Too much is at stake

Efforts by some members of the environmental community to choke off Alaska’s oil production are definitely on the sleazy side.

They are no surprise, certainly, since the greens have been trying to boot oil producers out of Alaska for more than 50 years. And one day, hopefully in the distant future, this state will indeed send its last barrel of liquid energy to the world’s markets.

But in the meantime we should fight for what we have and insist that converting to new energy sources be conducted in a sensible manner that recognizes the value of keeping our options open and viable.

Toward that end, Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan sent a letter to President Joe Biden urging him to encourage financial institutions to invest in domestic energy production.

Many of the world’s banks and investment organizations have adopted policies that prohibit them from financing projects on the North Slope because of its location in the Arctic. Russia is already taking advantage of the financial vacuum such policies create and using the world’s dependence on sources like Ukraine to strengthen its grip on the world economy.

The enthusiasm of environmentalists for such blockages is understandable. Those folks have never been known to pass on an opportunity to create mischief for petroleum producers. Unfortunately those producers include we Alaskans, whose financial fate is intimately tied to continuing production from places like our North Slope.

And right now such manipulations have caused oil markets to fluctuate and the price of a gallon of gasoline often soars. Long term we will need to get away from using such fuel sources since they have what appears to be an unavoidable impact on the natural environment.

In the meantime it is important that the world move as sensibly as possible to energy sources that have the lightest possible detrimental effect on the world’s atmosphere and water resources.

Alaska’s rural villages are especially susceptible to energy price fluctuations since they buy fuel in bulk in springtime and ship it to the rural communities by barge after the ice goes out. If the price is high when they make their purchases, they pay the cost through much of the winter.

Forcing Rural Alaska to pay exorbitant prices for fuel can benefit a few companies at the expense of all who depend on Alaskan paychecks to be there when needed and to spend their money on a wide variety of their daily requirements.

We are all in this together and it is important that the risks and rewards be spread over the economy in ratios beneficial to both consumers and their suppliers. We might like to have low prices at the gasoline pump but if that means paying through the nose at the grocery store most people would say ‘No.”

Though the price of oil from Ukraine can help or hurt the Alaskan economy indirectly, we are all dependent on a system that is fair to all. We don’t get any oil directly from the Ukraine that I know of, but when the price spikes anywhere in the chain we are all impacted one way or the other.

Eventually this nation and the world as a whole will almost certainly move away from fossil fuels altogether. The future of our environment depends on that happening. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. We should take a sensible approach to finding, producing and consuming energy, one that takes into account the many factors at play.

Alaska is not a great energy producer these days, though our oil and gas sources are large enough to play a role in world markets for years to come. We all have an interest in the outcome of whatever debates evolve as we move into the future.

Let us not make poorly considered decisions. Too much is at stake.

Tom Brennan is an Anchorage columnist and author of six books. He was a reporter/columnist for The Anchorage Times and an editor and columnist at The Voice of The Times.