Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Perhaps the most high profile endangered sacred place in North America is Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — however it is not widely identified as a sacred place. The Refuge is at the center of a loud controversy over oil drilling and environmental regulations, while the native people in the area attempt to make their perspectives heard. Gwich’in activist Norma Kassi explains: “The relationship between the Gwich’in and the caribou is not one of convenience; it is one of necessity. A healthy Porcupine Caribou Herd is necessary for the continued survival of the Gwich’in culture.”

Report by Amy Corbin
Updated March 2007

History

The Gwich’in, who live in Arctic Village on the southern edge of the Refuge near the Brooks Range, have built their subsistence and their spirituality around the migrating Porcupine Herd of caribou for thousands of years. The coastal plain on which they live is referred to in the Gwich’in language as the “sacred place where life begins.” The Gwich’in consider both the coastal plain and the caribou that give birth there to be central elements of their culture. The connection is such that every caribou is believed to contain a little human heart in it, and every human carries an element of caribou in his or her heart. The coastal plain, where oil drilling is proposed, is where the caribou give birth to their calves and has remained a location off-limits to hunting by native people as far back as any can remember. The Arctic National Wildlife Range was created in 1960 by President Dwight Eisenhower. In 1968, oil was discovered to the west along the coast at Prudhoe Bay and the native people on each side of the Refuge were given a choice of giving up some of their lands in exchange for oil profits, or of keeping their land untouched. The Kaktovik village residents to the north of the Refuge chose oil money and have benefited from additional income for education, health, and community services. The Gwich’in, on the other end of the Refuge, chose not to compromise. They wanted to retain a more traditional lifestyle without financial assistance, and to “teach the world in a good way,” according to long-time Gwich’in activist Sarah James (who won the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2003). This decision was made by the 7,000 Gwich’in people on behalf of the land and the 123,000 caribou who inhabit it. In 1980, Congress renamed the area the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, doubled its size to 19 million acres, designated most of it wilderness, but left future lawmakers the option of authorizing oil and gas extraction in a “study area” of 1.5 million acres along the coastal plain.

Threat

Changes in the presidency, increased militarization — and now the damage caused to Gulf Coast oil refineries by Hurricane Katrina — leave the Arctic Refuge more vulnerable than ever to natural resource development. In August 2001, the House of Representatives passed the Energy Security Act, which was based on President Bush’s original energy plan and included a call for oil drilling in the Refuge. Senate Republicans attempted to attach that bill as a rider to the Defense Authorization Act, legislation pushed through the Senate following the September 11th terrorist attacks. Fortunately, the Senate defeated this inappropriate move in October 2001, and drilling in the Arctic Refuge has been repeatedly defeated in Congress in 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006, including attempts to link it to such unrelated appropriations as Iraq troop funding.

Estimates on the amount of oil that might be obtained from the Refuge vary from environmentalists’ estimate of 3 billion barrels to the government’s estimate of between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels. The lower estimate would only support U.S. energy needs for a period of six months to a year. Right now, the fate of the Arctic Refuge is caught up in rhetoric of energy shortages and high gasoline prices; however if looked at from a long-term perspective, the amount of oil to be gained from the Refuge is minimal compared to the country’s needs. It is clear that we must look at ways to reduce our consumption instead of invading pristine areas with relatively small amounts of oil. Raising the fuel efficiency standards on cars, light trucks and SUVs to 36 miles per gallon would save three times as much oil as the Refuge could produce by 2020.

The commonplace dangers of oil drilling — spills, toxic gases, machinery, the spider web of roads and pipes — all mean that the energy industry would likely force caribou to go elsewhere to give birth, exiling them to places that lack adequate nutritional resources and protection from predators. This could result in a 40% decrease in caribou birthrate, which would affect both the herd and the Gwich’in people. Other threatened animals include polar bears, musk oxen, wolves, and 130 species of migrating birds. Beyond the impacts on wildlife, oil drilling would intrude on an area long accorded respect by its human inhabitants. The Gwich’in have shown themselves willing to make financial sacrifices to protect land they consider sacred. In their view, oil drilling is not just about the specific effects on the caribou, but also their right to determine how to preserve the health of the land. Policymakers should consider the wisdom of those who have been the caretakers of the Arctic plains for generations.

Solution

Congress needs to stop introducing any legislation that allows oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, especially when attached to a budget bill, and reject President Bush’s proposed 2008 budget with ANWR drilling. Then, true protective laws, which forbid drilling permanently, should be enacted to protect the Refuge for future generations. Arctic Village, which is investing in a solar energy project, needs to be considered an example of how to balance energy needs and the needs of the land. Says Evon Peter, Chief of Arctic Village, “We want to show that a small community can be sustainable and live relatively at balance in the world.”

Take Action:

Write to your Congressional representatives and urge them to stop the continual cycle of ANWR legislation and budget riders. For a sample letter, see the Arctic Refuge Action Coalition’s website.

You can add that you support the Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Bill (H.R. 39), a bill introduced in January 2007 and co-sponsored by 115 Representatives, which would designate ANWR’s coastal plain as a Wilderness and permanently protect it from oil drilling. Urge your Senators to support the companion bill, to be introduced by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT).

Please also write to:

This issue continues to garner a lot of attention, so take advantage of the moment to speak to others about the Refuge and write letters to the editor of your local paper, in particular discussing ANWR as a sacred land issue.

For more information, contact:

Resources

• Arctic Refuge Action Coalition
• Caribou Commons Project
• Alaska Wilderness League
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Gwich’in activist Sarah James discusses oil versus human rights (Earth Island Journal, Summer 2002)
• Read Charles Levendosky’s editorial on drilling in the Refuge (October 2001)
• The LA Times profiles the responses of two different native villages to the prospect of oil drilling: “2 Villages, 2 Views of the Dynamics of Oil” (April 16, 2001, abstract-free; full article retrieval-fee)
• “Fool’s Gold in Alaska” (PDF), by Amory and Hunter Lovins from Foreign Affairs (July/ August 2001), discusses economic and transportation-security concerns about the proposal to drill in the Refuge.
• Read the San Francisco Chronicle three-part series on Arctic Oil (August 29-31, 2005)
• Check out Oil on Ice, a documentary film project on the Arctic Refuge and the native people trying to prevent oil drilling there.