(letters)

11/2001

Arctic Wilderness

I was delighted to see the beauty of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Audubon's September-October 2001 issue. Money-hungry bureaucrats and corporations cannot see the beauty of this refuge. Instead of the lush green of plants, they see only the green of money. I really hope that no drilling will take place in this Arctic wilderness. Men need to seek other energy sources that won't harm our environment. With 38 mammal species that thrive in this landscape, we must understand that this is their home. Think of the caribou that run free without the worry of their greatest enemy, man. The Arctic wildlife refuge must be preserved forever!

Alicia Najar
Red Bluff, CA

Thank you for the timely and informative report "The Last Great Wilderness." Were it not for the incredible power of a small group of very wealthy corporations, this proposal to despoil our last vestige of Arctic wilderness would never be seriously considered by the Congress and the President.

But the information I missed in your otherwise fine presentation is that for several years now the United States has been EXPORTING nearly 1 million barrels of oil a day. Of the present Arctic oil production, we are exporting about 26 million barrels a year. The legal ban on exporting Arctic oil was readily agreed to when the Prudhoe field was proposed. But to keep West Coast oil prices above the world market price, the Arctic oil producers changed the regulations so they could export Arctic oil to Asia. Why does anyone think the oil from ANWR will not be treated similarly? It seems evident that this proposal is much less for the benefit of the U.S. consumer than it is for the oil producers. Obviously, the wildlife in ANWR make no contributions to the election of Presidents and Congress.

Richard A. Erickson
Spearfish, SD

Your September-October issue is a disappointment to those of us who wish for but never find a balanced treatment of George W. Bush by those who consider themselves environmentalists. Our country is in a very difficult position with respect to conservation, development, energy, pollution, and the economy. Because Bush has experience in business, he understands that complex, interrelated problems require more than just a shower of money and a single, simple solution.

The moderate cutting of funding for environmental initiatives is a proven management strategy often employed effectively by businesses when times get hard. Agencies are forced to become more efficient and to decide for themselves whether some of their initiatives should be at least temporarily postponed or cut back. This is not the work of an anti-environment President, but of one who understands priorities and management. The environmental lobby attacks the President because that is how we in the United States, being a single-issue society, respond to those who don't agree with us. We apply a litmus test and attack all who fail it, without regard to any other issue. I expect more from Audubon.

I presume that your resistance to every new energy-exploration initiative means you are conceding that the United States must be entirely and eternally dependent on imported oil. Your comments on old oil are encouraging; not many who condemn drilling in ANWR have any alternatives to suggest. I will continue to investigate that alternative to determine if it is in fact a viable alternative, as opposed to the usual wishful thinking (like solar and wind).

I'm sure you understand, although you may not admit it, that we are in this energy mess because for eight years we had unbalanced government action, an aversion to expanding our energy capacity, and no energy policy. It is so much easier to use W.and the business community as scapegoats for the inaction of the previous administration. How about trying a more balanced treatment of this multi-faceted, interrelated set of problems in the future, and leave the name calling to less respected publications?

Michael Danek
Laingsburg, MI

Beyond Oil to . . . Dams?

This is in response to Glenn Garelik's article "Beyond Oil" in the September-October 2001 issue.I am a solar engineer working on solar air-conditioning systems. These systems run on heat and use water as the refrigerant. They are one of the most cost-effective and least well-known type of solar energy system. We have three systems operating successfully in the Sacramento area, one for the past 15 years.

Joseph Brezmer
Bergquam Energy Systems
Sacramento, CA

I was saddened to see that a writer in Audubon magazine was still endorsing hydropower as a good alternative to other sources in "Beyond Oil," the sidebar to the Arctic Refuge article. "Most efficient U.S. power source...80 percent of generation by renewables... Dams can harm aquatic flora and fauna..." (emphasis added).

Every dam destroys at least two ecosystems: the riverine ecosystem and the riparian ecosystem alongside it, both of which are flooded. In addition, the dam destroys or drastically degrades the downstream ecosystem. The "rocks and ice" focus of America's largest environmental organizations shows itself at its worst here. Big-river ecosystems have never caught the eye of Audubon (or many others in the field), presumably because they feature mud, brown water, and traces of inhospitable wetland. However, the richest ecosystems in North America at the time of colonization--those with the widest variety of bird, plant, land-animal, and aquatic life--were the big alluvial rivers and their associated wetlands, riparian forests, and floodplains. Audubon appears to be willing to tacitly endorse their continuing destruction, which could begin to heal even now without the "efficient, harmless" dams. Instead, species continue to fade into extinction above and below the dams, from salmon on both coasts to the glorious Missouri's pallid sturgeon, interior least tern, and piping plover, not to mention many other fishes large and small. There is hardly a healthy big-river ecosystem left in North America. Is this "efficient"?

The big rivers are, even now, incredibly beautiful and contain some of the wildest, least developed, and most peaceful areas in the Lower 48. Rivers begin to heal themselves immediately, without further intervention, when those "harmless" dams are removed. By all means, preserve the Arctic, but is it necessary to accept the destruction of an entire class of foundation ecosystems in the Lower 48 to do so?

Jeffrey McFadden
www.longestriver.org
Richmond, MO