IS ALASKA THE ANSWER?

Faced with power blackouts in California and rising energy prices across the nation, President Bush wants to drill for oil in an Arctic wildlife refuge

Few Americans have ever visited the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a vast, 19-million-acre chunk of majestic but rugged terrain on Alaska's far northern coast. And for much of the year, fewer still would ever want to. In midwinter, the darkness lasts for 56 straight days. The tundra, in the shadow of the Brooks mountain range, bursts to life only during the Arctic spring, when it is home to tens of thousands of migrating caribou. But it is one of those places whose very mention provokes an angry debate.

On one side are those who see the refuge as America's last wilderness. They argue that it should forever remain untouched by development, that its value to future generations will be greatest if it is left as it is. On the other side are those who see it as a resource too valuable not to tap. Buried deep beneath the tundra may be the largest oil deposit ever found in the United States. This year, as energy shortages and rolling power blackouts plague California, the refuge has become the focal point of a broader debate about how to meet the nation's energy needs while protecting the environment.

President Bush, who believes the California crisis could be just the beginning of a national energy emergency, has promised to ask Congress this year to open the refuge to oil drilling. He has appointed Vice President Dick Cheney--like the President, a former oilman--to head a new energy task force charged with finding ways "to promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future."

It may be weeks or months before the plan is unveiled. But Bush has already made clear that its main thrust will be to boost domestic energy production, not just by opening the Alaska refuge to drilling, but also by easing the barriers to oil, gas, and coal development on other public lands, particularly in the American West. "Our nation is going to have to make a decision as to whether or not we want to find excess energy," Bush said last month. "There's a mentality that says you can't explore and protect land. We're going to change that attitude."

The U.S. is the world's leading producer of energy, but it is also the world's largest energy consumer, using 36 percent more energy than it creates. The U.S. now imports 57 percent of its oil--more than ever before--and U.S., energy consumption, driven in part by increasing dependence on superpowerful computers, is growing by 3 percent a year.

President Bush says that drilling in the Alaska refuge and other sensitive places will help reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and can be accomplished in an environmentally responsible way. But many others have expressed doubts, and they have questioned whether the kind of aggressive new exploration that the White House seems to favor is really worth what they see as a significant environmental risk.

"What do you call someone who would drill our Arctic Wildlife Refuge, where there's hardly any oil?" asks a new advertisement being aired by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a research and advocacy group. The ad answers its own question by stopping the music and splashing across the screen the words "Mr. President."

The group and other critics say any drilling, no matter how careful, would disrupt wildlife, particularly the caribou migration, and would impose on the last unspoiled slice of the American Arctic an undesirable network of roads, pipelines, and other construction.

Just how much oil might lie beneath the Arctic refuge, and whether it could be extracted safely, are open to debate.

A study by the U.S. Geological Survey says the coastal plain (the only part of the refuge that could by law be opened to drilling) could house the largest supply of oil ever discovered in the United States, with between 3 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil lying beneath the surface. Not surprisingly, the Energy Stewardship Alliance, a new pro-drilling group backed by the oil-and-gas industry, has focused on the higher figure, noting it would be enough to supply 1.5 million barrels a day for the next 25 years, even more than the U.S. now imports from Saudi Arabia.

The industry and its advocates within the Bush administration also point to advancements in drilling techniques to argue that the footprint required to gain access to that oil would be relatively tiny--just 2,000 acres, or a fraction of the refuge so small that Interior Secretary Gale Norton has likened it to "the size of a toaster in a four-bedroom house." As a further precaution, the administration has pledged that drilling operations would be conducted only in the winter, when ice would protect the tundra, and when there would be no danger of interfering with the springtime caribou calving.

"With new technology we can balance our need for energy and our concern for the environment," the industry alliance says in a new counter-advertisement of its own.

WORTH THE RISK?

But drilling critics also use the Geological Survey estimates as ammunition, focusing attention on the lower range of the estimates, and noting that the amount of oil the geologists consider most likely to be recovered is about 6 billion barrels, or enough to fuel only six months of current total American consumption.

And that, they argue, is nowhere near enough to justify the risk of causing environmental damage, not just to the caribou herd and other wildlife, but through inevitable harm to the fragile tundra. Opponents also cite the graver possibility of oil spills, either from the pipelines that would funnel oil to central sites, or from the tankers that would then deliver the oil to refineries in the continental U.S. Their nightmare is another disaster like the wreck of the Exxon Valdez, a tanker that went aground in Prince William Sound in 1989 as it was delivering oil from Alaska's North Slope to market. The tanker spilled nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil, killing thousands of birds, otters, and other wildlife, and blackening a pristine coastline.

Many environmentalists say the U.S. could reduce its dependence on foreign energy through conservation--with fuel-economy standards for cars and sport-utility vehicles, for example--or through increased use of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. By focusing on the Alaska refuge instead, critics like Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) say, the administration is engaging in "a panicky rush to sacrifice this national treasure for a few months of oil."

EGRETS AND OIL WELLS

If energy exploration is allowed in the Alaska refuge, it would not be the first such refuge where drilling has been permitted. While the primary mission of the nation's 500-odd wildlife refuges is the preservation of natural habitats, some 1,400 oil wells already pepper more than two dozen wildlife refuges. At the Delta National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, a marsh that is home to alligators, herons, egrets, ospreys, spoonbills, and more than 200 other species, oil and gas operations have been under way for more than half a century. The wildlife service says there have been a number of small oil spills in the last 10 years, but no indication of harm to wildlife.

"I'm not Saying that what's happened in Louisiana has been perfect, because nothing in life is perfect," says Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), who supports drilling in the Alaska refuge. "But with all the oil that's at stake in Alaska, it's time to take a look."

But there are risks. At the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, oil and gas exploration has led to evidence of PCB contamination; while at the D'Arbonne refuge in northern Louisiana, the use of improper equipment was linked to mercury contamination in the late 1980s.

Today, most environmentalists are campaigning for more protection of public lands, not less. And they're concerned that as part of the wider effort to increase domestic supplies, administration officials are weighing plans to ease obstacles to drilling in such energy-rich states as Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, and Utah. "By definition, a wildlife refuge is a special place--it's a place that wildlife needs," says Noah Matson, refuge program manager for Defenders of Wildlife, a national environmental group. "So why damage it by oil and gas activity that, one way or another, is bound to be harmful?"

In casting their plans as a response to an energy crisis, the White House points to me recent experience of California as a warning sign. At least four times in the past four months, rolling blackouts have swept through the state as power system managers juggled inadequate electricity supplies. More than anywhere else in the country, consumers there have seen their utility bills skyrocket.

As bad as the California situation has been, the President's critics say its basic cause has been the state's failure to build enough power plants--not the kind of oil and gas shortages that new drilling in Alaska could address. And even if oil itself were the problem, the logistical barriers to getting Alaskan oil to market could not easily be overcome. It would be 2008 at the earliest, industry officials concede, before any new Alaskan oil could conceivably be extracted from beneath the refuge and delivered to the Lower 48, too late to offer solace to the Californians bracing for more blackouts this summer.

POWER TRIP: How the U.S. Measures Up

The amount of
energy each
American used on
average in 1999,
compared with
citizens of selected
other countries and
Africa (in millions
of BTUs)

UNITED STATES   356.8
RUSSIA          176.9
JAPAN           171.6
BRAZIL           51.9
CHINA            25.1
AFRICA           15.0
INDIA            12.3

SOURCE: ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION; CALCULATIONS BY UPFRONT

Bush Changes Course on Global Warming

When he was campaigning for President last fall, candidate George W. Bush surprised environmentalists by promising to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Most scientists consider carbon dioxide a key contributor to global warming. Bush had long been regarded as a skeptic about the idea that humans, rather than just natural causes, might be responsible for the warming of the environment, so his pledge had been unexpected and was hailed by many environmentalists.

In March, he surprised them again by reversing that pledge.

The President now says he won't seek carbon dioxide regulations, and he has withdrawn U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol, the most significant international treaty addressing the Earth's climate change.

The President attributes the change of heart to his concern that new regulations on power plants could drive up energy prices and lead to shortages. "At a time when California has already experienced energy shortages, and other Western states are worried about price and availability of energy this summer, we must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers," he says.

But environmentalists and many Democratic lawmakers complain that he is allowing a short-term energy problem to get in the way of addressing global warming, which they consider a much more significant threat. "This step moves in exactly the wrong direction on the most important issue of our-times," says Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, a research and advocacy group.

TOASTED PLANET

The Earth's average temperature has risen by one degree in the past 100 years, with the 1990s ranking as the warmest decade of the century. Most scientists believe that rising emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, contribute to this warming trend. If emissions are not reduced, according to this view, the average global surface temperature will rise by about 3.5 degrees in the 21st century, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels, and causing flooding.

The most comprehensive international effort to combat global warming is the Kyoto agreement, which was signed by the United States and 100 other countries in 1997, but has not yet been ratified by any industrialized nation. The agreement would require industrialized countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases 5 percent to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Bush administration officials say that such reductions would be too costly, and that, in any case, developing countries ought to be bound by similar obligations. The administration promises to develop alternative proposals.

But other countries consider Bush's abandonment of the treaty an enormous setback. "Kyoto clearly is not perfect, but Kyoto is what we've got," says Paul Fauteux, a top Canadian expert on the subject. "We would rather work from what we've got than call it quits. Climate change is a critically important problem, and it's too important to start from scratch."

--Douglas Jehl

Is Alaska the Answer?

FOCUS: The Debate Over Drilling for Oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

TEACHING OBJECTIVES

To help students understand the debate over this question: Will drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) help solve a national energy shortage, or is it a needless assault on nature for a questionable return?

Discussion Questions:

* Why do you believe experts disagree on the Arctic-drilling question?

* What is the purpose of a wildlife refuge?

* Would you support a law banning gas-guzzling Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) if it would save refuges like the ANWR?

* What are the drawbacks of dependence on foreign sources of energy?

CLASSROOM STRATEGIES

Background: Tell students that President Bush's plan to drill in the ANWR faces serious opposition in Congress. In March, the President said that if he cannot get support for drilling in ANWR, he'll look for land that is not federally protected.

Critical Thinking: Explore the politics of the issue. Ask: Why can't the President simply have his way? Why does the Energy Stewardship Alliance focus on the high estimate of oil reserves in the ANWR while environmentalists focus on the low?

Critics of President Bush and Vice President Cheney say their oil-industry backgrounds incline them to drill. Critics of environmentalists say they underrate the need to use fossil fuel. Have students cite evidence in the article that supports one side or the other. Ask them to weigh the costs and benefits of drilling in the ANWR, decide where they stand on the issue, and defend their position.

Next, note the extent of Americans' energy use. Does the graph on page 12 suggest that Americans could cut back on energy use? How might people cut energy used for transportation--which accounts for 75 percent of the 12 million barrels of oil the U.S. burns each day?

Research: Environmentalists say political leaders are influenced by campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries. Students can research contributions made between 1991 and 2000 by logging on to www.opensecrets.org/news/oil/oil.htm

Vote: For more information, and to let students vote on drilling in the ANWR, log on to nytimes.com/upfront

Bush Changes Course on Global Warming

FOCUS: President Abandons Vow to Regulate [CO.sub.2], Citing Costs and Energy Shortages

TEACHING OBJECTIVES

To help students understand the debate over global warming, specifically whether emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide will trap the sun's heat, producing dangerous changes in the Earth's climate.

Discussion Questions:

* Do you think President Bush was right to change his mind on regulating carbon dioxide emissions?

* Why do you think some scientists dispute the link between so-called greenhouse gases and global warming?

* Would you or your family be willing to pay more for electricity if that would help utility companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions?

CLASSROOM STRATEGIES

Background: Environmentalists say that, like a greenhouse's glass roof, carbon dioxide ([CO.sub.2]) traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise.

Discussion: Discuss President Bush's reversal on cutting [CO.sub.2] emissions, Do students agree with Bush? (Kyoto would primarily affect coal-fired plants, which provide 50 percent of U.S. electricity.)

Note that the Kyoto agreement would obligate only industrialized nations to cut [CO.sub.2] emissions. Ask students why they think the agreement does not apply to all countries. (Industrialized countries generate 62 percent of such gases.) Is it fair to treat different countries in different ways? Should poor nations get a break because they use comparatively little energy?

Graph Debate: Write "World Population: 6 Billion" on the board. Then draw two pie graphs: "World Population" and "[CO.sub.2] Emissions." On the population graph, draw a thin wedge, labeling it 4 percent and "U.S. Share of World Population." On the other, draw a larger wedge labeled 24 percent for "U.S. Share of World [CO.sub.2] Emissions." Use these graphs (and the one on page 12) to promote debate. Is the U.S. being piggish with the environment? Or do its high emissions simply reflect the high energy use that goes with industry?

Global Warming Web Watch: MathSoft, a Web site for high school students, provides an eight-part series of activities on global warming. Log on to www.study worksonline.com/cda/explorations /main/0,1023,NAV2-79,00.htm

DOUGLAS JEHL is a national correspondent for The New York Times specializing in the environment.