Mark Begich rewards his anti-development special interests

By Alex Gimarc

Dave Harbour’s article on our Boy Senator’s proposed Arctic Regional Citizens Advisory Council prompted me to take a deeper look at his so-called five Arctic Climate Change Initiatives. Like any rock you pick up, you are surprised by what scurries out when the light of day is shining underneath.

In a report in the Arctic Sounder on June 18, the five initiatives include: Ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty; ratification of treaty on persistent organic pollutants; creation of the Arctic Regional Citizens Advisory Council; appointment of an Arctic Ambassador; and finally more money (is this unexpected?) for funding arctic science and infrastructure.

How many of these will get more Alaskan oil and natural gas out of the ground in to the market? My guess would be none. On the other hand, they may very well be Boy Senator’s payoff to the Bush for supporting him over Ted Stevens last year. Unfortunately, this payoff to the Bush will do little except keep the Bush impoverished and send the rest of us that direction as we fail to develop any more in state or offshore oil or natural gas.

The Law of the Sea Treaty was negotiated in 1982 and puts such a restriction on the use of open oceans by free nations that the Reagan administration and all subsequent administrations and congresses have refused to ratify it. Yes this includes the eight years of Bill Clinton. So why do we need this today? What will it benefit us as a nation? And what will it cost us in jobs and opportunity?

Likewise, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants negotiated in the early part of this decade, proposes to control a variety of industrial chemicals and pesticides. Supporters proudly point to the banning of DDT in the early 1970s as a great achievement. They conveniently ignore the hundreds of millions of dead in the third world since that ban due to the resurgence of malaria. If the greens ban other chemicals and pesticides, how many more lives will be needlessly lost due to disease and starvation?

His ARCAC proposes funding from the oil companies who are then supposed to act in good faith. While Mr. Harbour correctly points out that this is yet another needless layer of bureaucratic waste, I would like to expand the proposal a bit. Every single group that wants to sit on the council ought to ante up also – including the North Slope Borough, villages, whaling captains, and the various green organizations. And every single one of them – including the greens – are to be expected to play nicely. Additionally, the ARCAC ought to have a clearly defined advisory role, no formal place in any approval process, and beholden only to the Alaska Legislature and Governor rather than to congress or any administration in Washington DC.

One can only wonder who or what the Arctic Ambassador would present his diplomaticcredentials to. Polar bears? Walrus? Otters? Char? Itinerant belugas?

Finally, if you take a close look at the basis of all these proposals, Mr. Begich is quoted as saying that all Arctic Ocean ice will disappear within 30 years due to the effects of manmade global warming. This is the very worst of junk science and ought to worry all of us a lot. Note that the recent measured decreasing coverage of the Arctic Ocean ice pack was due to a malfunctioning sensor on a DoD DMSP satellite. Before it was turned off earlier this year, it was missing an area of ice pack coverage larger than the state of California. Ice coverage at both poles is at or above the maximums measured since 1979, when we stated taking a look. It is also growing quickly.

Additionally, walrus and polar bears have done quite nicely in the interglacial periods over the last few million years, all of which were warmer than today, when the arctic ice pack coverage was at a minimum. There is no reason to believe that they will instantly die off should the coverage area shift a bit.

The science on this is not settled. The argument is fully engaged by both the global warmists and the skeptics. There is no consensus. And there is certainly no cause to charge off and pass laws based on erroneous sensor results, junk science, or environmentalist scaremongering.

If nothing else, Mr. Begich’s embrace of the environmentalist view of the future of the Arctic only demonstrates his complete and absolute fealty to the greens, his lack of formal scientific training, his lack of interest in hearing from or acknowledging skeptics, and his refusal to listen to or acknowledge that there might be another way to explain what is happening up here. Given all this, I would not expect him to oppose the Waxman – Markey legislation as it makes his way through the senate. Once again, Mr. Begich is a disappointment and an embarrassment to the State of Alaska. He cannot leave elective office soon enough.