Oil, Wildlife, Politics, and the Economy:

In recent years the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has become a battleground in American government. The fight is, generally, between those who favor protecting the environment and those who favor using energy resources wherever they are available, including in fragile, protected environments. In practice this means the fight is between Democrats and the Republicans. Oil drilling in ANWR would yield a sizeable amount of oil for use by the U.S., although those against drilling argue that the amount is not as sizeable as those for the drilling proclaim it to be.

When I first heard of this debate, I was mostly uninformed about ANWR. I knew little about its natural attractions, physical resources, accessibility, or the work that would be needed to extract oil from it. Naturally, this by no means prevented me from having an opinion. Partly as a result of my general political leanings and the facts these leanings prompted me to consider most, I supported drilling. Alaska is the largest state with the third-smallest population in the U.S. Consequently, it is also among the least developed states. With its vast tracts of forests and many villages reachable only by airplane, much of Alaska is only lightly impacted by humans. The entire northern half of the state is effectively untouched. The most remarkable manmade feature, the Alaskan pipeline, contains a significant number of measures that have successfully preserved its environs in its thirty years of existence. I believed Alaska and its wild denizens could easily sustain a little more environmental impact. Furthermore, the U.S. would gain a valuable supply of oil for little cost, reducing our dependence on the good will of oil-supplying countries.

This opinion, while reasoned, was not particularly well-researched. It relied on known facts without examining situational nuances, such as whether or not the affected areas housed species of particular interest. The research I'd done at the time was probably typical of an average person; I had an opinion, but I had little ability to back it up with facts or analysis.

The first major influence upon my opinion was an article in Backpacker Magazine about ANWR and the proposed oil drilling there. The article examined ANWR and the proposed drilling, examining in particular the impact of drilling upon the U.S. oil supply and the effect of the necessary development upon ANWR. Not unexpectedly given its target audience, Backpacker Magazine opposed drilling for oil in ANWR. One of the prime reasons cited for forbidding drilling was the small amount of oil actually available in ANWR. According to Backpacker Magazine, ANWR would provide roughly 5% of total U.S. oil needs. The other main reason Backpacker Magazine opposed drilling was that it would disrupt the wildlife in the area, hindering the survival of wildlife in the proposed drilling grounds.

Backpacker Magazine's arguments were not new to me, but their particular reiteration was for some reason more compelling than others I'd read. I am an avid backpacker, and I usually spend a week or two each summer on a backpacking trip. I enjoy my time experiencing nature and escaping from daily life. There's something refreshing about leaving behind the daily rush in exchange for carrying food, water, shelter, and a good book and living separately from the world for a short while. I also tend to have a dim view of unnecessary development that destroys wilderness. Consequently, I slowly began to oppose oil drilling in ANWR.

The article in Backpacker Magazine was published a couple years ago, and until recently my opinions hadn't changed. Then, this July I visited Alaska with my family. We kept up with the news via the Anchorage Daily News, and I particularly enjoyed reading the opinions and editorials to get a glimpse of Alaska's views.

It was roughly mid-way through the trip that I read a particularly interesting column. It was in the small section of the paper maintained to preserve the editorial voice of a defunct conservative Anchorage newspaper. In the column the author wondered how one of Alaska's senators, Democrat Tony Knowles, felt about John Kerry and John Edwards' continual opposition to drilling in ANWR.

I was amazed. I had thought Alaskans would be the first to w fish to preserve the natural resources preserved in ANWR that would be destroyed or adversely affected. I continued reading the article, which gave a partial explanation of the reasons for Tony Knowles' approval of drilling. The reasons, interestingly, led back to the initial reason I was most in favor of drilling: the economic impact. It appeared Alaskans preferred to expand their economy and generate new jobs through ANWR, and expanding oil drilling into ANWR is a good way to grow the Alaskan economy more. I searched through various websites on the Internet and discovered general agreement with the author's assertions. One recent article cited 75% support for drilling among Alaskans, and another older article from 2001 put the number at either 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 in favor of drilling depending on which source you wished to believe – either way, a clear majority. I saw it echoed time after time in the sources I read: Alaskans do indeed love their state and its beauty, but they also want their state to become more than just a tourist attraction for Outsiders (those who live in the Lower 48). They recognize that Alaska is large enough to support more development, and they want it to happen.

This news forced me to reconsider whether ANWR oil drilling was worthwhile. I didn't think many people outside Alaska know that Alaskans would like to open up ANWR to drilling. I have a feeling that they, too, would be surprised if they knew how Alaskans feel about oil drilling in ANWR.

With respect to ANWR, I initially knew little of the situation, and my opinion was barely supported. Today, after taking a closer look at the situation, I have a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of opening ANWR to the oil companies. I still haven't made up my mind on which course of action I believe is best, but I'm much better informed now than I was before. I've personally improved with respect to this issue, but I feel many Americans are similarly uninformed about most of the important issues discussed in the press today.

It seems that everyone has opinions now; there's no real risk in taking a position, even if the position is completely uninformed. I certainly had opinions on oil drilling in ANWR, but they were weak at best. Research was key to giving my opinions the depth they lacked; without research they lacked substance. Opinions without research are essentially meaningless, but with research opinions become valued contributions to rational thought.