverse safari - curious animals have the opportunity to rub their eyes on humans.
After a week of trips by raft and on foot in this wild country - where I came to formulate a position in the heated debate between the environmentalists and the supporters of oil drilling in the place - I came to some conclusions. One is that both the oil industry and environmentalists are exaggerating their arguments. First, no one has any idea how much oil there is here, and we'll never know until we drill.
The results of the limited test drilling done in the lands under your control
The Eskimos in the reserve - kept secret. Those who support the protection of the reserve say with disdain that the oil in it will last only six months, while the big oil companies talk about oil that will last for 25 years. Both sides are spouting baseless data.
Estimates range from 3.2 billion barrels (which would supply all US needs for six months) to 16 billion. If the higher estimate were true, it would mean a huge increase in America's proven oil reserves, which amount to 22 billion barrels. But there is Several reasons to be skeptical of these estimates, mainly because it may not be worthwhile to produce oil here. Drilling in the nearby Badami region, for example, produced only 1,300 barrels per day instead of the 30,000 barrels they expected.
It would be a tragedy to sacrifice this rare ancient landscape for dry wells. It is true that the drilling will not destroy the entire reserve. Only the coastal plain, which is 7% of the reserve, will be open for drilling. The lowland is an endless tundra, studded with ponds and lakes, muddy and swampy. In terms of scenery, it is certainly the least spectacular place in the reserve. Furthermore, fairness requires giving special weight to the opinion of the only people living in the lowlands: the Inupiat Eskimos, most of whom support drilling (they are poor and the oil may turn you into millionaires).
But the proponents of drilling who describe the coastal plain as a wasteland with nothing in it - the governor of Alaska, Frank Murkowski, compared it to a sheet of white paper - are talking nonsense. They weren't here when I opened my tent, still half asleep, and in front of me was a herd of caribou (North American rams), along the shore polar bears were swimming and to the right stood a huge grizzly and was considering whether to try to hunt the buffalo-like musk sheep that was standing not far from him.
Proponents of drilling also grossly underestimate its impact, speaking of a mere 8,000 dunam "footprint" in the polar region. Oil means building roads, residences, pipelines, security fences, guard stations and runways.
While yes, we do need oil, and Americans are now dying in Iraq because of our dependence on foreign oil. That is why I would support drilling in the Arctic Reserve if it were part of a mega-environmental package that would address global warming, an environmental challenge on which our future depends even more than the Pole. Daniel Asti, a Mail ecologist, offers such a deal with courage and trepidation, with the intention of breaking through the national impasse on the issue of environmental policy.
The package could include careful exploration of oil in the arctic reserve (exploration drilling can be done in winter, without causing permanent damage). If it turns out that the area is indeed an oil lake, it will be possible to introduce commercial drilling. In return, the right will support measures that go beyond the Kyoto Protocol to curb the emission of polluting gases. The deal will include an addition of one billion dollars to finance the production of energy from non-polluting sources and a significant tightening of the fuel efficiency standards for cars.
But the pressures exerted by President Bush for the development of the Arctic reserve are not part of such a bold and calculated package. They are just an attack on oil, a desire to attack and devour a national asset as a first option, without trying to find alternatives.
The most convincing argument to me is that if we drill in the reserve, this Genesis landscape, which remains almost as it was a thousand years ago and is part of our heritage, will be lost forever. The Bush administration's proposal to drill in the reserve is therefore not only bad policy. It is also disgraceful, because it will inadvertently rob our descendants forever of the opportunity to be amazed by this magical place and the opportunity to receive a kick in the ass from a cheerful polar bear.
Environmentalist - Earth
Nature's special supplement about Alaska
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~625680605~~~61&SiteName=hayadan
