The perspective of an environmentalist conspirator

I have never been to Hollywood. So, you can only imagine my surprise when, while sitting at home in Anchorage reading the words of Gov. Mike Dunleavy, I discovered that those of us who don’t think Alaska should be subsidizing disinterested oil companies to drill holes in the tundra are, “billionaires and Hollywood elites… who couldn’t care less about the individual Alaskan trying to get a job.”

I was even more surprised to discover that my inclinations for a diversified economy qualify as a “conspiracy” to make Alaska one big national park just to pad the wallets of Russian oligarchs. It’s no wonder the Alaska House of Representatives just overwhelmingly passed a resolution requesting the Bureau of Land Management implement Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil leases.

Just as sarcasm littered my opening paragraph, bad faith arguments litter recent rhetoric concerning resource extraction in the arctic from Gov. Dunleavy and other pro-oil politicians. Beneath the tailings lie disagreements about how to face environmental, economic, and social challenges ahead. Disagreement is good; it forces us to explore policy differences. However, name-calling and misrepresentation only distracts public discourse away from navigating our path forward; our elected officials should do better.

Dunleavy’s outcry takes aim at outside liberal environmentalists and their tireless efforts to destroy his state. The problem, of course, is that many of us Alaskans disagree with our governor too. Pro-oil politicians tend to wax on three arguments — let’s look at each in turn.

1. “Saying no to arctic oil only makes climate change worse by exporting extraction elsewhere — where others would emit anyways, where environmental regulations are worse, and emissions wouldn’t be reduced by Alaska’s restraint.”

Suppose I steal your wallet. I surely wouldn’t garner reprieve by saying that I took it only after overhearing other ne’er-do-wells plotting to steal it anyway. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

The recent House Resolution (HJR 12) goes so far as to claim that oil and gas exploration “has not been shown to contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.” This is factually incorrect; the 2015 Greenhouse Gas Inventory by Sector shows the oil industry contributes more than half of our state’s emissions. Furthermore, U.S. oil production is up over the past decade. Alaska’s oil production has been “exported” to North Dakota and Texas, not Russia or Saudi Arabia, as foreign oil imports have steadily decreased. Finally, since this argument suggests that degradation is justifiable so long as someone else would do worse, only the worst environmental perpetrators would then be justified in ever cleaning up their act — hardly the way to meet collective challenges like climate change.

2. “Propping up arctic oil amounts to taking on the National Resources Defense Council, Wall Street and Saudi sheikhs.”

Although it is commendable that Gov. Dunleavy objects to Wall Street money funding Russian oil fields, the U.S. oil industry is hardly a down-on-its luck little guy just trying to help every day Alaskans. Dunleavy recently objected to the opulence of the Environmental Defense Fund paying its CEO some $665,000. ExxonMobil raked in $255 billion in revenue in 2019, compensating its CEO to the tune of $23.5 million.

The oil industry is just as big as those Wall Street banks and far bigger than any environmentalist organization. Dumping state money into a fight for oil amounts to a subsidy that we pay for, taking money from Alaska’s roads, schools, law enforcement and health care. Why should Alaskans foot the bill to defend oil interests or assume those interests align with ours?

As the governor said recently, “self-interest, and not honesty, makes the world go ‘round.” Big corporations help drive the economy, but that doesn’t mean we should expect them to go out of their way when the market changes. The problem isn’t some NRDC/Sierra Club bogeyman in Washington, D.C. — major oil companies are leaving Alaska because the market for arctic oil isn’t there.

3. “We need oil.”

We don’t need oil. We do need an economy. Fortunately, money doesn’t only flow through pipelines. From 2012-2017, the number of farms in Alaska grew by 30%. UPS, FedEx and local companies are investing big in Alaska’s strategic shipping location. Alaska has one of the best track records for large-scale sustainable fishing. Unparalleled recreation continues to draw young people and outdoor enthusiasts to the state, contributing more than $3 billion in consumer spending. Small businesses, tourism, entrepreneurship and innovation in every sector means opportunity for Alaska.

One example: For years, tech companies have eyed cold-weather locales for their cost-saving potential in housing server farms. Falling oil prices, alternative energy and highly uncertain future oil markets have nothing to do with Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Gore or Larry Fink. Alaska’s future could be secure, if only we spent as much energy innovating a sustainable economy as our elected officials do chasing yesterday’s industry.

So, to Gov. Dunleavy and our elected officials blaming outsiders for pushback resistance to arctic oil: You don’t need to look for scapegoats out there in the big scary Lower 48. Instead, see the many of us Alaskans who recognize the oil industry is itself moving on. You represent Alaska, but please be careful when speaking for Alaska. I live here too. I am your constituent too. I am not an environmentalist conspirator wishing Alaska doom.

After all, we are not so different: I cash a PFD check; I put on a beaver hat when it’s 40 below, and I put my Carhartts on one leg at a time. I merely see a different reality facing our state. While oil fields bring in state revenue, the industry employs a decreasing number of Alaska residents and sends too much profit outside. We want the same thing: a bright future for Alaska. Instead of using divisive rhetoric to hammer a wedge, you could help build a bridge to that future through policies that promote a diverse, resilient and regenerative economy as we move past oil.

Alexander Lee is a philosophy professor in Anchorage.

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.