Page 2: Political Warfare Policy
debates over energy and conservation are nothing new for the United
States, of course. Over the past century, there were battles over dam
construction in the West, the viability of nuclear power plants, and,
during the OPEC oil embargoes of the 1970s, fuel efficiency and the need
for “energy independence.” Still,
for most of the current presidential campaign, energy and environmental
issues took a back seat to questions about character, taxes, education,
health care and the broader strength of the U.S. economy. The jump in
oil prices changed that. Gov.
Bush and other Republicans ripped the Clinton administration for not
encouraging more domestic production and allegedly squandering U.S.
prestige with the oil-producing states. Bush also issued veiled threats
to OPEC countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, saying they should
"remember who their friends are." Bush
also clarified his position in support of drilling in Alaska's Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. During the primaries, Bush indicated it was an
idea to be left on the table. Now, he’s openly for it. Meanwhile,
Democrats blamed the Republican-led Congress for blocking initiatives to
increase fuel efficiency and reduce energy demands. In his campaign,
Gore advocated a program to gradually transition the U.S. away from
oil-dependent energy policies. Environmental
groups saw more hope in Gore’s approach and rewarded him with
endorsements. "We cannot drill our way to solving our energy
problems," said Melinda Pierce of the Sierra Club. "The U.S.
sits on only 3 percent of the world's oil supply. The only path to
energy independence is to become more energy efficient and reduce our
demand." Bush’s
plan for drilling in the Arctic Refuge has touched another sore point
with environmentalists. Alaskan oil has been a contentious issue since
President Carter signed the bill establishing the Arctic Refuge in 1980. At
the time, oil industry lobbyists succeeded in keeping 95 percent of
Alaska's North Slope coastal plain open for oil exploration. The refuge
protected the remaining 5 percent, about 19 million acres. Gov. Bush and
the oil industry now are targeting about 1.5 million acres of the
protected area. Beyond
the drilling itself, extensive construction work would permanently
transform the natural landscape. Oil development would require nearly
300 miles of new roads, hundreds of miles of pipelines, as well as
production and refining facilities. Environmentalists
see the refuge as a land of rare natural beauty, critical for
maintaining the habitat of unique wildlife, including polar bears, musk
oxen, grizzly bears, wolves, red and arctic foxes, lemmings, and a
myriad of other bird species. The refuge also is vitally important to
the 129,000-member Porcupine River caribou herd that calls Alaska’s
North Slope home. The Gwich'in Indians of northeast Alaska and northwest
Canada also depend on the land. Another
objection to drilling is the limited quantity of oil. By the most
optimistic estimates, commercially recoverable oil from the refuge's
coastal plain would provide about six months supply for the U.S. These
estimates show the refuge's oil field containing 3.2 billion barrels of
oil, compared with America's annual oil consumption of 7 billion
barrels. [Alaska Wilderness League and Natural Resources Defense
Council] Also
complicating Gov. Bush's support for drilling in the refuge are his
financial and political ties to the oil industry. For example, his
campaign's two Alaska state co-chairs, Bob Malone and Bill Allen, are
involved in companies with interests in Alaskan oil. From
1995-2000, Malone served as president, chief executive and chief
operating officer of the Alyeska Pipeline Services Co., a consortium
owned by major oil companies active in the North Slope. Alyeska Pipeline
manages the 800-mile Alaskan pipeline, which delivers more than 20
percent of America's domestic oil production. Before joining Alyeska,
Malone served as president of BP Amoco's Pipelines (Alaska) Inc. [See
The Public I, Feb. 28, 2000, www.public-i.org/story_16_022800.htm
.] Malone
rejoined BP Amoco in July as regional president for the Western United
States, an area that includes Alaska. BP Amoco is one of four major oil
companies in the North Slope. The
other Bush co-chair in Alaska is Bill Allen, the chairman of VECO Corp.,
which was formed to support offshore oil production in Alaska. VECO now
has 4,000 employees and has offices in Alaska, Colorado, Washington
State, India, Cyprus and Houston. [See www.veco.com/CorpwebSite/locations/locations.html
.] [For
more details on Bush’s relationship to the oil industry, see the
four-part series, The
Bush Family Oiligarchy.] Halliburton
Corp., the world’s largest oil services company, also has extensive
investments in Alaska's North Slope. Formerly run by Republican vice
presidential nominee Richard Cheney, Halliburton has provided equipment
and services to BP Amoco and Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO) since 1995. Halliburton
is listed in the Directory of Petroleum News Alaska as having
facilities in Anchorage, Deadhorse (on the North Slope), and in the
Baroid and Sperry-sun fields in Prudhoe Bay. Opening up the refuge would
require construction of hundreds of miles of pipelines and many
facilities. Halliburton's presence in Alaska along the North Slope would
position them well to compete for contracts for these construction
projects. Cheney
has long advocated drilling in the refuge going back to his days as a
U.S. representative from Wyoming when he co-sponsored a bill to open up
the refuge to oil drilling. During the 2000 Campaign, Cheney has been as
vocal as Bush in support of opening the refuge for exploration, if not
more so. On
Sept. 27, Cheney headlined a fundraiser that tapped oil industry
supporters to help raise $8 million for Republican Senate candidates at
the sixth annual Senate Majority Celebration in Washington, D.C. Cheney
joined Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in criticizing the Clinton
administration’s unwillingness to explore domestic oil reserves. Among
the event’s leading fundraisers were oil executives Erle Nye, chairman
of TXU Corp.; William Wise, chief executive of El Paso Energy; and Lod
Cook, former chairman of ARCO. [AP, Sept. 28, 2000] The
oil industry has rewarded Bush for his support by helping his
campaign’s fundraising efforts. According to the Center for Responsive
Politics, the oil industry has lavished more than $1.6 million in
contributions on Bush, 15 times more money they have contributed to Gore
since January 1999. Cheney also stands to profit personally from expectations that the Arctic Refuge will be opened to oil exploration. Cheney has announced that he will keep control of hundreds of thousands of Halliburton shares and options until the inauguration. If Bush and Cheney win on Nov. 7, the anticipated Alaskan oil development could help run up the value of Halliburton stock by Jan. 20, potentially adding millions of dollars to Cheney’s personal fortune. Whatever the prospects for extracting oil from the Arctic Refuge, oil experts recognize that new discoveries can postpone but not prevent the eventual need to find other energy sources. While the world oil supply is far from exhausted, they say, it is a finite resource. Many experts predict that the world will reach peak oil production sometime in the next 20 to 50 years, after which time oil supply will begin to decline. The Energy Information Agency of the U.S. Department of Energy estimates peak production to occur in 2037. [See www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/presentations/2000/long_term_supply/sld003.htm] With
large countries like China and India modernizing their economies more
along the Western model, it is clear that energy will present a
recurring challenge in the years ahead. Even with more oil production,
periodic shortages will continue to threaten global economic growth. The
search for oil, the refining process and the burning of fossil fuels
also seem certain to take a heavier and heavier toll on the global
environment. So,
energy policy could become the surprise issue of Campaign 2000. If it
does, Americans will have a choice between two very different courses of
action. Gov. Bush’s plan calls for continued reliance on old energy sources and strategies for maintaining the traditional use of fossil fuels. Vice President Gore’s approach seeks a national commitment to a less-charted course, toward new energy sources and more novel strategies aimed at reducing dependence on oil and protecting the environment. Sam
Parry is managing editor of Consortiumnews.com and works for the Sierra
Club's Human Rights & the Environment Campaign.
|
