Out and About
By
John Morton
Posted July 1st, 2007
To a Vermonter, Alaska feels younger, wilder, and perhaps, in a way, more reckless. How do the two staes compare when it comes to the environment?
A family friend’s recent wedding in Anchorage provided a welcome opportunity to return to Alaska. In many ways, Vermont and Alaska are quite
similar. Both states are noted for their scenic beauty, which has stimulated a significant tourist industry. Vermont and Alaska share well-deserved recognition as year-round, outdoor, recreational playgrounds. Hunting and fishing are extremely popular in both states. Although separated by most of the continent, Alaska and Vermont endure relatively harsh climates, and take pride in a reputation for fiercely independent residents.
One notable difference, however, is that Vermont seems older, more grounded in tradition, while Alaska feels younger, wilder, and perhaps, in a way, more reckless. Two centuries ago, as our country expanded westward, little thought was given to protecting the abundant natural resources those first European settlers encountered. The fertile plains were plowed and planted with crops, pristine streams were dammed to generate power for mills, and vast herds of buffalo were decimated, almost to extinction.
More recently, the pressure of increasing population and improved accessibility from nearby urban areas has forced Vermont to adopt strong measures to protect its environment and scenery. For more than a generation, The Green Mountain State has forbidden roadside billboards, which, in contrast to its neighbors, has become an important factor in the impression of natural, scenic beauty admired by Vermont’s millions of visitors.
Alaska, in contrast, is more freewheeling. I lived in Anchorage during the controversial Native Lands Claims Settlement Act, which preceded the construction of the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the mid 1970’s. The oil fields at Prudhoe Bay, the haul road created for the construction project, and the pipeline itself could be viewed either as marvels of engineering or as disastrous violations of one of the earth’s most pristine and fragile ecosystems, depending upon one’s perspective. The fears and dire predictions of many environmentalists were realized only a decade after the completion of the pipeline, when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil.
It must be noted, however, that the residents of Alaska have reaped significant benefits thanks to North Slope oil. From the auction of the original drilling leases and a subsequent tax on every barrel of oil to flow through the pipeline, the state established the Alaska Permanent Fund which pays every resident about $1,000 a year! In Anchorage, oil revenues funded one of the most extensive urban recreational trail systems in North America. During the long Alaskan winters, residents of the state’s largest city can enjoy hundreds of kilometers of groomed cross-country ski trails that link many neighborhoods. Several of those loops are lighted for night skiing, an important feature considering Anchorage’s short winter days.
Soon after the oil began flowing, someone noticed that Alaska suffered a higher rate of drownings than the national average. This is not surprising since the water is so cold that few Alaskans swim for fun, yet fishing is a major industry as well as a popular sport. Oil money was used to build swimming pools at many of the state’s schools, even in remote villages in the bush, where swimming then became part of the physical education requirements. The incidence of drowning in the forty-ninth state is now in line with the rest of the nation.
Finally, the oil companies, and the wide array of service industries that support the oil industry in Alaska, provide excellent jobs for a significant number of the state’s residents. The oil companies also make an effort to be generous members of the community (motivated in part perhaps by the desire for positive publicity), including the funding of new soccer fields, a world-class biathlon shooting range, and the reconfiguration of vital ski trails.
As so often seems to be the case recently, there are no easy, straightforward solutions to the environmental challenges we face. Most everyone would agree we must do more to protect our environment and to reverse, if possible, the effects of global warming. But if that means banning sports which have a negative environmental impact, like snowmobiling, all terrain vehicles, Alpine skiing and NASCAR, it is unlikely those measures will meet with widespread approval. Even outdoor activities generally regarded as environmentally friendly, like hiking, canoeing and cross-country skiing are not immune from criticism when the consumption of fossil fuel getting to the site of the activity is considered.
As the evidence demonstrating the negative impact we are having on our environment grows, we will be faced with increasingly difficult decisions to reverse the trends. Even in the area of sports and recreation, I suspect we’ll face some very tough decisions.
