Fasten your belts, methane turbulence ahead

Frontiersman editorial board

Much has been written and said since Senator Scott Ogan's unusual presentation at the Oct. 22 meeting of the Greater Palmer Chamber of Commerce. It was one of the few public appearances Ogan has made since debate over coal-bed methane development in the Mat-Su intensified.

As has often been the case with this issue, emotions ran high at moments during Ogan's presentation -- his emotions and those of some audience members. At one point Ogan slammed his hand down on the table and shouted his disgust with the way the debate has gone, and with what he perceives as misinformation by the press and, as he says, "Outside environmentalists."

Ogan also lamented the bad behavior exhibited by some of his opposition, and he displayed disappointment and anger about derogatory bumper stickers and an episode that included him being tarred and feathered in effigy. In fairness, Ogan has a right to be angry about those things. When a reasoned argument becomes an emotional personal attack, the discussion ceases to be productive. The argument is about development in the Valley, and a reasonable outcome will more likely result from reasoned discourse.

It should also be said that Senator Ogan has long been an advocate of CBM development here, and he argues passionately for it, still. It's clear he believes it's the right thing for our community. The problem is, Ogan has missed the point of the argument. With one breath he scolds his opponents for being inaccurate and for fear mongering and labeling. With the next breath he lumps the opposition together under the label "Outside environmentalists," and suggests they are anti-growth. In truth, most of the opposition consists of Ogan's neighbors and former constituents. They are property owners who are attempting to protect their own rights as well as the natural beauty that makes the Valley unique.

The most important argument is not over whether or not resources should be developed here. The argument is about how that development should take place. Should we regulate the industry before development begins or after? Should we establish contingencies in the event something does go wrong, and should we set up legislation that holds the industry accountable in advance or after development begins? If you can't decide, ask yourself this. Do I put on my seat belt before I pull out of the driveway or when my car is skidding off the road? Do I put it on because I intend to have an accident, or because I might have one? The people Ogan should be listening to are those reasoned ones who are asking those questions. And we would all be better off if everyone took the edge out their voices and engaged in a civil discourse on the matter.