Alaska suggests Central Park as restitution for ANWR.
By Holly A. Bell
Alaskan’s are an independent bunch by nature. They really don’t like to be told what to do, especially by outsiders. Even though I’ve only lived here a little less than 4 years, I can assure you that sense of independence spreads to you like a virus. Put a square mile between you and the next person and you start to feel like perhaps you do have the right to do whatever you want. That’s the great thing about wide open spaces—possibilities.
This is one reason why legislators in Alaska are fed up with people in the Lower 48 telling Alaskans what to do in their state, specifically with oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). To demonstrate their frustration, Alaska state legislators are asking the Federal government to “declare Central Park to be a wilderness area and to prohibit any further improvement or development of Central Park unless authorized by an act of Congress.”
Let me explain. In 1960 activists from outside the state of Alaska lobbied to have approximately 8,900,000 acres of Alaska set aside as the Arctic National Wildlife Range (now ANWR). By order of Fred Andrew Seaton, Secretary of the Interior under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Federal government essentially confiscated one of the most oil rich portions of Alaska. No one voted on this, the government just took it. Congress expanded both the area and the restrictions in 1980 declaring it a “wildlife refuge”. ANWR was not something the people of Alaska wanted.
Here’s where Central Park comes in. Frustrated by the inability to drill for oil anywhere in the nearly nine million acres of prime oilfield located in ANWR, legislators in Alaska are asking the Federal government to essentially seize Central Park as they did ANWR. They figure there is no better way to illustrate to “East Coasters” that they have no business meddling in another state’s affairs than by having some irritated Alaskans meddling in theirs. If East Coast outsiders want to deprive Alaska of their states-rights, then perhaps the Alaska legislature should attempt to deprive them of some of theirs. After all, they haven’t taken very good care of Central Park’s natural environment and it must be protected, or maybe even restored to it’s natural state. Perhaps it should be repopulated with the black bear, wolves, and mountain lions that used to live there. Not in cages of course.
While it is not expected that the legislation will pass, it is intended to draw attention to how people outside Alaska are spending a lot of money to essentially shut down the state and its oil production. I get the point, but I wonder how many others do?
Perhaps if both New york and alaska have their states-rights upheld we can negotiate a trade: We’ll send you oil from ANWR and you can send us hot dogs from Central Park.
Image courtesy of Susie B.
Think another good side effect of repopulation of the black bear, wolves and mountain lions would be a lot less crime going on in the park. The criminals would now have something stalking them.
I have a good friend who’s an economist for the Department of Revenue who, while he disagrees with ANWR, isn’t exuberant about exploratory drilling there. He poses an interesting question regarding ANWR, “If there’s so much oil there, why aren’t the oil companies clamoring to get in? If you notice, it’s elected officials and community members that are worried about the oil patch up north and are casting about for backup. There’s a lot of uncertainty about what’s in ANWR and if it’s worth developing.” When oil companies want something, we’ll know it in no uncertain terms. I remember the tax campaign they ran a few years ago. We knew precisely what they wanted.
I have no problem with us setting aside wilderness from development. Alaska is a big place. We should also reserve the right to change our minds. Decisions that made sense (assuming they made sense) fifty years ago may not make sense now.
I’ll also be happy to take some Central Park hot dogs although I imagine that they won’t taste as good once they get here.
Peter,
I wonder if the lack of clamoring by the oil companies has something to do with the \”hassle-free\” availability to oilfields in other countries combined with the tax issue they are clamoring for?
Just a thought. I suspect it\’s not as simple as ANWR exclusively.
I absolutely agree that it has to do with hassle-free availability. Let’s see, significant dollars invested to get ANWR modified/repealed, roll of the dice as to what is there, and major infrastructure investments if there is. I wouldn’t be too gung-ho about drilling there either. There’s cheaper, easier to access stuff elsewhere right now.
The Feds stole ANWR from us, violating the 5th Amendment rights of the citizens of Alaska. We Alaskans should occupy ANWR, or better yet, invade it. What is really to stop us from drilling there? I can’t see the Sierra Club taking up arms against us.