Protesters hold signs at a protest inside JP Morgan Chase headquarters in Manhattan on Nov. 20. As Goldman Sachs divests from Arctic Oil explorations, Rainforest Action Network says the move shows other Big Banks like JP Morgan Chase can too. Erik McGregor / LightRocket / Getty Images
Goldman Sachs, one of the world's largest investment banks, gave a minor victory to the divestment movement by declaring that it will not fund an new arctic oil explorations, as CNN reported.
<p>Citing the importance of the Arctic's fragile ecosystem and its importance to indigenous populations, the investing giant said it will decline investing in any oil exploration in the Arctic, including the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Arctic-National-Wildlife-Refuge" rel="noopener noreferrer">Arctic National Wildlife Refuge</a>.</p>
<p>"Oil development in the Arctic Circle is prone to harsh operating conditions, sea ice, permafrost coverage, and potential impacts to critical natural habitats for endangered species," Goldman Sachs said in its <a href="https://www.goldmansachs.com/s/environmental-policy-framework/#climateChangeGuidelines" target="_blank">Environmental Policy Framework</a>. "The unique and fragile ecosystems of the Arctic region also support the subsistence livelihoods of indigenous peoples groups that have populated certain areas in the region for centuries."</p>
<p>Goldman Sachs also said in its <a href="https://www.goldmansachs.com/s/environmental-policy-framework/#climateChangeGuidelines" target="_blank">policy framework</a> that it would not finance any new thermal coal mines or any <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/mountaintop-removal" rel="noopener noreferrer">mountaintop removal</a> projects. It added that where it has already invested, it would work with companies to diversify their strategies and reduce their carbon emissions. </p>
<p>"Companies' diversification strategy and carbon emissions reduction initiatives will be a key consideration in our evaluation of future financings with the goal of helping their transition strategy," the <a href="https://www.goldmansachs.com/s/environmental-policy-framework/#climateChangeGuidelines" target="_blank">Environmental Policy Framework</a> says. "We will phase out our financing of thermal coal mining companies that do not have a diversification strategy within a reasonable timeframe."</p>
<p>Goldman Sachs follows a dozen <a href="https://www.banktrack.org/campaign/banks_that_ended_direct_finance_for_arctic_oil_andor_gas_projects#_" target="_blank">global banks</a>, based largely in Europe and Australia, that pledged not to finance Arctic <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-and-gas">oil and gas</a> development in the arctic. Several of the policies mention Arctic National Wildlife Refuge specifically, as <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/12/02/775439649/as-climate-warnings-grow-dire-energy-companies-face-a-new-frontier-of-threats" target="_blank">NPR</a> reported. Goldman is the first U.S. headquartered bank to make the same promise, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/investing/premarket-stocks-trading/" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p>
<p>"Goldman Sachs's updated policy shows that US banks can draw red lines on oil and gas, and now other major US banks, especially JPMorgan Chase – the world's worst banker of fossil fuels by a wide margin – must improve on what Goldman has done," said Jason Opeña Disterhoft, a climate and energy campaigner at Rainforest Action Network, <a href="https://www.ran.org/press-releases/goldman-sachs-adopts-fossil-finance-policy/" target="_blank">which helped to lobby for the change</a>, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/16/goldman-sachs-to-stop-financing-new-drilling-for-oil-in-the-arctic" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p>
<p>The move did win praise from environmental activists, including the Sierra Club, though it did not extend to fracking, which environmentalists had campaigned for. Nevertheless, the Sierra Club, which had lobbied Goldman Sachs to stop funding Arctic exploration, praised the bank's pledge. </p>
<p>"The Trump administration may not care about ignoring the will of the American people or trampling Indigenous rights, but a growing number of major financial institutions are making it clear that they do," said Ben Cushing, a Sierra Club campaign representative, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/16/goldman-sachs-to-stop-financing-new-drilling-for-oil-in-the-arctic" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. "We hope other American banks will follow their lead."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: <a href="https://twitter.com/GoldmanSachs?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GoldmanSachs</a> just became the first major American bank to prohibit financing for new Arctic oil, thermal coal mining, and coal power projects worldwide! 👏👏 <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DefundClimateChange?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DefundClimateChange</a> <a href="https://t.co/y023bKh2Gr">https://t.co/y023bKh2Gr</a></p>— Ben Cushing (@bmcushing) <a href="https://twitter.com/bmcushing/status/1206310459902758913?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><p>The divestment movement scored another large victory last week when insurance giant Liberty Mutual announced new policies that will see the company move away from protecting the coal industry. Liberty Mutual became the 18th global insurance company to put tighter restrictions on underwriting coal, according to the trade publication <a href="https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2019/12/16/liberty-mutual-announces-restrictions-to-coal-coverage-and-investing/?slreturn=20191116092313" target="_blank">Property Casualty 360</a>.</p><p>Liberty Mutual said it will no longer underwrite risk for companies where more than a quarter of their risk comes from coal, nor will it invest in the stock of companies that have more than 25 percent of their portfolio in coal, and it will phase out its coverage and its investments in any country that does not meet that threshold, according to a company <a href="https://www.libertymutualgroup.com/about-lm/news/articles/liberty-mutual-insurance-appoints-first-chief-sustainability-officer-oversee-continued-development-environmental-social-and-governance-agenda" target="_blank">statement</a>. </p><p>"We are committed to being a responsible global corporate citizen with a focus on environmental sustainability, supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy and investing in companies that show proven progress in this evolution," said Francis Hyatt, the company's newly appointed Chief Sustainability Officer, in the <a href="https://www.libertymutualgroup.com/about-lm/news/articles/liberty-mutual-insurance-appoints-first-chief-sustainability-officer-oversee-continued-development-environmental-social-and-governance-agenda" target="_blank">statement</a>. "We understand the shift from coal to clean energy is a journey and we recognize the role the insurance industry plays in supporting that evolution for our customers.</p><p>Activists welcomed the commitment from Liberty Mutual, but worried about the loopholes it created for itself. </p><p>"While Liberty Mutual's new policy sets out strong restrictions on insuring coal companies, it apparently does not rule out covering new coal-fired power plants or coal mines from companies with less than a 25 per cent stake in coal," said Elana Sulkshana, Rainforest Action Network's energy finance campaigner, in a statement, as <a href="https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3084685/insurer-liberty-mutual-halts-underwriting-for-coal-firms" target="_blank">Business Green</a> reported. "This is a major loophole because, to keep warming below 1.5C, the science is clear that the climate cannot withstand any new coal projects."</p><p>"Liberty Mutual must strengthen its policy to clearly rule out insuring any new coal mines or power plants, fully phase out coal across all insurance and investment activities in line with 1.5 C, and stop insuring the destructive tar sands sector," she added.</p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
For This Polluting Industry, the Trump Shutdown Is Still 'Business as Usual'
09 January 2019
Politics
Sow and cub polar bears in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska.
The government shutdown has left thousands of federal employees without a paycheck, but the Trump administration is making sure energy companies can continue with plans to extract fossil fuels from public lands.
Even though the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is closed during the shutdown, agency employees organized public meetings for an environmental review for oil drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), according to Alaska's Energy Desk.
<p>
The report said:
</p><blockquote style="margin-left: 20px;">
Emails obtained by Alaska's Energy Desk show that on Jan. 3—13 days into the shutdown—Bureau of Land Management project coordinator Nicole Hayes wrote to community leaders in Alaska to schedule public meetings for the ongoing environmental review process needed to allow oil lease sales in the Arctic refuge.
<br>
<br>
When contacted Friday by Alaska's Energy Desk, Hayes' email account sent an automatic reply: "Due to the lapse in funding of the federal government budget, I am out of the office. I am not authorized to work during this time, but will respond to your email when I return to the office."
</blockquote><p>
<span></span>The department also moved ahead with public meetings surrounding more oil development in the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/alaska-oil-gas-lease-sale-2623304775.html" target="_blank">National Petroleum Reserve Alaska</a>, the report said.
</p><p>
BLM is using remaining funds from the previous fiscal year to pay for the work, BLM Alaska director Ted Murphy told Energy Desk in a statement.</p><p>Drilling in the pristine, federally protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—home caribou herds, polar bears, grizzlies and other unique species—had been off limits for decades, but the Trump administration has <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-oil-drilling-trump-2615086605.html" target="_self">aggressively pushed</a> for Arctic drilling projects on land and water under the guise of "energy dominance." <br></p><p>What's more,
<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-08/trump-is-giving-oil-industry-a-bye-in-shutdown-critics-allege" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported that the Interior Department is also issuing permits for oil companies to drill wells in the Gulf of Mexico during the government freeze.<br></p><p>
"The oil industry is still getting business as usual and everybody else is getting shut out, so it's fundamentally not fair and it may be illegal too," Matt Lee-Ashley, a former deputy chief of staff at the Interior Department, told Bloomberg.
</p><p>Not all energy projects are moving forward during the shutdown. Environmental reviews of Dominion's
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/atlantic-coast-pipeline">Atlantic Coast pipeline</a> and TransCanada's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/keystone-xl">Keystone XL pipeline</a> have also been stalled by the shutdown, as well as permits to conduct <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/seismic-blasting-lawsuit-trump-2624052395.html">seismic blasting in the Atlantic</a>, Bloomberg reported. </p><p>Meanwhile—as the Trump-caused shutdown continues in its third week—garbage, human waste and vandals are destroying our National Parks, another bureau of the Department of the Interior.<br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="c21d6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="D345CB1576662589"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1083009793730768896" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Joshua Tree Closes because of damage during government shutdown. Park Rangers stated that "there have been incident… https://t.co/KHnyIqZkmw</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1083009793730768896">1547044630.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>Following the reports, Rep. Raúl Grijalva, the new chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, sought answers from David Bernhardt, the acting head of the Interior Department.<br></p><p>
In a
<a href="https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/ktoo/2019/01/Sharp5141%40mail.house_.gov_20190107_155615.pdf?_ga=2.129142923.647965182.1546968322-1183775739.1546968322" target="_blank">letter</a> sent Monday, Grijalva questioned why public meetings for the two Arctic energy projects moved ahead even though most agency staff have been furloughed and the Interior is reportedly not responding to public inquires on the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska planning process.
</p><p>
"Notice that the Reserve meetings were still occurring was only provided to stakeholders the day before the first one was held, and information about the Arctic Refuge meetings is currently only available through news reports," the Democrat of Arizona wrote.
</p><p>
"Asking people to comment on two major development processes in the Arctic with huge potential environmental and human consequences without anyone in the agency able to answer questions defeats the purpose of the public participation process," he added.
</p><p>
Grijalva demanded a response by this Friday, as even with reduced BLM staff, "there should be no difficulty having those employees provide responses to these questions" since the employees still appear to be working on oil development projects. </p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="3d6cb" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="Q42HF81576662589"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1082487128582434816" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">As #GovernmentShutdown Drags on, #NationalParks Will Use Entrance Fees to Take Out Trash https://t.co/PJsXcfSmQ6 @DeSmogBlog @NRDems</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1082487128582434816">1546920017.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Read More
Show Less
Northeast National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Bob Wick / BLM
Despite the Trump administration's unrelenting quest to drill the Arctic, Wednesday's oil and gas lease sale in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) yielded a "disappointing" return of $1.5 million, E&E News reported.
Oil and gas giants ConocoPhillips, Emerald House and Nordaq Energy were the three companies that made uncontested bids on 16 tracts of land out of 254 tracts made available by the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) annual sale in the western Arctic.
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="9583b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="S912A61576662604"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1072927915040362497" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Less than 10 min away from the 2018 National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Oil and Gas Lease Sale. Tune in at 10am (A… https://t.co/XUPJsdCrOW</div> — BLM Alaska (@BLM Alaska)<a href="https://twitter.com/BLMAlaska/statuses/1072927915040362497">1544640923.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
In all, the companies swooped up roughly 174,000 acres of the 2.85 million acres offered, working out to an average of just $6.50 an acre.
</p><p>
"Federal officials [cited] a lack of access to the most promising areas as a reason for the modest bidding," the <a href="https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2018/12/13/arctic-reserve-lease-sale-draws-limited-interest-but-one-new-company/" target="_blank">Anchorage Daily News</a> reported.
</p><p>But the <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/" target="_blank">Center for American Progress</a> said the result was a "major flop that shortchanged taxpayers" and also puts the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) environment at risk.
</p><p>
"These results show that the fiscal arguments—including promises of more than $1 billion, or bids of $1,000 per acre—made for drilling in the neighboring Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were a complete scam," the organization <a href="https://twitter.com/CAPenergypolicy/status/1073233146123087872" target="_blank">tweeted</a>. "Taxpayers are being sold a false bill of goods in the Arctic Refuge, and stand to lose America's last best wilderness in the process."
</p><p>
<span></span>The Trump administration is moving forward on its <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-refuge-drilling-trump-2561725554.html" target="_self">controversial oil and gas drilling plans</a> in the pristine Arctic reserve, a habitat for polar bears, caribou, migratory birds and other species.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTAwMTI1MS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjE1NTQyN30.ghK0udYMe_A2I2-z87SjtVB5XZyuIak1U3ycHjRlGeE/img.png?width=980" id="51259" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d36bc200cad3fed7fe12b76d1287a11b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="https://www.flickr.com/people/124982865@N08" target="_blank">U.S. Energy Information Administration</a></small>
</p><p>
Kristen Miller, the conservation director at the <a href="http://www.alaskawild.org/" target="_blank">Alaska Wilderness League</a>, similarly criticized Wednesday's "bargain sale," noting that "our public lands are worth more than that."
</p><p>
The sale is "just the next chapter in the current administration's all-out push to sell off the Arctic for oil and gas development," she added. "The Trump administration is aggressively pursuing development in the Arctic Refuge, the Arctic Ocean and the Western Arctic simultaneously, often on a rushed timeline with little to no new information gathering to inform decisions."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="2c17e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ROZWG11576662604"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="959436062115450880" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Trump: 'I Never Appreciated ANWR' Until Oil Industry Friend Called https://t.co/Dzq5wG8gUy #ANWR @IENearth @350… https://t.co/NsjxuY6m62</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/959436062115450880">1517582357.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>In October 2017, the Trump administration announced it will begin selling oil and gas leases on 900 tracts of land—totaling 10.3 million acres—within the NPR-A.<br></p><p>
"This large and unprecedented sale in Alaska will help achieve our goal of American Energy Dominance," Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke <a href="https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-offers-largest-number-tracts-ever-oil-gas-lease-sale-within-npr" target="_blank">touted</a> then.
</p><p>
But when auction day came around later that year, oil companies submitted bids on only <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-12-06/us-petroleum-reserve-lease-sale-in-alaska-draws-just-7-bids" target="_blank">seven tracts, totaling $1.16 million</a>.
</p><p>
"Once again Secretary Zinke has tried to throw open the Alaskan Arctic to drilling, and once again the oil and gas industry said they weren't interested," Jesse Prentice-Dunn, the <a href="http://westernpriorities.org/" target="_blank">Center for Western Priorities</a>' policy director, said in the statement Wednesday, as quoted by <a href="https://www.ktva.com/story/39633026/latest-offer-of-npra-leases-sees-light-bidding" target="_blank">KTVA</a>. "Today's underwhelming lease sale shows just how desperate the Trump administration is to mine and drill our public lands, regardless of how pristine those places may be."
</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
Sow and cub polar bears in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Alan D. Wilson/ Nature's Pics Online / CC BY-SA 3.0
The Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management office in Alaska received a plan to conduct extensive, 3-D seismic testing in search of oil on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) this winter.
The plan—submitted by surveying services SAExploration, Inc. and its partners Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation—is the first step in opening up Alaska's pristine refuge for oil exploration and drilling, the Washington Post reported.
<p>
Last year, Congress
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-refuge-drilling-2517635533.html">controversially</a> lifted a four-decade ban on energy development in ANWR after pro-drilling Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski buried the provision into the GOP tax bill that passed in December. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-anwr-oil-drilling-2530771183.html">President Trump</a> also claims he was the driving force behind the provision's inclusion.
</p><p>
The companies have requested a permit to survey an area encompassing 2,602 square miles, or the entire "1002 area" of the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain, which has an
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-refuge-drilling-trump-2561725554.html">estimated</a> 12 billion barrels of recoverable crude.
</p><p>
SAExploration said that "this partnership is dedicated to minimizing the effect of our operations on the environment."
</p><p>
<span></span>However, the Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) said the plan is "not adequate," the Post revealed. FWS said the application showed "a lack of applicable details for proper agency review." The department complained that the companies' permit application did not include any studies about the impacts of the seismic work and equipment on wildlife, the tundra or the aquatic conditions in the area.
</p><p>
"There is no documentation of environmental effects, whether positive or adverse," FWS said. According to the Post, the department's response shows no sign it will approve the request.
</p><p>
<span></span>The 1002 area is described by the <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2018/04/threatening-indigenous-rights-and-arctic-ecosystem-interior-launches-process" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a> as "the biological heart" of ANWR—home to polar bears, caribou, migratory birds and other species—as well as vital lands and wildlife for the subsistence way of life of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/how-drilling-in-anwr-would-threaten-the-gwichin-peoples-way-of-life-1882011846.html" target="_blank">Gwich'in Nation</a>.
</p><p>
After reviewing the proposal, the
<a href="http://www.alaskawild.org/" target="_blank">Alaska Wilderness League</a> criticized the companies' plan to conduct 3-D seismic exploration in the ecologically sensitive area:
</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
<span></span>The scars of the 2-D seismic testing completed on the coastal plain in 1984 and 1985 are still visible 30 years later. Modern seismic exploration, however, is done using a 3-D technique that requires a much denser grid of trails—the 1984-85 trails on the coastal plain were approximately four miles apart, while the 3-D seismic trails envisioned here would be a mere 660 feet apart. Seismic activities would involve convoys of 30-ton thumper trucks and bulldozers traveling over extensive areas of fragile tundra. These intrusive surface exploration activities—typically employed year after year throughout the life of an oil field—would cause severe and long-lasting damage to the Arctic Refuge.
</p><p>
The organization also noted that the SAExploration seismic plan could threaten polar bears:
</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
The plan makes no mention of Endangered Species Act consultation—only incidental harassment authorization—related to polar bears. This despite the Southern Beaufort Sea population's status as threatened, its 40 percent reduction in population size over the first decade of the 2000s, and the increasing presence of mothers and cubs denning along the coastal plain due to loss of sea ice from climate change.
</p><p>
"This is the polar opposite of what was promised by drilling proponents. Instead of a small footprint and a careful process, they want to deploy a small army of industrial vehicles and equipment with a mandate to crisscross every square inch of the Refuge's biological heart," Adam Kolton, executive director at Alaska Wilderness League, said in a statement.
</p><p>
"This scheme will put denning polar bears at risk and leave lasting scars on the fragile tundra and its vegetation, and that's before a single drill rig has been placed or length of pipeline installed."
</p><p>
The group also noted that the seismic plan promises to mitigate conflicts with subsistence users, but only mentions coordination with only the village of Kaktovik, and did not mention coordination with the Gwich'in.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="780a0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="EIPAYK1576662103"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="996510559574155264" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Investors Controlling $2.5 Trillion Stand With Indigenous People Against Trump Plan to Drill 'Sacred' Arctic Refuge… https://t.co/ggRjhskZaM</div> — Sierra Club (@Sierra Club)<a href="https://twitter.com/SierraClub/statuses/996510559574155264">1526421606.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Investors Controlling $2.5 Trillion Stand With Indigenous People Against Trump Plan to Drill 'Sacred' Arctic Refuge
15 May 2018
Popular
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Steven Chase, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
By Julia Conley
An indigenous group was joined by investors controlling trillions of dollars in assets on Monday as they called for fossil fuel companies and the banks that fund them to end efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—making clear that harming the protected land is bad for business as well as destructive to indigenous groups' land and the environment.
<p>"We strongly urge banks and oil and gas companies to honor their fiduciary duty to investors and refuse to engage in drilling in the Arctic Refuge," the investors<a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/blog/Investor%20Arctic%20National%20Wildlife%20Refuge%20Letter%205.11.pdf" target="_blank"> wrote. </a>"We, as investors, encourage expanding support for the wide range of clean energy solutions and sustainable industries in Alaska, instead of helping to destroy this natural wonder."</p><p>The diverse group of investors included religious endowments like the Episcopal Church and the Dominican Sisters, asset management groups, and healthcare companies, whose combined assets amount to $2.52 trillion.</p><p>Their letter echoed grave concerns raised by environmentalists and the indigenous people of the area. About 7,000 Gwich'in people <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/anwr-the-great-divide-69848411/" target="_blank">live near </a>the refuge and rely on the caribou that roam there for sustenance. The local tribe calls the refuge "The Sacred Place Where Life Begins," and have demanded that the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration protect the refuge from the fossil fuel industry instead of opening it to oil and gas development, as Republicans in Congress <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/365772-congress-votes-to-open-alaska-refuge-to-oil-drilling" target="_blank">voted</a> to do last December.</p><p>"It is both deeply unethical and unwise to permanently destroy lands vital to the culture and existence of the Gwich'in to pursue this high-risk gamble," wrote the Gwich'in Steering Committee in its <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/press-room/Gwich%27in%20Steering%20Committee%252FGreen%20Group%20Sign%20on%20Letter%20%281%29.pdf" target="_blank">own letter</a>, which was co-signed by more than 100 green campaigners and indigenous rights groups. "Any oil company or bank that supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge faces enormous reputational risk and public backlash. Their brands would be associated with trampling on human rights, destroying one of the world's last remaining intact wild places, and contributing to the climate crisis."</p><p>The letters from the groups come after the Trump administration last month took its first <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/04/20/showing-total-disregard-indigenous-rights-and-public-wishes-trump-moves-open-alaska" target="_blank">major step</a> toward opening the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas development, when the Interior Department began its environmental review to determine the effects of drilling with the goal of beginning to sell drilling leases to oil companies.</p><p>"The Trump administration has made it clear that they've already made up their minds to sell off the Sacred Place Where Life Begins," Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the <a href="http://ourarcticrefuge.org" target="_blank">Gwich'in Steering Committee</a>, said in a statement. "Drilling in the Arctic Refuge would permanently destroy the primary food source of the Gwich'in people, our culture, and our way of life. Now we must call on oil companies and the banks that fund them to stand with the Gwich'in and leave this pristine and fragile place intact. The survival of my people depends on it."</p><p>More than 70 percent of Americans oppose drilling in the refuge, <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-oppose-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge/" target="_blank">according to</a> the <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu" target="_blank">Yale Program on Climate Change Communication</a>, a fact noted by both the investors and the Gwich'in Steering Committee.</p><p>"The Gwich'in, the American people, and, now, some of the world's most significant investors are demanding the Arctic Refuge remain the pristine and sacred place it has been for generations," said Michael Brune, executive director of the <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a>. "Corporate polluters and the banks that fund them must decide if they want to side with the public, human rights and environmental advocates, and climate justice by pledging to stay out of the Arctic Refuge, or whether they want to lose the support of millions of people and trillions in funds while threatening the future of our communities and our planet."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="7d1c6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="BNASQ81576662095"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="987319963311591424" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Trump Admin Begins Process to Open Pristine Arctic Refuge for Drilling https://t.co/sSscDQwdrt @billmckibben… https://t.co/ZT4ehh9SyV</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/987319963311591424">1524230397.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/05/14/investors-controlling-25-trillion-stand-indigenous-people-against-trump-plan-drill" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Interior Moves to Sell Oil Leases in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ›
- Trump Admin Pushes Final Drilling Plan for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Polar Bear sow and two cubs in the Arctic Refuge's 1002 area targeted for oil drilling. Wikimedia Commons
The Interior Department has launched the process of holding lease sales for oil and gas drilling in the 1.6-million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Despite decades of fierce resistance from Democrats and conservation groups, pro-drilling Republicans were able to realize their goal of opening the refuge after quietly including the measure in last year's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
<p>
A notice published Friday in the Federal Register starts the 60-day public scoping period to assist in the preparation of an environmental impact statement for the
<a href="https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/alaska/coastal-plain-eis">leasing program</a>.
</p><p>
The sale targets the 1002 area on the Prudhoe Bay in Northern Alaska, which has an estimated 12 billion barrels of recoverable crude. The area is described by the
<a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2018/04/threatening-indigenous-rights-and-arctic-ecosystem-interior-launches-process" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a> as "the biological heart" of the Arctic Refuge—home to polar bears, caribou, migratory birds and other species—as well as vital lands and wildlife for the subsistence way of life of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/how-drilling-in-anwr-would-threaten-the-gwichin-peoples-way-of-life-1882011846.html">Gwich'in Nation</a>.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzU4MDQwOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNDMzODI1Mn0.v3dPAwkAsAhPAsRgp53fpZXpGDgrwJC5Qm77KIlICmg/img.jpg?width=980" id="437a9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="00ec840a36c6a4d5476dbe0c89e00e6d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p><p>
Environmental groups condemned the plan, calling it "shameful" that it would be published just before the eighth anniversary of the
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/deepwater-horizon">Deepwater Horizon oil spill</a> in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.
</p><p>
"The
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration's reckless dash to expedite drilling and destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will only hasten a trip to the courthouse," Jamie Rappaport Clark, president of <a href="https://defenders.org/" target="_blank">Defenders of Wildlife</a>, said in a statement. "We will not stand by and watch them desecrate this fragile landscape."
</p><p>
In a statement, Assistant Interior Secretary Joe Balash called the drilling plan "an important facet for meeting our nation's energy demands and achieving energy dominance."
</p><p>
"This scoping process begins the first step in developing a responsible path forward. I look forward to personally visiting the communities most affected by this process and hearing their concerns," Balash added.
</p><p>
Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who has long fought to open the refuge, said in a joint statement with other Alaskan lawmakers that drilling would "help ensure the energy and economic security of our nation."
</p><p>
In February,
President Trump spoke
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-anwr-oil-drilling-2530771183.html">about his indifference</a> on the matter until an oil industry friend told him that past presidents, including conservative icon Ronald Reagan, couldn't get drilling done. He then directed lawmakers to put the provision in the tax bill.
</p><p>
"I never appreciated ANWR so much," Trump said during a speech at a Republican retreat in West Virginia. "A friend of mine called up who is in that world and in that business. He said, 'Is it true that you're thinking about ANWR?' I said 'Yeah, I think we're going to get it but you know …' He said, 'Are you kidding? That's the biggest thing by itself. Ronald Reagan and every president has wanted to get ANWR approved.' And after that I said 'Oh, make sure that is in the bill. It was amazing how that had an impact."
</p><p>
He made similar remarks a month later at the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="282b21e44d7271e6571a737524ee5496"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F_LB-XTBKXI?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
</p><p>
The purpose of the public scoping process is to assist the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in identifying relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental impact statement and guide its development. It may also inform post-lease activities, including seismic and drilling exploration, development, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the coastal plain. </p><p>
The bureau has invited the public to provide comments on scoping issues and will hold public scoping meetings in Anchorage, Arctic Village, Fairbanks, Kaktovik and Utqiaġvik at times and locations to be announced in local media, newspapers and on the BLM website.
</p><p>
Comments will be accepted through June 19, 2018, and can be sent by any of the following methods:
</p><p>
Website:
<a href="https://www.blm.gov/alaska/coastal-plain-eis" target="_blank">www.blm.gov/alaska/coastal-plain-eis</a><br>
Email:
<a href="mailto:blm_ak_coastalplain_EIS@blm.gov" target="_blank">blm_ak_coastalplain_EIS@blm.gov</a><br>
Mail: Attn: Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program EIS
<br>
222 West 7th Avenue, Stop #13
<br>
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Caribou graze on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Trump administration is initiating the regulatory process of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and natural gas leasing.
Top Interior Department officials recently visited the Kaktovik and Utgiagvik communities in northern Alaska to let them know that the agency will publish in the coming weeks a notice in the Federal Register of its intent to move toward an environmental impact statement on planned leasing, the Anchorage Daily News reported.
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="1d3c7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2X0PCV1576683841"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="971426844745412608" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The North Slope Borough Assembly meeting in Utqiaġvik had a special visitor yesterday. Deputy Secretary of the Inte… https://t.co/XYmLj9JJsM</div> — Ravenna Koenig (@Ravenna Koenig)<a href="https://twitter.com/vennkoenig/statuses/971426844745412608">1520441182.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p style="">
Interior Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt relayed similar details at an industry gathering in Anchorage later in the week, where he
<a href="https://www.ktoo.org/2018/03/08/trump-official-says-interior-aims-move-pretty-quickly-arctic-refuge-oil-development/" target="_blank">said</a>, "We expect to move pretty quickly on that project."
</p><p style="">
<span></span>Additionally, Sen. <a href="http://thehill.com/people/daniel-sullivan" target="_blank">Dan Sullivan</a> (R-Alaska) <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/376810-alaska-senator-arctic-refuge-drilling-sale-could-start-next-year">said</a> at the CERAWeek oil industry conference in Houston that lease sales could start as early as next year, which would beat the 2021 deadline set in last year's Republican tax bill.
</p><p style="">
"It's my hope, and this is a very aggressive timeline, that we would have the first lease sale ... to be sometime in 2019," Sullivan told the audience.
</p><p style="">
Despite the majority of Americans
<a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2017/most_oppose_anwr_drilling" target="_blank">opposing</a> ANWR drilling, Congress and President Trump lifted a 40-year drilling ban on the refuge after the GOP tax bill was approved in December.
</p><p style="">
This "<a href="http://wilderness.org/blog/how-did-your-senators-vote-arctic-refuge-drilling" target="_blank">backdoor drilling provision</a>," as environmentalists have dubbed it, was added to the tax reform package to secure the key vote of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who introduced the measure and has <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-drilling-alaska-murkowski-2508047461.html" target="_blank">long backed</a> the cause.
</p><p style="">
Pro-drilling Republicans have targeted the 1002 area on the Prudhoe Bay in Northern Alaska, which has an estimated 12 billion barrels of recoverable crude. <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2017/senate-vote-threatens-to-advance-oil-drilling-in-america-s-arctic" target="_blank">However</a>, the targeted coastal plain hosts migratory bird species and endangered <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife" target="_blank">wildlife</a> and is considered to be sacred to the indigenous Gwich'in people, who sustain themselves from the caribou that migrate there.
</p><p style="">
Environmental organizations responded to the latest news with harsh criticism and condemned the administration for failing to meet with the Gwich'in nation.
</p><p style="">
"Not only is this administration doing the unconscionable by attempting to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but it is moving forward in the most reckless, irresponsible way," <a href="https://defenders.org/" target="_blank">Defenders of Wildlife</a> president and CEO Jamie Rappaport Clark said in a statement. "This headlong rush toward leasing is an egregious sellout to the oil industry that would desecrate the irreplaceable wildlife habitat of the Arctic refuge's coastal plain."
</p><p style="">
"Drilling and associated industrial activity would put polar bears, caribou, migratory birds and hundreds of other species that live on the coastal plain at incredible risk, while also threatening the livelihood of the native Gwich'in people, whose culture and way of life depends on these resources," she continued. "By now, no one should be fooled by the Alaska delegation's false promises that leasing will follow a robust, lawful public engagement process. Two out of three Americans agree: the Arctic refuge is no place for oil drilling. We will fight this appalling proposal at every turn."
</p><p style="">
The <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a> said the action would give the area over to the oil industry, while ignoring the place's importance to the Gwich'in Nation, create permanent drilling damage to one of the country's last wild places, and cause irreversible <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change">climate</a> impacts in a state already warming at twice the rate of the rest of the country.
</p><p>
"We stand with the Gwich'in Nation in defense of this sacred place. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is unique in its wildness and in the connection it offers to the unspoiled natural world, even for those who may never set foot there," Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said in a statement.
</p><p style="">
"We have a moral obligation to safeguard the Arctic Refuge from destructive drilling, and we will fight this plan every step of the way. We will not stand idly by as
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ryan-zinke">Ryan Zinke</a>'s Department of the Interior runs roughshod over human rights and climate justice in their zeal to give away this special place to the dirty fuels industry."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed" style="">
</p><div id="a7613" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5VO4VY1576683841"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="938077604812349441" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Majority of U.S. Public Against Drilling ANWR; Oil Experts Think Economics Are 'Suspect' https://t.co/odRE3mDKsN… https://t.co/LclQUBsjFx</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/938077604812349441">1512490104.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Caribou graze on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with the Brooks Range as a backdrop. USFWS / Flickr
The political battle over whether to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ( ANWR) for oil and gas exploration has raged for decades. Despite the majority of Americans opposing drilling in ANWR, pro-drilling Republicans have tried more than 50 times open up the pristine wilderness to energy development.
But President Trump was apparently indifferent to the matter until an oil industry friend told him that past presidents, including conservative icon Ronald Reagan, couldn't get drilling done.
<p>
"I never appreciated ANWR so much," Trump said Thursday during a speech at a Republican retreat in West Virginia. "A friend of mine called up who is in that world and in that business. He said, 'Is it true that you're thinking about ANWR?' I said 'Yeah, I think we're going to get it but you know …' He said, 'Are you kidding? That's the biggest thing by itself. Ronald Reagan and every president has wanted to get ANWR approved.' And after that I said 'Oh, make sure that is in the bill. It was amazing how that had an impact."
</p><p>
Congress lifted a 40-year drilling ban on the refuge after the Republican tax reform bill was approved in December. This "
<a href="http://wilderness.org/blog/how-did-your-senators-vote-arctic-refuge-drilling" target="_blank">backdoor drilling provision</a>," as environmentalists have dubbed it, was added to the tax reform package to secure the key vote of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who introduced the measure and has <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-drilling-alaska-murkowski-2508047461.html" target="_blank">long championed</a> the cause.
</p><p>
Trump's remarks, however, implied that he was the driving force behind the provision's inclusion.
</p><p>
"I really didn't care about it," he said. "Then when I heard that everybody wanted it, for 40 years, everybody tried to get it approved, 'Make sure you don't lose ANWR.'"
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d2a6fbe489c7b1f635621169dcedde27"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nzruXx_wr94?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
</p><p>
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the largest
<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-lands" target="_blank">protected wilderness</a> in the U.S., consists of more than 19 million acres of pristine landscapes and is home to 37 species of land mammals, eight marine mammals, 42 fish species and more than 200 migratory bird species.
</p><p>
Republicans have targeted the so-called 1002 area on the Prudhoe Bay in Northern Alaska, which has an estimated 12 billion barrels of recoverable crude.
</p><p>
Adam Kolton, the executive director of <a href="http://www.alaskawild.org/" target="_blank">Alaska Wilderness League</a>, was critical of Trump's remarks.
</p><p>
"It's clear from President Trump's remarks that jamming Arctic Refuge drilling in the tax bill was always about politics and not a thoughtful energy policy," Kolton said. "President Trump should care that he signed a bill reversing not a Democratic policy, but protections that date back to Republican presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt. This is a retreat from the GOP great conservation legacy."
</p><p>
<span></span>"Donald Trump might not care but millions of Americans do, and always have," he continued. "They care about protecting our last great wilderness. They care about the subsistence culture of the Gwich'in people whose way of life is now threatened. And they care about the polar bears, caribou and millions of migratory birds in this cherished landscape. They also care about the future of our climate, and do not want to see us squeeze every drop of oil out of our national parks and refuges just to increase our exports to places like China."</p><p><span></span>But Trump might care about ANWR more than he let on. After the speech, Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) told <a href="https://www.alaskapublic.org/2018/02/01/trump-really-didnt-care-about-anwr-then-a-friend-called/" target="_blank">Alaska Public Media</a> that the president has cared about ANWR since at least last March. He and Sen. Murkowski even briefed Trump for nearly an hour on state issues and their request to open the refuge to drilling.
</p><p>
"After that meeting," Sullivan said, "Seeing him in different settings and stuff, a number of times, a number times, he would ask, 'Hey Dan, how are we doing on ANWR? We going to get that done?'"
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="cd2d4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1AF9091576683856"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="943843169225134080" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Why Americans Will Never Agree on Oil Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge https://t.co/MwRsNsLxW7 #ANWR… https://t.co/sXERHk8Txh</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/943843169225134080">1513864721.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Monroe Journal / iStock
By Sam Schipani
While the world was distracted by the government shutdown last Monday, Jan. 22, Interior Sec. Ryan Zinke signed a land-swap agreement with the King Cove Native Corporation to trade 500 acres of federal land in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, on the southern tip of the Alaska Peninsula, for tribal land of equal value. The land will be used to build a 20-mile gravel road connecting King Cove to the nearby city of Cold Bay for medical evacuations in poor weather, 11 miles of which will pass through the wildlife refuge.
<p style="">Although many Alaskan legislators and King Cove residents celebrated the agreement, the land swap has faced opposition from environmental groups, subsistence communities and sportsmen. Izembek National Wildlife Refuge was the first area in the U.S. to be named a Wetland of International Importance at the <a href="https://www.ramsar.org/" target="_blank">Ramsar Convention</a> in 1986. Even though it is the smallest of the 16 national wildlife refuges located in Alaska, Izembek contains more than 200 wildlife species, including brown bears and caribou. Millions of migratory birds, including <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060070369" target="_blank">98 percent of the world's Pacific black brants and the entire global population of emperor geese</a>, rely on the vast stores of eel grass in the lagoons to feed during their journey along the Pacific Flyway.</p><p style="">"It is a very unique and extremely important ecosystem," said Nicole Wittington-Evans, Alaska regional director of the Wilderness Society. The road "would really change the entire feel and wilderness character of this area."</p><p style="">Subsistence communities in western Alaska, who have been involved in the area's conservation efforts since the early 1980s, have also spoken out against the project. In an April 2017 statement against the road project to House Committee on Natural Resources, Myron P. Naneng, chair of the Sea Lion Village Corporation Board, cited impacts to subsistence resources like waterfowl and fish, increased ATV use, and the federal government's legal obligation to subsistence communities under the <a href="https://www.doi.gov/subsistence" target="_blank">Federal Subsistence Management Program</a> as reasons the road project should not be built.</p><p>"Virtually the entire populations of Brant and Emperor geese depend on the Izembek refuge for feeding and staging, and because there are other effective transportation alternatives for King Cove, we cannot support this land exchange and road," Naneng said.</p><p>Wilderness advocates worry that, in addition to the localized impacts, a road through the Izembek refuge could open a precedent for other infrastructure projects in federally designated wilderness areas.</p><p style="">"When you build a road, invariably, in spite of all the promises and safeguards that are made, ultimately it becomes a public road," said Francis Mauer, retired wildlife biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska chapter representative from Wilderness Watch. There is a historical precedent for this in Alaska. During the development of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, Dalton Highway (originally called the Haul Road) was only intended to be used to support pipeline construction and to access the northern oil fields. Despite those promises, the road was <a href="http://dnr.alaska.gov/Assets/uploads/DNRPublic/parks/interp/pdf/daltonhwyscenisbywaycorridor.pdf" target="_blank">fully opened to the public in 1994</a>. Although the road through Izembek would be built under the auspice of providing access to medical services, it could also be used to connect the King Cove cannery operations to the Cold Bay Airport, as originally proposed in the city's 1994 resolution.</p><p>Sportsmen are also concerned about the road. Barry Whitehall, a board member for the Alaska chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, wrote in <a href="http://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-a-backdoor-land-swap-to-build-in-alaskan-wilderness" target="_blank">High Country News</a> in October 2017 that "any hunter who has experienced the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge ... will never forget it." He continued, "Construction of a road through the heart of Izembek's wilderness lands would set a precedent endangering refuges and wilderness areas everywhere."</p><p>Under the <a href="https://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm" target="_blank">1964 Wilderness Act</a>, new roads and motorized vehicle use are banned in wilderness areas, save for rare instances of providing access to mining claims. All but 15,000 of the 315,000-acre Izembek National Wildlife Refuge has been inaccessible to motorized traffic since Congress designated it wilderness in 1980 under the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/39" target="_blank">Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act</a>—the same law that designated wilderness in the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-refuge-drilling-2517635533.html">Arctic National Wildlife Refuge</a>, in which Congress lifted a decades-old ban on oil and gas drilling in December.</p><p style="">The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has <a href="https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_7/NWRS/Zone_1/Izembek/PDF/03%20Chapter%201%20Purpose%20and%20Need.pdf" target="_blank">reviewed and rejected the road project multiple times</a> due to the irreparable damage it would cause to the ecosystems in the refuge. After Congress authorized a similar land exchange in 2009, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a four-year environmental impact assessment and rejected the project in 2013 due to the predicted adverse effects on habitats and wildlife.</p><p style="">"Simply exchanging lands will not compensate for myriad ripple effects on habitat and wildlife due to uses on and beyond the road, nor would new lands provide habitat for all the same species," the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/02/06/2013-02618/final-environmental-impact-statement-izembek-national-wildlife-refuge-proposed-land-exchangeroad" target="_blank">report</a> says.</p><p>King Cove, population 938, according to the 2010 census, is largely occupied by the Agdaagux tribe and fisherpeople. Its economy depends on the year-round commercial fishing and seafood-processing industries, particularly the <a href="http://www.ppsf.com/" target="_blank">Peter Pan Seafoods</a> facility that employs at least 500 townspeople and boasts to be one of the largest cannery operations in Alaska.</p><p>The area is also known for its storms—King Cove sits in a constricted mountain valley nestled between two volcanic peaks. Gale-force winds are common, making air transportation in and out of town difficult. The city reported 18 deaths in the past 30 years attributed to plane crashes or lack of access to medical treatment. The proposed road would connect the town to the all-weather Cold Bay Airport, where King Cove residents can fly 600 miles to Anchorage for medical care.</p><p>"We have spent decades fighting for this road for one reason—it is critical for our survival," said Della Trumble, spokeswoman for the King Cove Native Corporation and a member of the local Agdaagux tribe, in the King Cove press release on the topic. "We have already lost too many friends and loved ones for there to be any legitimate reason to oppose this agreement. A small road connecting two remote communities may not seem like an important issue to many people, but to us, it is a lifeline to the outside world."</p><p style="">The gravel road, however, may not be the best solution for the community's medical needs. Dr. Peter Mjos, former medical director for the Eastern Aleutian Tribes, described the road as a "calamity-in-waiting" in a 2013 letter to then-Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. "Any vehicle or ambulance attempting transit or rescue in such conditions could be suicidal, rescue impossible, rescuers gravely imperiled," Mjos detailed.</p><p style="">The federal government has proposed numerous alternatives to the road. Congress funded a hovercraft for the community in 1998, but the Aleutians East Borough discontinued its use in 2011, claiming it could no longer afford the $1 million in annual operating costs. A <a href="https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=D8EA08E9-75F1-4D79-A833-87EE91616819" target="_blank">2015 assessment by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers</a> proposed a ferry capable of carrying passengers to Cold Bay year-round with 99 percent dependability based on historic wind data along the projected route. Mjos also described the ferry as "the safest, most reliable, most viable, and most cost-effective medical evacuation solution for the residents of King Cove."</p><p style="">There may be more than just medicine motivating the road's construction. The city of King Cove passed a <a href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2014/03/24/document_gw_05.pdf" target="_blank">resolution</a> in 1994 stating that the road would link the salmon cannery in King Cove with Cold Bay Airport with no mention of the health and safety concerns. Alaskan politicians throughout the years have cited the commercial benefits of the King Cove road as the raison d'être for its construction—only recently has the issue of access to health care come into play.</p><p style="">Certain Alaskan legislators have long been invested in the King Cove road project. Following the agreement's signing, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the Alaskan Republican, convened Zinke, King Cove residents, Gov. Bill Walker, Sen. Dan Sullivan and Rep. Don Young for a news conference to celebrate the achievement. The <a href="https://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/Timeline%20-%20History%20of%20the%20Proposed%20Road%20Through%20Izembek%20National%20Wildlife%20Refuge.pdf" target="_blank">Murkowski family has advocated for legislative action to make the King Cove road</a> a reality for two decades. The current senator's father, Sen. Frank Murkowski, first introduced the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/senate-bill/1092" target="_blank">King Cove Health and Safety Act</a>, which would have allowed construction of the road, in 1997. Then-president Bill Clinton threatened to veto the bill, but it ultimately died in the House. In 2007, Sen. Murkowski reignited the debate with a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/1680" target="_blank">proposed bill for a land exchange</a>, and has been working toward bringing the road to fruition ever since.</p><p>Murkowski is one of the leading Senate voices on rolling back protections for federal land. She has consistently advocated for increasing oil and gas production in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and spearheaded a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3203?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22sa+838%22%5D%7D" target="_blank">2016 bill</a> to favor oil and gas development and prevent conservation designations on federal lands in Alaska. Now, she has support from the top.</p><p style="">The King Cove road project "is [the Trump administration] taking its chance, like it's done on a host of other conservation issues," said Dan Ritzman, Alaska program director at the Sierra Club. "This administration, which is willing to do and try anything, gave Senator Murkowski this window to move on this action."</p><p>The King Cove road project has received a surprising amount of attention from the White House. The Washington Post first reported on the inner workings for the deal, which was described by Interior officials as an internal "<a href="http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/interior-officials-describe-izembek-land-exchange-as-push-from-zinkes-office/2584/" target="_blank">push</a>" from Zinke, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interior-looks-at-behind-the-scenes-land-swap-to-allow-road-through-wilderness-refuge/2017/10/15/c6458380-aeb7-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.1f189e8cfa8d" target="_blank">in October</a>. According to <a href="http://media10.washingtonpost.com/generic/media/document_cloud/document/pdf/izdoclink7.pdf" target="_blank">emails</a> obtained by the Defenders of Wildlife in a series of Freedom of Information Act requests, Interior officials made a concerted effort to conceal the plan in fear of how the public would respond. But President Trump reportedly took personal interest in the issue after The Washington Post's story was published. He reportedly sent a <a href="https://twitter.com/eilperin/status/955491469527339008" target="_blank">copy of the paper to Murkowski with the message</a>, "Lisa, we will get it done."</p><p><em><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/zinke-moves-build-road-through-alaskan-wilderness-area" target="_blank">SIERRA Magazine</a>.</em></em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Chevron's Secretive Drilling Site in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ›
- Alaska Sen. Murkowski Introduces Bill to Drill Arctic Wildlife Refuge ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Why Americans Will Never Agree on Oil Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
21 December 2017
Popular
The Brooks Range in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Hillebrand / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
After decades of bitter struggle, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) seems on the verge of being opened to the oil industry. The consensus tax bill Republicans are trying to pass retains this measure, which was added to gain the key vote of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
<p style="">
This bill, however, stands no chance of being the final word. ANWR has been called America's Serengeti and the last petroleum frontier, terms I've seen used over <a href="https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-abstract/89/3/291/40203" target="_blank">more than a decade studying this area</a> and the politics around it. But even these titles merely hint at the <a href="http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-101/issue-15/exploration-development/anwr-1002-area-and-development-one-question-many-issues.html" target="_blank">multifold conflict</a> ANWR represents–spanning politics, economics, culture and philosophy.
</p><p style="">
<strong>Differing Views From the Start</strong>
</p><p>
Little of this debate, which stretches back decades, makes sense without some background. Let's begin with wildlife, the core of why the refuge exists.
</p><p>
With 45 species of land and marine mammals and over 200 species of birds from six continents, ANWR <a href="https://www.amnh.org/explore/science-bulletins/earth/documentaries/reading-the-rocks-the-search-for-oil-in-anwr/essay-northern-alaska-rich-in-wildlife-and-oil/" target="_blank">is more biodiverse</a> than almost any area in the Arctic. This is especially true of <a href="https://www.fws.gov/refuge/arctic/wildlife_habitat.html" target="_blank">the coastal plain portion</a>, or 1002 Area, the area now being opened up to exploration and drilling. This has the largest number of polar bear dens in Alaska and supports muskoxen, Arctic wolves, foxes, hares and dozens of fish species. It also serves as temporary home for millions of migrating waterfowl and the Porcupine Caribou Herd which has its calving ground there.
</p><p>
All of which merely suggests the unique concentration of life in ANWR and the opportunity it offers to scientific study. One part of the debate is therefore over how drilling might impact this diversity.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNjk2MDI2Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwMjA3MDYyMX0.qjQYo46PUXAnVKDIHsDy5w2rvVRG5mrEViAlS5bH32w/img.jpg?width=980" id="25c76" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0d1f51f5ea31757a0dcfbffaca145ef4" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Map of northern Alaska showing locations of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, including. the 1002 Area, which is slated to be opened for oil and gas drilling, and the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska (NPRA).</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."> U.S. Geological Survey</small>
</p><p style="">
At the same time, debate over this area's mineral resources has existed <a href="http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-101/issue-15/exploration-development/anwr-1002-area-and-development-one-question-many-issues.html" target="_blank">since even before Alaska's founding</a>. An effort by the <a href="https://www.fws.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service</a> to withdraw part of northeast Alaska from mining (later drilling) was eventually passed by the House in 1960 but then killed in the Senate, on the urging of both Alaska senators. It was resurrected by President Eisenhower through an executive order establishing a wildlife range (not refuge, which requires government protection and study).
</p><p>
ANWR thus began as a battleground over state versus federal control of resources. Change came with the oil crises of the 1970s. After much debate, Congress passed and President Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, increasing the size of the area to 19.4 million acres and changing it to a "refuge." ANILCA also mandated an evaluation of wildlife, oil and natural gas resources, and impacts if drilling occurred.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNjk2MDI2My9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwOTU3ODczNX0.vXfftXYCYf_zbP0iqvpQ4kBkMU_oKKfwEGmCgnvCijg/img.gif?width=980" id="8ecea" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f15eeee4a4f6fac1e1e04e18b9df021e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Map shows the 1002 Area, which will be opened up to oil and gas exploration, along with existing drilling sites in the region.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">U.S. Geological Survey</small>
</p><p>
Such evaluation was delivered to Congress in 1987, with three principal conclusions. First, the 1.5 million-acre 1002 Area, had "outstanding wilderness values." Second, it also had large hydrocarbon resources, likely tens of billions of barrels. Third, oil development would bring widespread changes in habit, but adequate protection for wildlife was achievable and leasing should proceed.
</p><p style="">
Made public, these results ignited major opposition from environmental groups. However, low oil prices meant that no companies would be interested in drilling so no action toward leasing was taken. Over the next 20 years, Congress and the president traded blows over drilling, with Republicans passing or proposing legislation in favor and Democrats voting down or vetoing or the relevant bills.
</p><p style="">
<strong>Matters of Wilderness
</strong></p><p>
These struggles added support to a larger view: that wilderness is incompatible with any level of development. The stance is often referenced to the <a href="https://wilderness.nps.gov/document/wildernessAct.pdf" target="_blank">1964 Wilderness Act</a>, a venerable law protecting wildlands but one whose definition of "wilderness" is ambiguous: "an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character … [that] generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable." The vagueness here allows for ANILCA's position that drilling could happen so long as protection of wildlife and reclamation of land occurred.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image" style="">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNjk2MDI2Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NDM2MDI2OX0.3B8Vj7ThuPyfc2w-GrEsfEusfym5GHXEhxNIV507S50/img.jpg?width=980" id="3cd70" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ffaf573699c2687dd340423dbac3693a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Caribou grazing on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The area is more diverse than any area on the Arctic.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service</small>
</p><p style="">
Today, however, <a href="http://wilderness.org/article/wilderness-act" target="_blank">no such allowance is accepted</a> by pro-wilderness organizations and the <a href="http://wilderness.org/article/wilderness-act" target="_blank">FWS</a>. "You can have the oil. Or you can have this pristine place. You can't have both. No compromise," said <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/09/15/donald-trump-big-oil-alaska-arctic-wildlife-refuge/" target="_blank">Robert Mrazek</a>, ex-chair of the <a href="http://www.alaskawild.org/" target="_blank">Alaska Wilderness League</a>.
</p><p style="">
Saving ANWR has thus become an effort to save the very idea of wilderness, culturally and philosophically.
</p><p style="">
<strong>How Much Oil?</strong>
</p><p>
The most recent <a href="https://energy.usgs.gov/RegionalStudies/Alaska/ANWR1002.aspx" target="_blank">comprehensive assessment</a> of oil and gas in the 1002 Area was by the <a href="https://www.usgs.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Geological Survey</a> (USGS) in 1998. This work shows a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, which at today's prices ($57/bbl oil, $3/kcf) equals a total value of about $600 billion before drilling.
</p><p>
If well costs were $50 a barrel (low for onshore Arctic drilling today but possible with cost reductions spurred by 1002 development), the value after extraction would be $100 billion, from which a federal royalty of 12.5 percent must be subtracted, yielding $87.5 billion–a significant sum. Obviously if well costs are higher, this figure would be lower. Note that Alaska gets 90 percent of that federal royalty and pays a yearly dividend to every state resident–one reason many Alaskans favor drilling and reject the uncompromising wilderness position.
</p><p>
When considering how oil and gas is available, the USGS estimates should be considered low, even minimal. This is because they were made well before the current era of shale oil and gas and tight oil and gas development. <a href="https://theconversation.com/large-scale-fracking-comes-to-the-arctic-in-a-new-alaska-oil-boom-75683" target="_blank">New discoveries</a> and use of fracking to the west of ANWR suggest there is more accessible petroleum. How much more? It's impossible to say, given the many uncertainties.
</p><p style="">
Though only one well has ever been drilled in the 1002 Area, dozens have been sited in surrounding onshore and offshore areas. These have resulted in a number of limited discoveries and one substantial field, Point Thomson, which is <a href="http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/18399962.shtml" target="_blank">estimated to have recoverable reserves</a> of up to 6 trillion cubic feet of gas and 850 million barrels of oil plus condensate. It <a href="http://www.ogj.com/articles/2016/04/production-begins-at-point-thomson-on-alaska-s-north-slope.html" target="_blank">began producing in 2016</a>, yet its reservoir is geologically complex, challenging and insufficiently understood, <a href="http://www.alaskajournal.com/2017-08-31/state-rejects-point-thomson-expansion-plan#.WjAVfbSFiXQ" target="_blank">causing difficulties and raising costs</a>.
</p><p>
But Point Thomson's larger significance could stem from its location: Close to the northwestern margin of 1002, it has brought a pipeline connection to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline right to ANWR's doorstep.
</p><p style="">
<strong>But Will They Come?</strong>
</p><p style="">
Given the substantial possible reserves and at least some pipeline access, how interested might energy companies actually be in ANWR? The answer for now seems to be: not very. This comes from my own discussions with industry personnel and from the <a href="http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112681-alaska-npr-a-auction-nets-few-bids-conocophillips-tacks-on-acreage" target="_blank">results of a recent lease sale</a> in NPR-A, the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to the west of ANWR: Out of 900 tracts offered, only seven received bids (0.008 percent). A Dec. 7, <a href="http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/Leasing/SaleResults/NorthSlope/2017W/NS2017W_ResultsMap.pdf" target="_blank">lease sale on state lands</a> did only somewhat better (0.04 percent), with a single company bidding on tracts near the 1002 Area, adjacent to the Point Thomson field, and in the immediate area of two small, undeveloped discoveries (Sourdough and Yukon Gold) made by BP in 1994.
</p><p style="">
If this be any indication, another multiyear period of high oil prices–in a range, say, more than $80 per barrel–needs to arrive before 1002 looks attractive. Leasing and drilling in an area with extreme weather, little detailed data on the subsurface geology, no discoveries or production, and no existing infrastructure is considered high risk, all the more so in an uncertain price environment like today's.
</p><p>
My own guess is that the <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/anwrreconciliation.pdf" target="_blank">estimated</a> $1.1 billion revenue from an ANWR leasing program has roughly the same probability of coming true as the discovery that <a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en" target="_blank">climate change is indeed a Chinese hoax</a>. Similarly, we should probably view with a dash of skepticism Sen. Murkowski's <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/11/16/the-energy-202-anwr-drilling-is-one-step-closer-to-happening/5a0cb93630fb045a2e003064/?utm_term=.7ed908bf3864" target="_blank">statements</a> that opening ANWR will "create thousands of good jobs … keep energy affordable for families and businesses … reduce the federal deficit and strengthen our national security" by reducing foreign oil. Regardless of what claims are being made now, one can say the measure would undoubtedly deliver on a long-standing promise to Alaskan voters.
</p><p>
Meanwhile, from an environmental perspective, climate change continues to alter and damage the Arctic, even if no development happens. As such, it is hard not to hope that we will never need the oil that lies beneath the refuge.
</p><p style="">
In the end, whichever way we turn, no stable compromise exists in this conflict. Opening the area to leasing now will not prevent a closing or ban later on. Even native voices are divided on the issue. The <a href="http://juneauempire.com/opinion/2017-10-01/alaskans-say-yes-anwr-drilling" target="_blank">Inupiat who live in Kaktovik</a> and depend on sea life for sustenance, would welcome the work that drilling could bring, while the Gwich'in to the south, who rely on the caribou, see development as <a href="https://www.adn.com/commentary/article/anwr-wilderness-vital-caribou-gwichin-people-alaska/2015/03/13/" target="_blank">jeopardizing their culture</a>.
</p><p>
Legal challenges to any level of leasing are certain, including those intended to slow the process until drilling opponents will win later elections, if they can.
</p><p>
The one truth all can agree on is that ANWR has never been a "refuge" in the landscape of American society.
</p><p style="">
<em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-americans-will-never-agree-on-oil-drilling-in-the-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-88992" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88992/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Caribou graze on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. USFWS / Flickr
The Republican tax bill, which is likely headed to President Donald Trump's desk in the next few days, has major repercussions for our precious environment.
While the electric vehicle industry and the wind and solar sector can breathe a little easier that the sweeping legislation preserves their tax credits, fossil fuel producers are likely cheering the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas drilling.
<p>
The controversial provision, a proposal from Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), would auction off an area known as the “<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-refuge-drilling-2517635533.html">biological heart</a>" of the Arctic Refuge that's home to crucial wildlife habitats, including one-third of all polar bear denning habitat in the U.S. and one-third of the migratory birds that come to the Arctic Refuge. It is also considered sacred to the indigenous Gwich'in people, who sustain themselves from the caribou that migrate there.
</p><p>
Oil drilling in the refuge has been sought by conservative lawmakers for decades despite opposition from 70 percent of Americans.
</p><p style="">
"Congress has committed the ultimate sellout of America's public lands with such a devious and shortsighted action in one of the wildest places left in the world," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO of <a href="https://defenders.org/" target="_blank">Defenders of Wildlife</a>. "Shame on those who supported this abhorrent assault on our natural legacy."
</p><p>
Proponents of arctic drilling say the plan would help pay for the massive tax cuts, with Murkowski insisting that her rider would raise “more than $1 billion within 10 years and it will likely raise over $100 billion for the federal Treasury" over time.
</p><p>
But critics contend that with oil prices below $60 a barrel, it's not even certain that oil companies would want to open up one of Earth's most remote and harshest areas, nor would drilling raise enough revenue to offset the massive deficit forecasts created by the tax bill.
</p><p>
Notably, the renewable energy sector did not escape the widely unpopular bill's effects scot-free, as it includes the Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) program that would "undermine our capacity to use renewable energy tax credits, which have value only if they can be monetized," according to a letter addressed to the Senate from clean energy trade groups.
</p><p>
<a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-poison-pill-senate-tax-provision-threatening-renewables#gs.7FK3FcI" target="_blank">Greentech Media</a> delved further:
</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
That problem is the Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) provision, which targets "earnings strippings," where large companies with foreign operations reduce their tax bills through cross-border payments they can then deduct in the U.S. The BEAT provision aims to circumvent that stripping with a minimum tax of 10 percent of taxable income.
</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
BEAT would require every company to do <a href="http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/158454/us-tax-equity-market-could-shrink-under-senate-tax-bill?utm_source=vuture&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20171122%20base%20erosion%20tax_23%20november%202017" target="_blank">two calculations</a>: one quantifying 10 percent of a company's taxable income, including cross-border payments, and another quantifying the corporation's tax liability, excluding any tax credits the company received from tax equity investments.
</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
The BEAT provision applies to all but R&D; credits. If a company has invested in renewables, the second number could be lower than the first. If that's the case, the company would have to pay the difference in taxes.
</p><p>
<span></span>“The environment is the clear loser, with calamitous consequences for all Americans," Anna Aurilio, <a href="https://environmentamerica.org/" target="_blank">Environment America</a>'s D.C. Office Director said about the tax bill.
</p><p>
Environment America noted that the bill continues massive incentives for fossil fuel production amounting to tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.
</p><p>
Aurilio continued, “After months of global warming-fueled extreme weather and wildfires, and decades of air and water pollution from burning coal, oil and gas, it has never been more important to shift our country—wholesale and quickly—toward renewable energy. This bill takes us in the wrong direction."
</p><p style="">
Kirin Kennedy, associate legislative director for lands and wildlife at the <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a>, told <a href="http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2017-12-18/environment/final-tax-bill-called-a-blow-to-environment/a60689-1" target="_blank">Public News Service</a> that eliminating $1 trillion or more of revenue over ten years will have a huge impact on government agencies like the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/department-of-interior">Interior Department</a>.
</p><p style="">
"They're going to be basically facing massive cuts in their budgets to help pay for the tax cuts that will go toward the richest one percent and the top one percent corporations in the country," Kennedy said.
</p><p style="">
Sen. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bernie-sanders">Bernie Sanders</a> (I-Vt) issued a strong condemnation after passage of the bill, especially blasting billionaire fossil fuel barons and major GOP donors <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/koch-brothers">Charles and David Koch</a>, who have long pushed for tax reform.
</p><p>
"House Republicans just passed their disastrous tax bill," Sanders said in a video posted to social media. "Congratulations to the Koch brothers, massive corporations and billionaire campaign contributors on looting the Treasury and working families."
</p><p>
The <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/koch-brothers-continue-to-fund-climate-change-denial-machine-spend-21m-1891180152.html">deep-pocketed Koch network</a> has spent more than $88 million in traceable funding to groups attacking <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/">climate change </a>science, policy and regulation.
</p><p>
Sanders continued about how the tax bill will be bad for public health.
</p><p style="">
"I hope every American is listening," he said, "about what [Speaker of the House] Paul Ryan and other Republicans are saying about how they're going to offset the $1.5 trillion in deficits they have created. And that is, they're going to come back in the very near future for 'entitlement reform'—which, in real language, means massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That's what Speaker Ryan is saying and we should take him at his word because, as we all know, the Republican budget that passed a few months ago included a trillion-dollar cut in Medicaid and a nearly $500 billion cut to Medicare over the next decade."
</p><p>
Another loser in the health bill? The whole of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/puerto-rico">Puerto Rico</a>.
</p><p style="">
Under the new legislation, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/hurricane">hurricane</a>-ravaged U.S. territory would be considered a foreign jurisdiction for tax purposes, even though its 3.4 million residents are American citizens, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-puertorico/tax-bill-could-undermine-puerto-ricos-recovery-governor-says-idUSKBN1ED2L5" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported.
</p><p style="">Puerto Rico was already $72 billion in debt, even before the Sept. 20 Category 4 storm devastated the island. The bill would make the already-painstaking recovery process even harder.
</p><p style="">
"There is an opportunity to set things straight, to give Puerto Rico an opportunity and to eliminate this just weird application of the base-erosion provision to a jurisdiction of the United States," Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello said.
</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) faces a looming threat from oil and gas drilling. The little known provision, proposed by Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, was quietly included in the House and Senate Republicans' compromise tax bill.
The bill “contains the single most important step I believe we can take to strengthen our energy security and create new wealth," Murkowski, who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said Wednesday at the tax bill conference committee meeting.
<p style="">
“We fought long to authorize a program for energy development in Alaska's nonwilderness 1002 area," she said.
</p><p style="">
The “1002 area" is a 1.5-million-acre coastal plain that holds potentially large deposits of oil and gas but also contains crucial wildlife habitats. A new <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2017/12/11/443964/measuring-loss-american-wildlife-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-drilled/">analysis</a> by the <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/" target="_blank">Center for American Progress</a> and <a href="http://www.csp-inc.org/" target="_blank">Conservation Science Partners</a> describes the coastal plain that Sen. Murkowski's rider would auction off for drilling as the “biological heart" of the Arctic Refuge that hosts one-third of all polar bear denning habitat in the U.S. and one-third of the migratory birds that come to the Arctic Refuge. It is also considered sacred to the indigenous Gwich'in people, who sustain themselves from the caribou that migrate there.
</p><p style="">
Opening up the area to petroleum exploration has been deferred since ANWR's establishment in 1980.
</p><p style="">
Drilling ANWR would help pay for the Republicans' sweeping corporate tax cut plan. Murkowski insisted that her rider would raise “more than $1 billion within 10 years and it will likely raise over $100 billion for the federal Treasury" over time.
</p><p style="">
Opponents of ANWR drilling are now racing against time since Republican leaders are hoping to get their tax bill signed by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">President Donald Trump</a> by Christmas.
</p><p style="">
“It's an underrated aspect of this bill," Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/365022-time-running-out-for-opponents-of-arctic-drilling" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. “This has been a generations-long battle to preserve that refuge, and we're going to find out the fate of it next week, so if anyone is not yet mobilized, now's the time."
</p><p style="">
Environmental groups and Democrats have criticized the GOP for sneaking the "<a href="http://wilderness.org/blog/how-did-your-senators-vote-arctic-refuge-drilling" target="_blank">backdoor drilling provision</a>" through the budget process.
</p><p style="">
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a tax bill negotiator, told The Hill that the ANWR provision is “a completely unrelated, unpopular provision that should not be forced through this Congress under these procedures."
</p><p style="">
Critics also contend that with oil prices below $60 a barrel, it's not even certain that oil companies would want to open up one of Earth's most remote and harshest areas, nor would drilling raise enough revenue to offset the massive deficit forecasts created by the tax bill.
</p><p style="">
“It's wildly optimistic that because of what happens in the refuge, somehow that is going to offset part of the huge deficit that is being created by this legislation," Grijalva continued. “We don't need the oil. We're exporting millions of barrels per day in this country and I hope there is consideration given to that."
</p><p style="">
A recent <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-oppose-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge/?utm_source=Yale+Program+on+Climate+Change+Communication&utm_campaign=2418476467-20171204_anwr&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_de6cdfce82-2418476467-326520565" target="_blank">survey</a> from Yale University's Program on Climate Change Communication found that the majority of voters across the political spectrum oppose drilling in the refuge. Most Democrats (84 percent), Independents (64 percent), and Republicans (52 percent) oppose the policy.
</p><p style="">
“The majority of Americans oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge, and the numbers don't add up," Lydia Weiss, <a href="https://wilderness.org/press-release/conference-committee-must-remove-arctic-refuge-drilling-tax-bill" target="_blank">The Wilderness Society</a>'s Government Relations Director, said in a statement. “This provision has no place in the budget, and drilling would not offset proposed tax cuts for the rich. Leaders in Congress must respect the will of the people and oppose a tax bill that would drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."
</p>
Read More
Show Less
Majority of U.S. Public Against Drilling ANWR; Oil Experts Think Economics Are 'Suspect'
05 December 2017
Energy
iStock
By Andy Rowell
Republicans may be celebrating their great tax rip off they sneaked through last Friday night, which included the hugely disputed proposal of drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), but opening up America's last true wilderness to oil exploitation is still far from certain.
<p style="">Firstly, drilling in ANWR is deeply unpopular with the American public; secondly, it still has to get past the House, where some Republicans are opposed to opening up ANWR; thirdly, even oil industry consultants think drilling now is not economically sensible and fourthly any development will be fought tooth and nail in the courts.</p><p style="">All this means that any drilling is not going to happen any time soon. It is worth remembering that <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2017/10/house-passes-budget-advances-drilling-arctic-refuge" target="_blank">pro-drilling Republicans</a> have tried more than 50 times to drill in ANWR already and they have failed.</p><p style=""><strong>Firstly, the American public are vehemently against the idea.</strong></p><p style="">Monday, Yale University's Program on <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-oppose-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge/?utm_source=Yale+Program+on+Climate+Change+Communication&utm_campaign=2418476467-20171204_anwr&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_de6cdfce82-2418476467-326520565" target="_blank">Climate Change Communication</a> released a new survey that found that 70 percent of voters oppose drilling in the refuge. Those strongly opposed outnumber those who strongly support the policy by more than 4 to 1. Despite the gleeful scenes late on Friday night by the Republican leadership, a mere 18 percent of Republican voters "strongly support" the policy.</p><p style=""><strong>Secondly, the first hurdle any bill would have to overcome would be the House.</strong></p><p>Before the Senate vote, <a href="https://reichertforms.house.gov/uploadedfiles/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge_letter_to_gop_leadership_final.pdf" target="_blank">12 Congressional Republicans</a> sent a letter to the leaders of both houses of Congress, objecting the provision which would allow ANWR.</p><p>They wrote, in part: "Since the Refuge was originally set aside for the protection in 1960 by President Dwight Eisenhower, Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike have stood together to protect this unparalleled landscape."</p><p>They continued: "For decades, Congress has voted to prohibit oil and gas development in the refuge, with the overwhelming support of the American public. Support for this protection remains strong today. After years of debate, the Arctic refuge stands as a symbol of our nation's strong and enduring natural legacy."</p><p>If Congress opened up the area to drilling, they warn, "the likelihood that lawsuits would accompany any development is high."</p><p>Since the vote, some Republicans have gone public. Miami Rep. Carlos Curbelo is one of those who signed the letter and who is co-founder of the Climate Solutions Caucus, a bi-partisan group working to address <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/">climate change</a>.</p><p>His spokesperson, <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article188037329.html" target="_blank">Joanna Rodriguez</a>, said in a statement that "Congressman Curbelo strongly believes the tax proposal is not the appropriate venue for addressing ANWR. He made that clear to House and Senate Leadership last week and will continue to work with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle on legislation that focuses on reforming our tax code and giving South Florida families the chance to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks, not a debate about <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-oil-anwr-drilling-2513482646.html">Arctic drilling</a>."</p><p>If all the Republican members of the House who are members of the Caucus vote against the ANWR provision, then the bill is dead.</p><p style="">As the <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article188037329.html#storylink=cpy" target="_blank">Miami Herald</a> noted: "The caucus includes 31 House Republicans, enough members to vote down a tax bill, since the GOP can only afford 22 No votes if all Democrats vote against the bill."</p><p style="">Curbelo may already be feeling the pressure. Monday, the <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article188037329.html#storylink=cpy" target="_blank">Herald</a> reported that "a group of protesters from the Sunrise Movement, a climate change advocacy group, staged a protest in Curbelo's office urging him to vote against a tax bill that 'sells out the Arctic.'"</p><p style="">Sunrise Co-Founder Evan Web told the paper: "If Representative Curbelo, the founder of the Climate Solutions Caucus, is serious about stopping climate change, protecting the vulnerable people of his district in South Florida, and protecting the Arctic from drilling, he'll vote 'no' on this Big Oil bailout of a tax bill."</p><p style=""><strong>Thirdly, we come down to simple economics.</strong></p><p>The bottom line is the oil price is too low and Arctic drilling too risky for any company to rush in now and the foreseeable future.</p><p style=""><a href="https://www.outsideonline.com/2263511/dollars-and-sense-drilling-anwr" target="_blank">Outside</a> magazine noted: "The strongest argument against drilling might be the numbers, because while Republicans have always wanted to drill in the refuge, doing so today makes about as little economic sense as it has in ANWR's 57-year history."</p><p style=""><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-oil">Big Oil</a> always talks about ANWR being the "holy grail" of Arctic drilling that will bring untold riches, but the reality is likely to be very different. In October, a <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2017/10/10/440559/arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-101/" target="_blank">Center for American Progress</a> analysis found that offering oil and gas leases in ANWR is likely to yield no more than $37.5 million in revenue for the U.S. Treasury over the next 10 years: short of the $1 billion to $1.8 billion that drilling proponents claim could be raised.</p><p style="">And then we come to the oil price. <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2017/11/13/442603/energy-case-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge/" target="_blank">According to financial </a>analysts who follow the energy industry, the average oil price at which drilling projects in the Arctic can break even is in the high seventies per barrel, much higher than the current average oil price of <a href="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_d.htm" target="_blank">$57</a> per barrel.</p><p style="">The investment bankers, the ones likely to bankroll any drilling, think it's a bad idea. Speaking earlier in the year, Goldman Sachs commodity expert, <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/24/oil-companies-cool-on-arctic-drilling-trump-wants-it-anyway-energy-alaska-environment/" target="_blank">Michele Della Vigna</a>, said "We think there is almost no rationale for Arctic exploration. Immensely complex, expensive projects like the Arctic we think can move too high on the cost curve to be economically doable."</p><p style="">Even oil consultants question ANWR drilling too. "Any discoveries in ANWR would face significant obstacles before reaching first oil," argued Alison Wolters, an analyst at the energy research firm, <a href="http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/ANWR-12394701.php" target="_blank">Wood Mackenzie</a>. "Oil companies would have to decide if they think the opportunity is worth the potential delays and a lot of legal wrangling and back and forth with regulators."</p><p style="">Jennifer Presley, the senior editor, <a href="https://www.epmag.com/much-ado-about-anwr-1670896#p=full" target="_blank">Drilling Hart Energy</a>, an oil and gas consultancy also recently outlined how: "Doing anything in Alaska requires very deep pockets, and we're not talking about $6 gallons of milk or $4 loaves of bread. With oil markets settling out at about $50/bbl oil prices and breakevens hovering at or below $50/bbl, is now the best time to consider opening even a tiny sliver of ANWR for exploration and drilling when oil can be had for far cheaper prices in places closer to home like the Bakken Shale or Permian Basin."</p><p style="">She added that "I find the current timing for such an opening suspect."</p><p style=""><strong>Fourthly, <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2017/12/04/senate-tax-bill-fallout-america-as-we-knew-it-is-very-much-on-the-edge/" target="_blank">as I pointed out Monday,</a></strong><strong> the industry will be challenged every step of the way by scientists, environmentalists and First Nations.</strong></p><p>Before the vote, 37 leading Arctic wildlife scientists sent <a href="https://www.audubon.org/sites/default/files/arctic_refuge_science_letter_2017_11_09_final_00000003.pdf" target="_blank">a letter opposing drilling</a> on the coastal plain Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Sen. Maria Cantwell, the Chair and Ranking Member respectively of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.</p><p style="">The letter stated: "Based on our experience in the Arctic, we oppose oil exploration, development and production in the Arctic Refuge. Such activity would be incompatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established, including "to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity."</p><p style="">There is no doubt that, as the 12 Republicans outlined above, if drilling makes it through the House it will be challenged in the courts.</p><p style="">After the Senate vote, one of the co-signers, David Yarnold, called the provision to open up ANWR "simply shameful."</p><p style="">Yarnold, who is also the president and CEO of the <a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/nature/see-the-alaska-wildlife-refuge-targeted-for-drilling-by-tax-plan.aspx" target="_blank">National Audubon Society</a>, added "The Arctic refuge isn't a bank—drilling there won't pay for the tax cuts the Senate just passed. The American people don't support drilling in the Arctic and it's up to the House to reject this flawed bill."</p><p style="">And if the House passes the bill, expect a whole host of lawyers to be very busy.</p><p style=""> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2017/12/05/majority-of-us-public-against-drilling-anwr-oil-experts-think-economics-are-suspect/" target="_blank">Oil Change International</a>. </em></p>
Read More
Show Less