Blind pro-development rhetoric ignores reality

In regards to the commentary of Mr. Rick Whitbeck, “Combating the narrative of fear,” printed in the ADN June 17, while I agree with his basic premise that fear-mongering should be disdained and rebuffed, I do not agree with other key points of his opinion piece. There are a few holes in his logic that warrant further discussion.

To begin with, as a former corporate executive, I know that corporations exist for a single purpose: to make a profit. They are not altruistic. Environmental protection is not a measure of corporate success, and in the interest of profitability, executives will often cut corners, or even operate outside the realm of regulations. Executives are rewarded in big ways for meeting or exceeding earnings targets. We need look no further than recent banking practices of Wells Fargo, the manipulation of emissions test results by Volkswagen and Daimler Benz, and the real estate crash of 2008, to know that executives are often more motivated by profits and bonuses than by obeying regulations and guidelines. And we should be especially vigilant in the case of foreign investment companies that have no presence in Alaska or investment in the future of Alaska other than the desire to exploit our resources.

Second, Mr. Whitbeck assumes regulations and guidelines are adequate for approving resource projects and subsequent operations of such projects. If this were the case, Boeing would not have a fleet of 737 MAX aircraft grounded after the fatal crashes of two new planes. We would not have had an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico after a drilling platform exploded and Prince William Sound would not be tainted with oily residue along its shores resulting from the Exxon Valdez disaster. The U.S. has a long history of mining disasters, oil spills, industrial waste contamination and heavy metal pollution of water sources from the operation of facilities governed by regulations and guidelines, approved through regulatory processes.

Furthermore, design and construction regulations are based on likely scenarios, like a 100-year flood, a magnitude 6.0 earthquake or a Category 3 hurricane. But dams still fail and burst in a 100-year flood, roads and bridges still collapse from a 6.0 earthquake and levees are still breached by Category 3 hurricanes. The design criteria can’t accommodate the full range of natural conditions that may occur, or anticipate combined conditions, such as the impact of a 100-year flood in conjunction with an earthquake.

Third, neither the federal government nor the state of Alaska have adequate resources to monitor all of the mining and oil drilling activities to ensure compliance to regulations. Budget cuts have stripped resources from many of the oversight agencies, making it impossible to monitor all projects, especially in remote areas of Alaska. In the interest of “streamlining application processes” and accelerating project approval, the current administration has further weakened the regulatory review process, diminished the role of the EPA and created more reason to express concern about resource projects.

Fourth, we can’t dismiss human error. The explosion of the oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico was partly blamed on corporate non-compliance and partly on human error. Aircraft crashes are frequently found to be the outcome of pilot error. And nearly every automobile accident in the U.S. is a direct result of human error. Relative to safety, the weakest links in any system are the human beings who operate, maintain or oversee the system.

Finally, we need to ensure that opposing groups have a voice and are not dismissed as fear-mongers or radicals. While fear is often used as a tool for promoting an agenda, most legitimate environmental groups base their arguments in data and honest concern for environmental impact. I am not opposed to mining, oil drilling and other resource extraction efforts, but we must be cautious in the review and approval process, not simply rely on regulations and guidelines, and challenge projects where the long-term risk is extreme relative to the overall benefit. Sometimes the stakes are too high to risk a broader renewable resource for the sake of a single project.

Gary Cornwell is a retired executive of a U.S.-based multinational company. He has been a resident of Alaska for nine years, has an engineering degree as well as an MBA and more than 24 years experience in managing multinational construction projects.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.