Probably not, but the Inuit who live in Kaktovik have good reason to think that she does. More than anyone else, those native Americans would benefit from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Many would be able to find jobs with the oil companies, which they need, if they are to have better lives in Kaktovik. A poll shows that a large majority of Kaktovik residents favor drilling in ANWR.
But Washington's junior senator blocked those jobs, and progress for the Inuit of Kaktovik, when she helped kill drilling in ANWR. Why does she favor blocking something so much in the interest of this small, poor native American village? I don't think that she was motivated by racism, though I would not exclude a related sin, which I call "urban imperialism". Urban imperialists do not live in rural areas, but are quite willing to set the rules for those who do, and are generally unwilling to listen to the residents of rural areas. Urban imperialists would be enraged if, for instance, the loggers of the Olympic peninsula and the farmers of the Columbia Basin were to make detailed regulations for the inner city residents of Seattle and Tacoma, but they feel quite comfortable doing the reverse.
A more important reason for Cantwell's actions was, most likely, electoral calculation. A large proportion of Washington's voters hold religious views* about the environment and by blocking drilling in ANWR she will delight those voters. And I would not be completely surprised to learn that Cantwell shares those religious views, in part. She claims to be a Catholic, but then so does John Kerry.
Cantwell's actions will also please many who believe that the oil companies are wicked, and that anything that thwarts the oil companies is good. (These same people often believe that gas prices are too high — and that oil companies should be blocked from drilling in ANWR and other "sacred" areas. I have never quite figured out how to respond to that combination.) It is no accident that Cantwell justified her actions in part with a demagogic attack on the oil companies — or that she ignored the immense sums that would go to the federal government if drilling in ANWR was successful.
And Cantwell may have still other motives. Extreme environmentalists often are large contributors to the Democratic party and its leftwing allies. Blocking ANWR will not hurt her fund raising.
Whatever Cantwell's motives, one thing is certain: She helped keep the Inuit of Kaktovik poor. I hope a few of them will come to Washington and campaign against her next year.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(*There's nothing original in this argument. John McPhee titled his 1971 book on the longtime head of the Sierra Club, David Brower, Encounters With the Archdruid, because Brower's opposition to almost any kind of development was essentially religious. You can see the religious nature of the opposition to drilling in ANWR in the language often used by opponents. The refuge, we are often told, is "sacred" and would be "desecrated" by those profane oil companies.
When discussing environmental issues, I have begun calling those with essentially religious motives, "preservationists", and those who just want cleaner air and water for people, "conservationists". The terms aren't perfect, but they fit historically. (A few who support the preservationists do so for entirely selfish reasons; they want to keep wild areas for themselves.) I am a staunch conservationist, but not at all a preservationist.
Once you recognize the religious motives of the preservationists, you will realize that what they want may often be unconstitutional. The 1st Amendment prevents the federal government from building cathedrals for the Catholic church; it also prevents the federal government from providing sacred groves for the Sierra Club.
The Seattle Times, which supported Senator Cantwell in 2000, ran an embarrassing editorial applauding her efforts to keep the Inuit of Kaktovik impoverished. As is true of most city newspapers, the Times is full of urban imperialists. And so they have no trouble in keeping the Inuit of Kaktovik too poor even to have indoor plumbing.
You will sometimes see the claim that Alaskan natives do not support the drilling. Those who make that claim support it by referring to the Gwich'in, who do oppose drilling. What those people almost never tell you is that the Gwich'in live hundreds of miles from the drilling site, and favored drilling on their own lands in the past.
Need to brush up on the Inuit? Here's the Wikipedia entry, where you will learn, among other things that the singular of Inuit is "Inuk" or "Inuq".)
Posted by Jim Miller at December 27, 2005 10:14 AM | Email ThisWhat is equally troubling is that Republicans also go along with some of this nonsense. We need the ability to drill in ANWR in order to:
1.) Gain leverage over the OPEC cartel- if they know we are willing to tap our own reserves, what do you think will happen to the speculative futures market?
2.) Provide revenue to the fedral budget from leases- get it, we are "paying" ourselves- not some foreign country.
3.)Provide needed jobs as the author mentioned.
In addition, the Magnuson Amendment must be changed in order to allow more crude to enter Cherry Point and lower prices at the pump. We need courageous elected leaders to stand up to those like Cantwell and do the right thing- not cowtow to the environmental fringe.
Posted by: political junkie on December 27, 2005 10:31 AMHere is a way we can take some of the money that inevitably ends up in the terrorists pockets and put it back into our own economy. By increasing our drilling at home, we not only lower the price of gas (however slightly, a small change is still better than none) and we send more of our American dollars to American interests that gets taxed by the American government.
I hope Maria Cantwell gets called to the carpet for this, but unfortunately, too many Washingtonians can't tell the difference between conserving our natural resources and balancing that with our economic needs, and putting trees and bears ahead of people. (And here, there are no trees or bears or much of anything but lichen that is at stake!)
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on December 27, 2005 11:13 AMThe tribes did a massive voter registration campaign and it could be argued that Cantwell's margin of victory was entirely due to the tribal vote.
Posted by: Dennis on December 27, 2005 11:22 AM2) Not drilling in ANWR means that the higher price of oil will induce drilling in other parts of the world... who care little about avoiding damage to the environment while doing so.
the choice is between us doing it cleanly, and someone else doing it sloppily.
3) Dennis, remember that we're not entirely sure whether Cantwell's "margin of victory" really had a plus or minus in front of it, as the race was decided by a last-minute dump of ballots from King County.
Posted by: TB on December 27, 2005 11:48 AM You are right about the tribes vote.
I would like to point out however that
unlike in the past there was and
I believe there still is a chance to
Get there vote.
Mark Hulst actually made some in roads
with the tribes they were interested and
agreed with what he had to say.This information
was given to Chris Vance and as usual he did
nothing.and know Mike McGavick can't change
that.Because they will see him as nothing
more that a slick businessman pandering
for votes.
I'm sorry to be terribly ignorant of this subject. But it is troubling that our senators are being picked by people who don't consider themselves as citizens of the United States.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on December 27, 2005 02:12 PMAnd no: the $3.00+ per gallon we had earlier this year was not even close: If radical terrorists were to, say, overthrow the current Saudi Royals or put the Saudi loading facilities out of commission for even a few months, THEN we would know what a real oil crises looked like (all of Saudi Arabia's oil exports are I believe loaded at just 3 facilities: Yanbu, Ras al-Juaymah, and Ras Turana (see google) ).
In any case, the footprint for drilling in ANWR (most work would be done in the winter) is on the order of 2000 acres; out of something over 20,000,000 total: One part out of TEN-THOUSAND.
The idea that drilling ANWR with modern methods would "destroy" it is another piece of left-wing radical propaganda without basis in fact.
Methow Ken
1. Reduce the thermostats in their Congressional offices to 40 deg. or so in winter, 85 deg. in summer. If they want us to conserve only, let's start with them.
2. Disallow about 90% of their travel budgets. That will save tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel every year.
3. Remove their parking spots at the Capitol and National Airport. They can walk to work and take the Metro to DCA. Let them lead by example if they want the rest of us to use less energy.
4. Allow them no TV time. That will save electricity on the lights and cameras and ancillary equipment their press conferences consume.
5. No printed materials will be allowed to be sent from their offices. That will save trees and the energy necessary to harvest those trees and process them into paper.
Since these slimemolds want the rest of us to make do with less energy and make whatever changes in our lifestyles are necessary to achieve that, let them be the first ones to do it. Let CantDoWell try that on for size, and then maybe go hideout under a clump of tundra in the dead of winter up in her beloved ANWR.
Posted by: Interested Observer on December 27, 2005 03:59 PMAnother liberal recurring wet dream......
It really does get tiresome responding to delusion.
Moron: A pipeline is already in place north to south Alaska. All transport via tanker between US ports is double hulled. Washington is the natural destination of Alaska crude. Pipelines southbound already exist. WA is an energy state. Caribou love pipelines. Native Alaskans love pipelines and JOBS.
Conservation is good? Says who? Al Gore? Uh huh, a real expert......at gaining weight.
LIBERALS hate prosperity and capitalism. YOU SUCK.
Posted by: THS on December 27, 2005 05:33 PMIn fact, why don't you take Will's advice to conserve and start by cutting your personal energy use? The best way would be to not use your computer. Stay off of the internet and never post here again, saving those precious natural resources and doing your part to save ANWR. If you don't, we'll be justified in assuming that you're another do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do liberal 'Rat.
Posted by: Interested Observer on December 27, 2005 06:35 PMLook, dude - the Republicans caved last week when ANWR was brought up for a vote and helped Cantwell look good. Sorry they wimped out, but they did and unless they pull out a miracle, they will have to make do with the consequences ! How about using your ingenuity - along with others in proposing some solutions for alternative fuel sources in lieu of ANWR, which would have taken 10 years + to affect fuel consumption. How in the heck did the Republicans cave when they are in the majority ? I like prosperity and capitalism as much as the next intelligent person (FYI - I voted for Rossi in 2004).
Posted by: KS on December 27, 2005 06:43 PMUnfortunately, by caving the Repubs made it that much more difficult for Cantdowell to be beaten by her opponent in 2006.
Posted by: KS on December 27, 2005 07:00 PMThere is a lot of misconception out there on the conservation/new sources issue. Nobody favors waste (I don't think most SUVs are all that necessary, FWIW), but conservation only preserves, for a time, what we have on the supply side. As demand grows, new sources will need to be developed. To the extent that ANWR resources can be reasonably developed and utilized, they should be.
I lived through the late 1960s-early 1970s issues with the trans-Alaska pipeline debate, and a lot of the same old hoary arguments against that are being rehashed in the ANWR debate. It took the oil embargo of 1973 to snap people out of their torpor and get the pipeline built, and that has been a boon to the state of Alaska and helped the domestic energy supply. ANWR is shaping up along those same lines. It may take OPEC turning off the spigot (and causing a debilitating recession in the Western economies) to do the trick again. I hope not, but I can easily see it happening.
Posted by: Interested Observer on December 27, 2005 07:09 PMYou have to give the 'Rats credit for one thing, they know how to play political hardball. As much as I despise the 'Rats for their positions on the issues and other things, they are tough when it comes to having their way. When they were in the majority on Capitol Hill, they bulldozed their agenda through and basically told the opposition to f-off if they didn't like it. When they are in the minority and they don't like something, they filibuster, they obstruct, they build coalitions with the few on the other side who are willing to go along with them, and essentially control the debate and the agenda.
Republicans, OTOH, seem to cower in fear before the minority, as if they were still in the minority, try to accomodate the 'Rats, do everything they can to go along and get along as if that is going to curry favor with the 'Rats, when in fact all it will get them is a stab in the back. Eventually the voters are going to wonder why they gave these clowns their ticket to run the place at all.
Posted by: Interested Observer on December 28, 2005 06:54 AMAnother good characterization is calling Seattle's peculiar variety of environmentalism a cult-like religious movement. (Much like contemporary gender feminism).
Posted by: BananaLand on December 28, 2005 01:11 PMIf you check the first link, you will see that the residents of the village consider themselves part of a group usually called Inuit in Canada and Eskimo in the United States. But it is the same group.
If you check the last link, you will find that anthropologists now use Inuit for the entire group, which extends from Siberia to Greenland.
And, it will reduce confusion in the future if you make it clear that you are not Jim Miller in your comments on my posts.
Posted by: Jim Miller on December 28, 2005 05:44 PM