Bp_Oil_Spill

To Drill or Not to Drill: An In-Depth Look at the Ethical Dilemma of Drilling for Oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge Jeremy J. Peichel Buena Vista University Paper Prepared for Presentation at Midwest Political Science Student Convention, Omaha, NE President Eisenhower established the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1960. In 1980, ANWR doubled in size to 19 million acres, with 1.5 million acres of coastal plain set aside for drilling and study. The issue under dispute in Congress is whether to utilize approximately 1500 acres of that 1.5 million to find oil. The House of Representatives and Senate proposed numerous amendments to this legislation, forcing a conference committee to negotiate the final compromise. Having passed the House of Representatives, the Senate Democrats initiated a filibuster in late November 2003 to prevent the revised bill from passing on to the President. As of today, the bill remains tabled indefinitely in the Senate. The proposal has special stipulations to not only open up the area to exploration and drilling, but also to use all the fees and lease revenues to fund alternative energies. My goal is to attempt an objective point of view on this issue by discussing first the arguments for drilling in ANWR and then those against drilling. In critically examining these two arguments, through the lenses of utilitarian and deontological frameworks, we should be closer to determining the most ethical course of action. The main reason to develop the Coastal Plain of is that drilling in ANWR is economically beneficial. Drilling will provide money to fund the development of alternative energy sources. It will boost our economy through the creation of jobs and reduce our trade deficit. It will also give us more negotiating power in the oil market and reduce our dependence on foreign oil as well. By looking out for these interests, we also further national security goals. The Bush administration’s plan for the Coastal Plain of ANWR states that half of the federal revenue generated by opening the refuge will be invested in the development of alternative energy sources.3 When Republicans proposed this program in 1995, estimates for the lease sales were around $2.6 billion over a period of seven years. All these would go toward furthering the development and promotion of alternative energy such as hydrogen fuel cells and hybrid cars. This increased development could not only benefit the environment, but could possibly give the United States an edge in the alternative energy industry. If we were to invest significant amounts of money in the research and development of alternative energy, we could very well lead that industry in new technology. With an advantage such as that, we would be able to steer the course of that industry as nations try to keep up with our alternative energy hegemony. That would be a great benefit to our economy. These new developments would also allow us to gain more negotiating power in the world market. This power would be gained, not only through development of alternative energies, but also just simply from increased oil production through ANWR. The United States is the largest consumer of oil in the world, and, in 2001, we consumed 19.6 million barrels per day, with 10.6 million of that coming from imports. Right now, our foreign dependence is over 50% and expected to reach 65% within 5 years (see Chart 1). As we depend more and more on other nations for supplying us with energy, we give them more and more control over our economy. Those foreign nations are the ones who, increasingly, dictate what the U.S. will pay per barrel of crude oil, and how much we will receive based on their production. Indirectly, then, these nations have the power to encourage and to discourage domestic resource development by adjusting their supply. Since it is inherently more costly for us to develop our older wells that have slowed in production, it is not economically viable to produce oil from them when it drops below a certain price. In this way, we place our domestic energy industry and all the jobs associated with the transportation, construction, and refining of domestic oil in the hands of those nations. Chart 1. 2001 U.S. Oil Imports by County (millions of barrels per day) Source: Michigan Public Service Commission. Summer 2002. Michigan Energy Appraisal: Oil Imports. ONLINE. Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. Available: http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/reports/energy/02summer/oilimports.htm [28 November 2003]. Therefore, it would be wise to try to improve the negotiating ground by reasonable means. If not solely to protect economic interests, then we should do so to protect national security interests as well. The Middle East is an unstable region, and with the current war on terrorism, we are not making more allies in that area. It seems as though it would be in our nation’s best interest to fulfill one of government’s primary obligations, and that is security. Government was created to fulfill the need for men to join in societies, as John Locke said, “for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and …property.” That can be accomplished by not placing America’s economic well being at the whims of oil sheiks in Middle East nations, such as Saudi Arabia, who have in the past been connected to terrorist groups as financiers. Our nation currently imports approximately $55.1 billion dollars a year in oil.6 That is just the cost of importing the crude oil. Other costs include the processing and the military protection for that supply.8 Without even looking at those “hidden costs,” the trade deficit in oil is close to the total deficit with the entire nation of Japan. Drilling in ANWR would not, however, eliminate the trade deficit altogether. By drilling in ANWR, we increase our domestic oil production by 25 percent, effectively reducing that trade deficit in oil by $14 billion dollars per year.6 Finally, drilling in ANWR would benefit our economy by increasing jobs in the United States. The trade deficit not only represents money we send to other nations, but it is also representing the exportation of potential jobs. By drilling in ANWR, we reclaim a portion of those jobs for Americans. According to the Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, this action will “create thousands of jobs for American workers.” Less than five percent of the jobs created would be in Alaska, with other states picking up an average of 18,800 jobs. Refineries, processing plants, transportation, and other industry-related jobs would be sprouting up all around the nation to deal with the increased supply of domestic oil. Overall, this move would reduce the federal unemployment rate by about 0.36 percentage points, effectively reducing the number of people on welfare, and boosting our economy universally.6 ANWR is projected to have anywhere between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels of oil in its coastal plain. Not only would our nation benefit from extracting that oil, but our nation would also benefit through the extraction of the 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This cleaner fuel could be used to warm our homes, and would create more jobs related to the extraction and processing of this natural fuel. Though the focus is mostly on the in-place oil resources, it is important to remember that there is a great deal of natural gas, which is also beneficial, lying beneath the coastal plain. The economic, security, and technological developments that would follow from development in ANWR are great in value, but there are other factors that must be examined, such as the potential for environmental damage and the effect on the local people and all those entitled to the land. We should examine the effect this drilling would have on the local population. Although the drilling in the refuge has a 75% approval rating among the Alaskan population, according to a February 2000 poll conducted by the Dittman Research Corporation, it is not necessarily popular among the people directly affected for several reasons. First, the drilling would occur on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Since this is land owned by the federal government, it is not just up to the Alaskan people to decide. All Americans should have their say in this issue. The input of Alaskans is just as valued as the input of New Yorkers on this issue. The key difference is information about the issue. Though it is possible that the Alaskans surveyed were uninformed on the subject of drilling, we would like to think otherwise. Logically, Alaskans would be more likely to know about the area, about the land, and about the animals that live there, simply because of their first-hand experience. The second reason lies within the dissident Alaskans, made up of mostly native people. The poll showed 23 percent opposed to drilling, with 3 percent unsure. Due to Native American opposition, it is likely that within that 23 percent that opposed drilling is a portion of the native population. Two native tribes live in and around ANWR, the Gwi’ichens, and the Inupiats. These tribes each have some land allotted to them on the coastal plain, the area proposed for exploratory drilling. The Inupiats are very much in favor of drilling, where as the Gwi’ichen people oppose the move diametrically. Proponents of drilling suggest that the Gwi’ichen people are simply bitter about Exxon and British Petroleum letting the leases on tribal lands expire. Though this may be true, it still shows that the native population that holds this land sacred does not want drilling, regardless of the motives behind it. Our sense of justice should ring out since we have already taken so much from Native American tribes; it seems like the right idea to let them have what they want, keeping in mind, however, that another native tribe wants to drill. The Inupiats are still on very good terms with Exxon and BP, so they are the ones in favor of drilling. Finally, the environmentalists and those who study and appreciate ANWR are also opposed to drilling. Though pictures of the coastal plain of ANWR show it to be desolate arctic tundra, a segment of the human population still enjoys visiting there and calling it their own pristine wilderness. These people would lose something sacred and valuable to them if we were to develop on the coastal plain. Even though technological advancements in drilling have reduced the footprint of drilling, there will still be oil derricks and pipelines on the horizon in that section of the refuge. That is devastating to those who did not take for granted a pristine, though desolate most of the year, wilderness. Opponents of drilling are most adamantly opposed on the basis that it harms the environment. Regardless of how safe oil companies claim to be, there will still be spills in this area. Spills are primary tools that oil drilling uses to spoil the environment. Nevertheless, there are other types of pollution besides contamination. Landscape pollution and human interference will also contribute some degree of damage to the wilderness of the area. Oil companies claim, however, that new technology and advancements in drilling will reduce the amount of infrastructure and the size of facilities built. The fact that only fifteen hundred acres (equivalent to an average-sized regional airport) will be directly affected by pipeline, road, or drilling facilities is a very handsome number, even for some environmentalists (see Table 1). With a refuge larger than 10 states, a regional airport seems like a small cost, but the effects could potentially strike farther than that. Table1. Land Use in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Source: U.S. Geological Survey. 1998. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis. ONLINE. U.S. Geological Survey. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm [15 November 2003]. The transportation and construction, in addition to human pollution, garbage, and other waste would possibly disrupt the balance of nature in that area. With a human population drawing on resources in the refuge, there is also the potential for damage to delicate balances like the watershed and predator-prey cycles. These factors are potential harms to the environment that need to be examined and properly addressed by the drilling authority if any drilling is to be environmentally acceptable. In the end, however, we realize that some things, like the spills, are inevitable and are consequences inherent in the process of drilling and transporting oil. The animal population is the final consideration to examine in the case of ANWR. How does this affect the animals' Magazines like National Geographic show pictures of polar bears casually strolling along the top of a pipeline.14 We have seen from the case of Prudhoe Bay that animal populations flourish with the introduction of these oil platforms. In fact, at Prudhoe Bay, the caribou population increased sevenfold.4 This is an obvious affect of human interaction on the caribou, and may not necessarily be a positive consequence. Overpopulation and disruption of the predator-prey cycles may be the result if such was the case. Overpopulation of animals is a serious hazard to local towns and even the drilling facilities itself, as caribou may begin to interfere with the normal operation of the rig and the transportation of workers and oil. These problems may cause accidents, which in turn harm the natural environment. It is also possible that these animals have become somewhat dependant on the human interaction and our development for their existence. What will happen to them when we leave eventually' Our departure may even throw the balance into disruption. Although, the effect these drilling operations have on the animal population may seem beneficial on the surface, but after looking a little deeper, we see that effects such as exponential growth, which has now leveled off, may do more harm than good. Using Vincent Ruggiero’s criteria laid out in Thinking Critically about Ethical Issues, all of these circumstances and consequences need to be taken into consideration when evaluating which of our obligations and ideals take the highest priority. Ruggiero lays out a strategy for objective evaluation of ethical issues by breaking it down into four main steps. The first step is to build the background details of the issue. The key, he states, is to present information from all sides, not only for research and for information, but also to illustrate the importance of objectivity in ethical evaluation. The second step, according to Ruggiero, is to develop the underlying questions of the issue. What obligations need to be fulfilled when solving this issue' Which of society’s ideals are involved and what will bring about the “greater good”' What are potential consequences involved in the issue' After addressing these questions generally, Ruggiero urges the critical thinker to move on to step three and develop potential courses of action. Being specific is the key. Finally, he says we need to examine the ideals, obligations, and consequences to determine the most ethical course of action and the act accordingly.16 Having laid the groundwork of information on the issue, the next step is to determine the obligations, ideals, and consequences.16 In this instance, the main obligations are contractual agreements, self-improvement, and non-malfeasance. The government has a contract with the Native American populations; they should respect their wishes when it comes to land allotted to them. The oil companies have a contractual obligation to the government, consumers, and workers to provide safe and environmentally conscious drilling facilities in order to do the least damage to the land. We as a society have the obligation to try to improve ourselves, and the development of alternative energies accomplishes that. Improving our fuel supply, while caring for the future of our environment, is a prime example of self-improvement. Finally, we have an obligation to non-malfeasance. All parties involved must avoid infringing on the rights, or the well-being of any other group to preserve the integrity of that obligation. The main ideals involved in this issue are fairness and social-responsibility. The government would need to be as objective as possible in evaluating the motives of those opposed to drilling along with allowing them to air their concerns about the issue. We promote social responsibility by being aware of the rights of those involved. We also promote it by taking that knowledge and ensuring that the oversight committees consist of people from both sides of the issue. Through this equal representation, not only will future developments be secured, but also they will be executed with the cleanest, safest means, under strict observations, since it is the most ethical way to execute such an action. This moral and political debate seems to boil down to one choice: to drill or not to drill. The choices are not limited to just that, however. There are questions of what to do with the money gained from taxes, lease sales, and other revenues. Should we put the lease sales revenues toward conservation, alternative energy, or searching for more drilling sites domestically' Should we invest the money in a completely different sector of the government or economy' We can pose other questions regarding limits on the amount of drilling facilities. We can decide whether to use ice roads or paved roads. We can decide whether to truck the oil to the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline, or whether to build an extension of it to the sites themselves. The possibilities are endless, but these are the main questions for the basis of the reasonable courses of action when it comes to drilling. Of course, if we were not to drill that would be no different from the status quo and therefore the sole course of action on that side. After having established potential courses of action, Ruggiero says we should review the significant questions, and determine which course, within our ethical framework, is the most ethical.16 This issue was examined from both a utilitarian view and a deontological view. The perspectives are significantly different both in scope and in thought-process; therefore, it is no surprise that the two frameworks have separate conclusions. Based on different situations, however, they could have the same end-result. First is the utilitarian view. According to John Stuart Mill, the key to ethics is the greatest happiness principle. Utility, or happiness, is derived from pleasure and the decided absence of pain. Philosophers using utilitarianism examine the result of actions, in order to determine whether a course of action is ethical. In the case of drilling in ANWR, a utilitarian would take a look at what benefits come from drilling. Economic prosperity, future technology, and reduced foreign dependence would seem to produce a significant increase in the total overall happiness for a utilitarian. More people would have jobs and, with alternative energy development, we work to save the environment. The utilitarian would be pleased if that were the extent of the consequences. Drilling in ANWR is not without sacrifice, though. Environmentalists, native populations, and other people who disapprove of drilling would be unhappy with the results, because they would no longer have their pristine wilderness or sanctuary. Drilling also has potential to harm animals, to harm plants, and to poison the land. Utilitarian perspective forces such philosophers to look for the greatest increase in total happiness, thus they would believe that drilling in ANWR is an ethically correct course of action. Since the environmentalists and natives are unhappy make up a smaller population than those benefited by drilling, their collective unhappiness is required to provide the greater happiness for the rest of the population. Nevertheless, we should do what we can to reduce the unhappiness of those groups. Such provisions as temporary roads, restrictions on facilities, or increasing funding for alternative energy, are morally acceptable, so long as they do not reduce the total happiness produced. The deontological perspective comes to a different conclusion. Drilling is not ethically viable for deontologists for one main reason: it is unjust. According to Mary Anne Warren, our primary moral principle is “Respect for life: Living organisms are not to be killed or otherwise harmed, without good reasons that do not violate principles 2-7.” She then goes on to detail the other moral principles establishing ground rules for how to act ethically. As a deontologist, Warren examines the motives for actions, and not the consequences themselves. Onora O’Neill expands on this “respect for life as regards means” in her Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics talking about the Formula of the End in Itself. “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person, or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.” Kant was opposed to using people as mere means. If a person neither benefits from an action nor gives consent, but was used anyway, they were mere means. These actions form an injustice, which is ethically unacceptable to a deontologist.19 Thus, it is unethical for us to drill in ANWR. We would be using the native population as mere means to our own economic gain and would therefore be acting unethically. The only way that drilling could be ethically acceptable, is if those whose well-being is directly affected by drilling gave consent to those actions. Since that is unlikely, drilling is unethical according to the deontologists. If the native population did consent to drilling, then the most ethical course of action would be to drill. The proceeds from the lease sales would be devoted only to the development of alternate energy. It is probable that our government could use the same idea of the lockbox that was part of the rhetoric regarding social security in the Presidential campaigns of 2000. It would also be appropriate for ice roads to be built, since the roads would melt back in the summer when drilling is not occurring, and no permanent infrastructure would remain on the land. The exception for infrastructure being a pipeline: the most ethical solution would be to build a pipeline to the refuge so that we save energy by not trucking the oil to the current pipeline. We would build an extension to the existing Trans-Alaskan pipeline that would allow us to use “in-place infrastructure” to limit spending and prevent damaging the environment further. To address regulation concerns, there could be an oversight committee to examine and inspect the oil companies’ environmental protection plans and safety programs. This ensures that neither worker, nor animal, nor is its environment harmed through unsafe or risky practices. By implementing environmental practices and looking out for the future, we can ensure that companies drill safely, and in such a way that environmentalists could agree that the gains outweigh the losses. With employment opportunities around the nation, reduced foreign oil dependence, alternative energy development, and environmental protection measures, the United States would be sitting better economically, environmentally, and technologically. Bibliography Abraham, Spencer. 10 September 2003. To Pete V. Domenici, Chairman, House, Senate Conference on H.R. 6. ONLINE. Department of Energy. Available: http://www.anwr.org/docs/SAP9-10-03.pdf [30 November 2003]. Arctic Power. 1997. Top Ten Reasons to Support Development in ANWR. ONLINE. Available: http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm [10 November 2003]. . 1997. What is ANWR' ONLINE. http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/backgrnd.htm [10 November 2003]. . 2002. Features: Players in ANWR. ONLINE. Available: http://www.anwr.org/features/players/inupiat.htm [10 November 2003]. . March 2003. ANWR Poll Results. ONLINE. Available: http://www.anwr.org/features/results.htm [10 November 2003]. Author Unknown. 12 April 2002. Fact Sheet: ANWR Debate at a Glance. ONLINE. CNN.com/inside politics. Available: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/04/12/anwr.facts/ [9 November 2003]. Botkin, Daniel B., Edward A. Keller. 2003. Environmental Science: Earth as a Living Planet. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Henry, Natalie M. 17 September 2003. Attacks Heighten Call for Reduced Dependence on Foreign Oil. ONLINE. Environment and Energy Publishing. Available at: http://anwr.org/features/attack.htm [10 November 2003]. Jackson, Brooks. 2000. A Fact Check of Bush, Gore Financial Plans. ONLINE. CNN. Available: http://cnn.com/2000/ALLPolitics/stories/10/26/jackson.factcheck/index.html [2 December 2003]. Locke, John. September 1996. Second Treatise of Civil Government. ONLINE. Oregon State University. Available at: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-c.html#CHAP.%20IX [29 November 2003]. Michigan Public Service Commission. Summer 2002. Michigan Energy Appraisal: Oil Imports. ONLINE. Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. Available: http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/reports/energy/02summer/oilimports.htm [28 November 2003]. Mill, John Stuart. 2002. “Utilitarianism.” In Applied Ethics, ed. May, Larry, Shari Collins-Chobanian, Kai Wong. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mitchell, John G. 2001. Oil Field or Sanctuary' ONLINE. National Geographic Online. Available: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/08/01/html/ft_20010801.3.html#biblio [19 November 2003] The National Defense Council Foundation. 2003. The Economic Impact of Developing ANWR Resources. ONLINE. Available: www.anwr.org/docs/ANWR_jobs_brief.pdf [10 November 2003]. O’Neill, Onora. 2002. “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics.” In Applied Ethics, ed. May, Larry, Shari Collins-Chobanian, Kai Wong. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan. 1997. Thinking Critically about Ethical Issues. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Shanahan, John. 5 November 2003. Time to Permit Oil Drilling in the Arctic Refuge. ONLINE. The Heritage Foundation. Available: http://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilosophy/em432.cfm [19 November 2003] Tauzin, W. J. [LA]. 21 November 2003. “Bill Summary and Status.” Congressional Record. ONLINE. Thomas. Available: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z'd108:HR00006:@@@X [22 November 2003]. U.S. Geological Survey. 1998. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis. ONLINE. U.S. Geological Survey. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm [15 November 2003]. U.S. Senate. 108th Congress, 1st session. H. R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2003. ONLINE GPO Access. Available: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi'dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h6pp.txt.pdf [25 November 2003]. Warren, Mary Anne. 1997. Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things. Oxford: Clarendon Press.