Security, Affluence And Environment - A Mining Impact Statement For Alaska

In February of this year at the Washington, D.C., hearings of the Interior Department on the Alaska pipeline, the author was amazed to hear speaker after speaker oppose not only pipline construction but any development whatsoever in the State of Alaska. In one case, a man objected to development in Alaska because his neighbor in Maryland had cut down some shade trees. Another man recited at length from the poems of Robert W. Service. While it seemed inconceivable that such thoughtless opposition should have any effect, a check with the offices of some congressmen showed that mail was largely against any development of Alaska. In the barrage of words and redundant phrases directed against Alaska, it is difficult to find a thought worthy of study. Fortunately, there is a statutory guide towards resolution of the problem of development versus non- development. This law, the Environ- mental Protection Act of 1969, has indeed given much of industry the jitters; copper smelters see no way to comply with the new sulfur- emission standards, the Alaska Department of Highways estimates that the Act has nearly doubled the cost of planning and engineering for highway construction. In spite of these and many other troubles and costs, the Act provides a sound legal basis for defeating nihilistic emotions and, since Alaska is relatively undeveloped, adoption of environmental safeguards will be simpler than correcting longstanding abuses.