Faulty Rationale for Oil Drilling in Alaska

Re “Wildlife and Drilling Can Coexist,” Commentary, Aug. 9: R. Dobie Langenkamp dismisses the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as merely mosquito-rich tundra in order to rationalize increased oil drilling to supply fuel for gas-guzzling SUVs. He uses the same reverse logic as loggers who claim there are too many trees in the forests, thus excusing clear-cutting, and hunters who demonize wolves and bears, to excuse predator-control programs that allow more targets for hunters to shoot. There is an essential difference between those who look about and respect nature as it is, and those like Langenkamp who can only perceive it as a natural resource to be exploited.

Instead I suggest that since the ANWR is only 19 million of Alaska’s 394 million acres, perhaps the oil drilling could be developed somewhere in the other 375 million acres--preferably in the backyards of those Alaskans who are so gleefully pocketing their shares of oil revenues.

Don Leech

Long Beach

All of the arguments for drilling in the ANWR become meaningless if we face up to the absolute fact that a large portion of the present oil in Alaska is shipped to Japan. Oil from the new drilling will follow the same path, since it’s cheaper to ship to Japan than to the United States. Why not require that the present production be shipped here? Why should we subsidize new drilling to increase the oil companies’ bottom lines? I hope Senate members will bring this up when the bill comes before them.

Howard Niederman

San Clemente