Are Alaskans Joining Extreme Environmental and Federal Assaults on Alaska's Economy?

PNA.  Mads Christensen, Nordic executive director for Greenpeace International, called for a moratorium on human activity--except subsistence--throughout vast expanses of the Arctic at a conference in Tromso last month.  He said this restriction would fill a current 'governance gap' in Arctic policy. 

 

Earlier this month we reported that Governor Sean Parnell (NGP Photo) said miners face an uphill battle against federal regulators, and his office is "fighting with everything we've got" against the feds and "overzealous" environmental groups  (ADN - AP).  We have also reported numerous other instances of what we are coining, the "Environmental-Government Complex", as working in a concerted way to delay or destroy economic activity in Alaska and throughout the country.  These examples  include: Juneau.  Parnell challenges EPA resource rulemaking.     *    Governor fights Corps of Engineers NPRA decision.     *     Parnell opposes NOAA's Beluga designation.     *   DOL intervenes in 9th Circuit against environmental activist challenge to DOI's Chukchi decision.    *     State intervenes in OCS litigation.  State intervenes support the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) decision not to list the ribbon seal as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)    *    Parnell opposes NOAA's Beluga designation.  *   Governor fights improper use of Endangered Species Act.    *    Governor supports responsible OCS work.  *  Parnell says, "Alaska is America’s Arctic energy breadbasket."  * Lastly, review our critique of this 'death by a thousand cuts'. 

 

Today, we are sad to note that Alaska's coastal communities seem, via their representatives convened in Juneau, to be poised with hammer and nail above Alaska's economic coffin, ready to drive home a killing blow to OCS oil and gas development, and more.  We are sad to note that instead of fully focusing on improvement of Alaska's investment climate, the Legislature seems more inclined--with a bill before it tomorrow morning--to bring Alaska into further disrepute with investors.

 

Tomorrow the Alaska State Senate Finance Committee will take up SB 4, Alaska Coastal Management Program.  Like its companion bill in the House of Representatives, HB 74, it would overlay already stringent state and federal statutes and regulations with a new group, with massive powers, called the "Alaska Coastal Policy Board" (ACPB).  Close observers will note that this is a strategy employed by environmental activists and the office of U.S. Senator Mark Begich (D-Anchorage, NGP Photo), whose similar plan we exposed last summer for an Arctic Regional Citizens Advisory Council (ARCAC).  While these efforts could be a curious coincidence, it is not impossible that a subtle blackmail fills the air.  It's as if some North Slope or other coastal government leader were saying, "We're using every means possible to delay or stop Alaska OCS activity.  Pass the ACPB in the form of an Alaska bill, or you'll get the ARCAC in the form of a Federal law.  But this is no guarantee you won't get both.  If neither passes, we’ll continue to block OCS with nuisance, anti-Alaska economy lawsuits."

 

With passage of either the state or federal concept, coastal community leverage over the Alaska State Government and natural resource companies will be dramatically increased—at taxpayer expense—without the guarantee or even the promise of more reasonable management of Alaska’s coastal areas."

 

 

We believe that if either or both groups become established, Alaska will never again have the benefit of budget sustaining, safe--and even lifesaving--OCS development with revenue sharing.  Instead, investors will divert billions of dollars in current and potential investment to other parts of the world.

 

Let's review how these self-serving and dangerous groups could further injure Alaska's economy.  Earlier, we analyzed the destructive potential of Senator Begich's ARCAC.

 

The Alaska state version of the ARCAC is the ACBP.  The Senate version is sponsored by Senator Donny Olson-D, Nome and the House bill is sponsored by Representatives Reggie Joule-D, Nome; Bryce Edgmon-D, Dillingham; Bob Buch-D, Anchorage; Bob Herron-D, Bethel; Neal Foster-D, Nome; Woodie Salmon-D, Ft. Yukon; Alan Austerman-R, Kodiak; Bill Thomas-R, Haines; and, Kyle Johansen-R, Ketchikan.  

 

In particular, we address the features of SB 4, since it will have a hearing tomorrow.  Here are a few, but not all, of its features:

This destructive new layer of bureaucracy would be the most serious in a series of economic wounds leading eventially to Alaska's...and America's economic death by a thousand cuts.  The only thing that could make it worse, is if Senator Begich also persuaded the Congress to enact his ARCAC.  Alaska's Legislature should kill the ACPB concept before its effects kill the economy.  It is a purely political play and would not properly agument the public interest in one single way. If passed, Governor Parnell should veto it for the same reasons that he opposes all of the negative federal government bureaucratic interference noted above: it works with federal and environmental initiatives to delay or decimate coastal development.  

 

But there are other compelling reasons that state leaders should fight to kill this legislation.  It provides a government sponsored and funded network inclined to support environmentally and extremely restrictive coastal policies.  It will give birth to a huge new bureaucracy with new, destructive powers.  It will arm that bureaucracy--and its environmental and village allies--with the ability to bully and blackmail industry and the State government.  It will further reduce employment potential and further heighten subsidized cultures in rural Alaska.  It will cause economic harm to Alaska's Native Regional Corporations and all other Alaskan businesses and citizens.  It will--consciously or not--assist environmental allies and the federal government in forwarding a job killing agenda nationwide.

 

As bad and as left/green-oriented as SB 4 and HB 74 are, let us hope that the more conservative members of the Legislature do not support the bill to achieve some benefit from liberal colleagues.  Let's at least hope the merits of the Legislation and intellectual honesty rule our Legislators.  If Alaska is sold down the river by a few conservatives who may want to cement future majority coalitions or alliances or the election in coming months by creating ACPB, they should realize that--in so doing--they are supporting the Alliance to Kill Alaska's Economy.

 

What say you?