skip to main |
skip to sidebar
On a recent trip through eastern Oregon, I was excited to see several wind farms up and running in farming areas south of the Columbia River Gorge. This area is known for frequent winds and is a perfect area to harness this natural energy.
Hopefully soon, more and more states across America will build wind turbines to use the clean energy this natural resource will provide.
The ongoing controversy whether or not to continue drilling new wells in Alaska has been heating up in recent years. Along with the outrageous ideas to drill in one of the last pristine wilderness areas in the United States (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), the "big oil" companies continue to secure leases to drill offshore which endangers the sea life and the ocean floor.
Does all this drilling, building new structures on platforms in oceans around the world contribute to global warming and the drastic reduction of sea ice? The ice shelves in Antarctica are collapsing at an alarming rate, Polar bears are facing a dramatic decrease in their icy habitat, what about other species that depend on the pack ice for their survival? Not only the wildlife, but what about the Inuit and other Alaska Native peoples that depend on the icy waters and arctic wildlife for their own daily needs?
It seems that Governor Sarah Palin's claims about her involvement in working with large oil companies has come under a lot of scrutiny lately - see link to a former government employee and journalist who is now a watchdog over Alaskan oil - http://www.finebergresearch.com/
During the recent presidential race here in the US, I was shocked at Governor Sarah Palin's "Drill Baby, Drill" reference. What an absolutely irresponsible thing to say. When many Americans are finally starting to give individual effort to reducing our dependence on oil by driving less, using other forms of heat besides oil furnaces, etc - the Alaska Governor stresses the need for more drilling to keep us oil dependent - whose side is she on and who exactly is she working for????
The Alaska pipeline is a huge tourist draw for Alaska, but many just see it as a "cool looking" structure. I will admit it is an amazing engineering feat, and they have tried to keep it as environmentally friendly as possible. But their claims that is not disruptive to the wildlife populations or to the delicate soils and vegetation is a bit hard to believe. On a recent trip to the interior of Alaska, I saw for myself the size of this huge structure, and also viewed many places where it crossed glacial streams, pristine landscapes, and migration grounds for many species of wildlife. What would happen to these areas if there was a rupture in the pipeline or some kind of malfunction? Most of these areas are far beyond any roads and it would take hours (if not days) for crews to get to the site to start repairing the damage. What would happen during that time? Irreversible damage to the natural landscape and wildlife?? We saw what happened with the Exxon Valdez!!!
We as Americans, need to give serious thoughts as to the world we want to leave for our children grandchildren, and their grandchildren. Will they get to see untouched wilderness areas, see birds and wildlife migrating on their annual journey, fish in streams of cold clear water? What about the Native peoples who depend on the land for their survival, what about their legacy for their children? Will the traditional cultures and way of life continue to be passed down or will they all have to move to the city to be able to find jobs and shop at grocery stores, their traditional ways of life gone forever? What will we choose?
Alaska is a state that has divided loyalties - on one hand is the vast pristine landscapes with untold richness of biodiversity, and the other hand holds the energy resources vital to our nation's economy and security.
Controversial actions abound in national politics and in the politics of local villages and towns. Should they open protected lands for energy exploration? It would mean jobs and money for many remote Native villages, but at what cost?? Many Native village people still depend on the land for their survival, just as their ancestors have done for thousands of years. The land is a part of them and their cultural well-being. It is a spiritual part of them that they can't ignore. What will happen to their way of life if they allow big oil companies to move in? What will happen to their culture? Will the land be forever changed to a point that it can no longer support their traditional way of living? Once the decision is made, there is no going back.
