The Dartmouth Beacon

As with the people of Kaktovik, other Alaskan Natives face mounting economic hardships as well. A 1968 report by the U.S. Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska concluded the following:

“Among Alaska Natives generally, more persons are unemployed or are seasonally employed than have permanent jobs. More than half of the work force is jobless most of the year; for them, food gathering activities provide basic subsistence. Only one-fourth of the work force has continuing employment...50 to 60 percent are jobless in March and September...At these times only half of those employed have permanent jobs . . . Year round jobs in most villages are few. Typically the opportunities are limited . . . adults gain income through the sale of furs, fish, or arts and crafts; find seasonal limited employment away from the villages . . . depend upon welfare payments, make their National Guard income stretch mightily; or, as usually is the case, provide for the bulk of their food supply by fishing, hunting and trapping, and other activities of food gathering; and rely upon a combination of means to obtain the cash needed for fuel, some food staples, and for tools and supplies necessary to the harvest of fish and wildlife.”

Things haven’t changed much since the date of the report. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska writes, “many of [the Natives] throughout Alaska [still] live in primitive living conditions because of a lack of funding for the basic needs most of us take for granted, like clean drinking water, flushing toilets, and other important health and safety needs.” Income levels have risen, no doubt, but have not kept pace with inflation or with the rest of the country. The gross state product of Alaska is a mere $26 billion, placing it 46th on the list of states. Although per capita income is one of the highest in the nation, poverty is rampant throughout the state, especially among the Natives. In the heart of Homer, Alaska, exists a slum for the poor.

Obviously, the level of development of a state’s two largest cities is a fairly good indicator of the state’s economic development. Anchorage and Fairbanks would barely qualify as cities on the mainland. Fairbanks almost entirely consists of low- and middle-income housing. Anchorage is probably a slightly larger version of Fairbanks. There are no rich suburbs of either city. There are no interstate highways and nearly all paved roads end outside the larger cities. Even the George Parks Highway that connects the two cities has only two lanes for the entire right of way and has no facilities whatsoever. Tourism has become an important source of revenue for the people but, again, this is primarily seasonal and barely lasts beyond a few months every year. From my personal observations and experiences in Alaska, I feel that something needs to be done about their level of poverty.
The biggest hurdle facing Alaskan natives, however, is the lack of education. Despite the tens of thousands of school age children in native communities, there are few schools in rural areas, with less than 100 offering education beyond grade 9. As we can expect, schools are chronically over-crowded, under-staffed and under-funded. The natives are unable to build more schools for lack of financial resources, resources with held from them by radical environmentalists on the mainland. Without education, they cannot find proper employment even in large cities. Without employment and a stable source of income, they are forced to live in sub-human conditions.

The people of Kaktovik, the sole inhabitants of ANWR, support oil drilling in the North Slope. The people of Alaska are also in favor of oil exploration. In a poll conducted by the Dittman Research Corporation, over 75% of the state’s residents were in favor of drilling. Even when told that there might not be any oil in the Reserve, an overwhelming 79% were optimistic that drilling would help them, compared to a mere 9% who were pessimistic. Arctic Power (AP), a non-profit citizens organization representing Alaskans and boasting over 10,000 members, sanctions drilling. AP has endorsements from many diverse groups: miners, fishermen, tourism operators, labor unions, banks, teachers and many others. Other citizens’ organizations that support ANWR drilling include: The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (the native corporation established by the Inupiat), the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, Kodiak Island Borough, North Slope Borough, Alaska AFL-CIO, Alaska Teamsters Local 959, Anchorage Central Labor Council…the list goes on ad nauseam. Virtually every local government supports drilling, and the Alaska State House and Senate have almost unanimously approved resolutions beseeching the federal government to begin oil exploration in ANWR.

Why are these people hell-bent on destroying our most treasured national preserve?

Kaktovik’s sole state representative, Al Adams, has been trying to convince “national leaders to allow oil and gas development in the coastal plain” for a long time. In an article in the Inuvik Drum, Adams makes the case for drilling. “The Caribou that dominate much of the debate migrate through this region during a six-week period each year,” he writes. “Wolves are found primarily in the foothills of the Brooks Range, generally within the region permanently protected.” In fact, the population of bowhead and beluga whales has been rebounding in recent years. According to a study conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Games, along with marine biologists and Alaska natives, the whale population has been growing at an astounding rate of three-and-a-half percent a year, despite drilling at Prudhoe. Interestingly, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. According to some reports, the Caribou have grown because of the oil installations in Prudhoe Bay provide a much needed source of heat for the herd. As National Review writer Jonah Goldberg indicates, “the caribou throng to the roads and gravel pads . . . they hide in the shade under the pipeline on the warm days, and . . . they cozy up to it for warmth in the winter.” The oil fields have very healthy bear, fox and other animal populations. Moreover, only 8% of ANWR would be considered for exploration with the remaining 17.5 million acres remaining closed. Out of this, a mere 2000 acres – less than one half of one percent of the reserve’s total land area – will be affected by the drilling.

From an economic perspective, oil production on the North Slope has enabled its residents to “school their children in their home villages . . . it has provided them with access to running water and the ability to install appropriate health care facilities within their villages … [they] have been able to move away from a welfare and subsistence-based economy,” writes Adams. More than $50 billion has been spent across North America in the wake of the development of the oil fields at Prudhoe, in addition to the thousands of jobs already created in Alaska and elsewhere.

Former Mayor of Kaktovik Benjamin P. Nageak writes, “the oil beneath the surface of ANWR can provide jobs, schools and a thriving economy for my people . . . ANWR holds resources that can be extracted safely with care and concern for the entire eco-system it encompasses. The Inupiat people, working through the North Slope Borough, will act in the same careful, caring and cautious manner we always have when dealing with our lands and the seas.”

More than 85% of Alaska’s annual revenues are derived from oil taxes and royalties. As we can expect, these revenues fund the development and maintenance of educational, health, social and industrial infrastructures of the state. Oil production in ANWR will add billions of dollars to the Alaskan and US economies. More than half a million jobs will be created by the development of the Coastal Plain.

Adams and Nagaek also explain that the tiered environmental standards for oil production in Alaska are some of the most stringent in the world. Federal, state and local laws and regulations combine to provide extensive protection for the environment. Advanced arctic oil extraction technologies not only protect the environment but also provide cost-effective means for oil development.

All of these reasons support oil exploration and we haven’t even talked about energy independence. Current oil development on the North Slope provides for almost 16% of the nation’s petroleum needs, down from a peak of 21% in 1988. Further oil development can only increase this percentage and make us less dependent on the exorbitantly expensive oil imported from the Middle East.

It is, thus, not surprising that Alaskans have voted for pro-exploration political candidates in all of their past Presidential elections and as the overwhelming majority of state and federal officials. Though it is the Republican Party which supports exploration in ANWR, even Democrats in Alaska are pro-drilling, including former Governor and Senate candidate Tony Knowles. It’s a bipartisan issue for them. It’s an issue that all Alaskans can agree upon.

We live in a democracy where the concept of local government is to provide local citizens an opportunity to decide their future. By preventing oil production in ANWR, we are depriving the peoples of Alaska one of their most basic constitutional rights. In the end, the question we have to ask ourselves is: Do we have the right to prevent the economic development of an entire people just because of the views of a few far-left environmentalist groups such as Sierra Club which have little or no interest, presence or support in Alaska? Drilling in ANWR cannot be shown to harm the environment, and both pressing human needs and democratic processes compel quick action to better the lives of Alaskan Natives.