Guest columnist
We call the world we live on Earth, but it should have been named Ocean.
About 75 percent of the planet is covered with water. Most of it is a fascinating and mysterious ocean that contains and supports other unique ecosystems such as coral reefs, many of which are highly endangered due to pollution, human contact and natural threats. The remainder of the planet is true earth, and a big chunk of that is uninhabitable to humans. It is either too cold, too dry, too hot or too remote to settle on. When looked at this way, the planet that enables us to live our lives becomes even more precious.
A common term among environmentalists today is “sustainability.” Can the Earth support the growing impact that we humans create? Can we destroy a salt pond without repercussion? Will the building of one more resort add to the economy but create a deficit on a coral reef? Will the drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge sustain our ability to drive our cars or SUVs for 200 days — say the conservationists — or three years — say the oil companies — while it destroys the nature of a wildlife refuge?
Those people in favor of drilling in the wildlife refuge, especially people in government and the oil and automobile industry, claim they will only be affecting 1.5 million acres of Earth. They say jobs will be created, and people will prosper. But at what cost to Mother Earth and the rest of creation?
The Gwich’in tribe lives on the southern edge of the wildlife refuge. They call the refuge “the place where life begins” because some 130,000 caribou reindeer travel through the refuge this time of year to give birth. The Arctic refuge also supports other forms of mega-fauna such as the polar bear, grizzly bear, arctic wolves and many more.
What will happen to that refuge when the drilling machines arrive? Roads will be created. Trucks and SUVs will arrive. Auto pollution will begin. Landing strips will be created, and planes will come. Pipeline-drilling pads will be installed; trash, litter, chemicals and sewage will be buried; houses will be built and permafrost will be destroyed.
President George W. Bush says that his administration is concerned about energy shortages, but President Carter reminded us we are not short on energy; it is all about how we use it.
Americans use up oil and other fossil fuels faster than any people on Earth. American automakers should and could increase the mileage capability in their 2003 automobiles and SUV lines, and this alone will save all the barrels of oil that would come out of the refuge. To drill the oil out of the refuge is insanity.
The biggest reason not to drill for oil in the wildlife refuge is because it is a wildlife refuge. Wild and protected open space is increasingly rare on this watery planet. Ti bit drill would be a very conscious decision to preserve and protect the Earth, the air, the plants, the animals and the ocean, which is more valuable than money because we are supporting that which sustains God’s creation.
If Bush’s team drills the oil out of the refuge, we all lose. A dangerous precedent would be set that in essence says, “It’s OK to go into a National Refuge to take out what we want because we are short on energy. And if it is OK to drill in the federally protected National Wildlife Refuge, why not drill for oil in a national monument or a national park?”
If you want to help protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, visit www.savearticrefuge.com to sign their petition.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Morgan is the director of the Reef Ranger Project in the Virgin Islands. She is also an environmental education cohort at the UNM-Valencia Campus, which is a master’s program in the College of Education. She is the co-director of the Rio Grande Writing Project.
