ABOUT

Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund.

Read about our authors.

FEED

 Subscribe in a Reader

Subscribe by Email

An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.

TWITTER UPDATES

TIPS

Did we miss something? Email Enviroblg.

BLOGROLL

STAY CONNECTED

Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]

Consumers to FDA: Be there or be square

Relax, it's baby safety month

Toxic cosmetics in teenage girls

FEATURED

Elected officials MIA; Instead Wal-Mart and Burger King protecting your health

Back to school: Are we ready? Are we non-toxic?

Fire retardants: Disproportionate risk to small children

Lead: Celebrate its ban, but don't cross it off your list

Cheatsheet: Bisphenol A

7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs

Ask EWG

What can I do about fluoride in my water?

What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?

What is "fragrance"?

Which infant formula is best?

Are stainless steel water bottles safe?

Is mineral-based makeup safer?

SEARCH

ARCHIVE

select month September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004

« A new location for Big Tobacco: universities | Main | LA's compact carbon footprint, with caveats »

Protecting Alaska?

By Guest

This is one last post by EWG social media intern Akua, who wrapped up her internship here this month. We wish her the best of luck!

The Bureau of Land Management, an agency responsible for the management of federal public lands in the United States, has proposed a 10-year ban on oil drilling in the 430,000 acres north and east of the Teshekpuk Lake in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The region is home to many bird species as well as over half a million caribou during their migration period. While hailed as a win by many environmentalists, this celebration is somewhat obscuring a larger issue: The territory under protection holds about 800 million barrels of oil; the entire region holds an astounding 2.8 billion barrels of oil.

Essentially this means that while the most sensitive area in the region is being protected under a short-term ban, the proposal essentially opens up many more parts of Alaska for oil drilling. I was originally shocked by the Bush Administration’s sudden decision to embrace a conservation effort, but giving up this coveted piece of land appears to be more of a public relations move than one of genuine concern for the region. If you read the Bureau of Land Management’s official statement on the issue, we don’t seem to be getting that great of a deal. The land being temporarily given up for conservation seems to be just crumbs from a banquet in comparison to the amount of oil that will be made available to companies to lease through the deal.

Also, the ban on mining in the 430,000 acres is only for 10 years -- after which it becomes possible for companies to lease the area for drilling. If the bureau were truly motivated by a desire to conserve the area and protect the Teshekpuk Lake it would turn this ban into law.

Photo: Tern Lake, Alaska by Anita Gould.

« A new location for Big Tobacco: universities |