This Committee, and the other members of Congress, must decide whether to protect the vast and varied environmental resources of the Arctic Coastal Plain or to allow oil and gas development to change it forever. Stipulations and conditions in leases cannot prevent the inevitable and significant damage which will occur. Mitigation may salve the conscience; it will not save the resources. On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife I urge you to reconsider this bill, and to replace it with one which will designate the Arctic Coastal Plain as Wilderness. Thank you. Senator BINGAMAN [presiding]. Next, I gather Congressman Fisher, who is representing the Wilderness Society? Please go right ahead. We will have some questions of the whole panel when you are all finished with your testimony, if that's okay. STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH L. FISHER, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY Mr. FISHER. I am representing the Wilderness Society here this morning as a member of its governing council. While I was in the House of Representatives, I served with Senator Chafee as co-chairman of the Environmental and Energy Study Conference. I have lived and worked in Alaska for a number of years in former times, and have always taken a close interest in its both conservation and developmental problems. As you well know, the coastal plain where the Arctic Refuge is is the last vestige of this kind of an ecosystem, this kind of an environment, that is still fully protected. The remaining 90 percent of the north slope of Alaska, as well as the entire off-shore area, is now open to oil and gas exploitation, let alone other parts of Alaska. That is the general perspective on it. This is a relatively small part of the total. A decision on whether or not to open up the Arctic Refuge to petroleum exploitation prompts the following question. Will the refuge's potential production really make a significant contribution to our future energy supply? If it will, that's one thing. But if the chances are that it won't, it would seem prudent and sensible not to go there but to go other places to find additional supply. A Department of the Interior report, 1987, on this region estimates that if oil is present, 3.2 billion barrels could be found. But there is only a 19 percent chance that any producible oil will be found. And allowing for this probability of success, the expected output from the refuge amounts to less than 1 percent of the projected United States imports of oil over the lifetime of the field. And there are alternative places to look for oil. Except for the Arctic Refuge, the entire continental shelf of the north slope, as I have indicated, is open for oil exploration and development. And this includes the geological extensions of Prudhoe Bay. At least 90 percent of all the areas considered favorable for oil and gas potential in Alaska are now open to the oil companies. A 1981 report by the Geological Survey identifies some 83 billion barrels of recoverable oil yet to be discovered in the United States on on-shore areas and a lot more off-shore. So, we are really talking about a tiny, tiny amount out of the total potential in the whole country. I could go into some detail of any number of these alternative sources, but I expect you have been through that. I would like to turn to the gains that can be made over and above those already achieved in conservation, which is another huge potential way beyond anything that could possibly be produced from the Arctic Refuge. While the current gains from energy conservation measures have far exceeded optimistic predictions of the early 1970s, when Sena tor Wirth and I were hot on this subject, even more significant energy efficiency advances are well within reach. The Department of Energy recent report on energy security documents these potential future gains. "In many cases, today's most efficient energy systems offer at least twice as much improvement over what was being done in 1973," when the first so-called oil crisis struck. "The best technology that can be reasonably projected for the turn of the century invariably offers another substantial jump in getting the same jobs done. Industrial improvements in energy efficiency show ingenuity, flexibility, and adaptability to a remarkable degree." And the report goes on in that vein. As an example of the tremendous volumes of energy that could be saved with incremental improvements of energy efficiency, consider the fuel efficiency standards of automobiles and light trucks. This administration recently rolled back new vehicle mileage standards from 27.5 to 26 miles per gallon. If the Congress mandated that the fleet average for all new household vehicles should be 27.5 miles per gallon starting in 1993, the energy savings over the 26 miles per gallon standard would total some 4.6 billion barrels over the lifetime of any oil production in the Arctic Refuge. Compare this with the 3.2 billion barrels expected to be produced from the refuge in the unlikely event that any oil at all is found in producible quantities. And of course, if the gallons per mile standard should be raised higher or go higher, much more could be saved. Energy conservation savings, of course, are not limited only to the transportation sector. One finds them in electricity generation and industrial use and pretty much across the board. Well, the whole burden of this testimony is that before invading a wildlife refuge of unique characteristics of tremendous value to the whole society, there are many, many other places to turn that make a lot more sense economically and in every other way. Well, to sum it up, the likelihood of finding a significant amount of economically producible oil in the Arctic Refuge is small. Furthermore, there are many, many better alternatives, and especially the adoption of additional conservation measures, which of course have no particular bearing or have no effect on pollution-air, water pollution, wildlife, game, anything like that. Obviously, this is the sensible way to turn. Energy conservation is actually preferable even to finding another Prudhoe Bay. Reductions in energy demand do not pollute the environment, do not sacrifice outstanding wilderness values, wildlife, and by all odds would be a preferable way to go. Thanks very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:] WILDER DERNESS FOUNDED IN 1935 THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH L. FISHER, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, AND MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, ON THE COASTAL PLAIN OF THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OCTOBER 15, 1987 This camittee is charged with helping to determine the fate of a diverse spectrum of Arctic ecosystems. This area represents the last fully protected natural resource of its kind in the United States. The primary issue is the weighing of the value of the Arctic Refuge as an energy production unit versus the merit of the region as a preserve for protecting its unparalleled wildlife and wilderness values. The coastal plain area of the Arctic Refuge is the last vestige of the North Slope coastal plain protected from development. The remaining 90 percent of the North Slope of Alaska, as well as the entire offshore area, is now open to oil and gas exploitation. An estimated 200,000 caribou stream to the coastal plain every spring to give birth, creating a vast spectacle unmatched anywhere else in this country. Wandering herds of muskoxen, as well as grizzly and polar bears, wolves, multitudes of migrating waterfowl and other fauna help explain why the Department of Interior's 1002 Report termed the coastal 1400 EYE STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-3400 plain "the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife and the center of wildlife activity on the Refuge." ... In 1977, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service successfully opposed the routing of a gas pipeline across the Arctic National Wildlife Range stating that "such a crossing is clearly not compatible with the basic purpose of the Arctic Range... we do not believe that the long-term national interest would be served by committing this unique area to development for short-term benefits when its outstanding values for wildlife and wilderness would be forever lost. To protect our public trust and to exemplify our good conscience as concerned ecologists, we must object strongly to any development which would threaten the integrity of the Arctic National Wildlife Range such activity would destroy wilderness values and irretrievably disrupt many wildlife populations and their habitats ... and that the Arctic Range is the last unspoiled area of its kind in the entire Northern Hemisphere." ... Given the magnitude and uniqueness of the wildlife and wilderness attributes of the Arctic Refuge, we must carefully examine the arguments for petroleum exploitation. This testimony focuses exclusively on the likely magnitude of oil production from the Arctic Refuge, alternative sources of supply, and energy conservation. Much of the rationale used to justify oil production in the Arctic Refuge is based on so-called energy security considerations. According to drilling proponents, a strategy of importing oil that is cheaper |