A Letter to Senator Allard

Hi,
I signed one of those standard Sierra Club petitions a few months ago to our Senators concerning ANWR, and Allard actually sent me a form letter in response. It was extremely patronizing, and I sat down and cranked this letter out to him. I thought I would share it:

Ed xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Divide, CO 80814

Senator Wayne Allard
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Suite 521
Washington, DC 20510-0606

Senator Allard,

I recently received your response to my petition urging you to oppose oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). As I expected in this age of partisan politics and party loyalty at all costs, I was extremely dismayed at your response.

You began your letter with the hackneyed conservative “talking-point” that claims that oil exploration will merely impact 2,000 acres of the 19.7 million acre ANWR. This is an outright lie, Senator Allard, and you know it. This 2,000 acre figure assumes that the oil apparatuses will exist in a vacuum, and will require no other infrastructure. This is a patently absurd suggestion, and a conservative lie. Oil exploration in ANWR will require enhanced ports, oil pipelines, roads constructed to supply the area, and other things intrusive to the Wildlife Refuge. This will encompass over 1.2 million acres. Also, there is no requirement that the 2,000 acres be contiguous! This is a scam.

The environmental impact in this pristine area will be extensive. Take Prudhoe Bay, which was once touted as an “environmentally sensitive” oil exploration platform. The insatiable lust of Big Oil for profit has placed nearly 4,000 oil wells and almost 600 miles of road in this area. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation spill database from 1996-2002 indicates that this area suffers almost 400 spills in the bay each year. In terms of quantity, 1.3 million gallons of toxic substances were spilled between 1996 and 2000 alone. Roughly 40 different substances, from acid to waste oil to diesel and crude, are commonly spilled during routine operations. Diesel is particularly devastating to plant life; a study of diesel spills in Alaska's arctic found that there were was little vegetation recovery 28 years after a spill.

Accidental spills are only half the story. The industrial complex of Prudhoe Bay annually emits more air pollutants than Washington, D.C., and has permitted total emissions that exceed those of at least six states - this in an area once considered America's last great wilderness. Plumes of Prudhoe Bay pollution can be detected 200 miles away and visibility in the once pristine air has been significantly reduced by a permanent haze. The oil industry saps the arid region of an astounding 27 billion gallons of water a year and releases vast quantities of waste materials in Prudhoe Bay.

Is this the type of “responsible exploration” we are to expect in ANWR? You claim that wildlife and plant life can co-exist with oil exploration in ANWR. With toxic waste, diesel fuel, and enormous amounts of toxic materials in the air and water, I can hardly see how. Thousands of scientists have stated that there will be irreparable losses to this fragile ecosystem if drilling is allowed. Just because “one caribou herd has tripled in size since 1978,” as you wrote in your letter, that doesn’t mean that drilling hasn’t crippled this fragile tundra ecosystem. Again, Senator Allard, using this conservative “talking-point” about the caribou is intellectually dishonest and is an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of your constituents. The stipulation that one herd of one species in a 20 million acre wildlife refuge could make any sort of overall observation about the health of the entire ecosystem is absurd. Shame on you for regurgitating this right-wing nonsense!

Your entire response letter hinged upon merely finding new places to drill for oil. This myopic approach to energy policy is the reason we are currently in crisis. There are countless other ways to approach this issue. Simply reducing the mileage-per-gallon of light trucks and SUVs by 2 or 3 MPG could reduce our consumption of oil by millions of barrels per year. A much larger reduction in mileage-per-gallon would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil and make drilling in wilderness areas such as ANWR moot points.

While composing this letter, I decided to review your voting record on environmental issues, Senator Allard. According to the Sierra Club, the oldest and most respected environmental organization, you have only voted once in the past four years on the side of the environment. As a Senator from Colorado, this is simply unacceptable. You are completely out of step with your constituency, and have proven yourself to be a partisan politician beholden to lobbyists and industry who fears his party leadership too much to vote for the best interests of his own state and its people.

Your response letter was also laced with concerns about “national security,” as if destroying one of our last wilderness areas has anything to do with protecting our nation. This right-wing lie is the one that offends me the most, Senator Allard. I recently retired from the Army with the rank of Captain after a 9 year career. I served my nation in ground combat for a year in Iraq. I know a thing or two about “national security.” The notion that destroying the environment has anything to do with security is offensive to me. It troubles me that I laid my life on the line for my country, only to see its precious wildlife areas bargained off to the highest bidder from big Oil.

“National Security” would be much more furthered by reducing our dependence on foreign oil by implementing economically sound and environmentally sound policies. Instead of drilling away our wilderness areas, perhaps we could invest in alternative sources of energy and reducing the mileage-per-gallon of our automobiles. There are myriad answers to our energy crisis that do not involve destroying the planet.

I will actively seek your removal from office once your current term has expired, Senator Allard. While I am an independent voter, and dislike many aspects of both major parties, it has become clear to me that you are an enemy of the environment, and unacceptable for Colorado. Should you desire to reverse your environmental policies and votes, I will be happy to hear about it.

Sincerely,




Ed xxxxxxxxxx

your service!