Through an event arranged by the Bard Center for Environmental Policy, college students from Alaska and across the United States had the opportunity to speak with McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, about environmental issues in Alaska – and what Senator Murkowski is doing in Washington DC to address climate change, the opening of the Northwest Passage, and ocean acidification.
Naturally, one of the hot topics of conversation was Senator Murkowski’s bill to block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a criteria air pollutant. Senator Murkowski has drawn fire for these views, since this is seen to be the last hope for achieving meaningful GHG reductions if no bill passes this year. The chances of a bill passing this year are looking smaller and smaller – the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill has failed to materialize, despite their op-ed pledging a bipartisan bill. According to Campbell, while Kerry this morning seemed optimistic about the state of the legislation, Senate Majority Leader Reid today stated that if a climate bill is not brought before the Senate within the two weeks, climate change is not going to be addressed this year. This puts huge pressure on Kerry – it is increasingly clear that another year without action will have huge economic and environmental consequences.
Mr. Campbell defended Senator Murkowski’s anti-regulatory actions. Her action against EPA regulation of carbon dioxide is not because she feels it is not contributing to global warming–rather, that the language of the Clean Air Act is not sufficient to regulate GHGs as it is now written. However, Mr. Campbell revealed, Senator Murkowski is not sitting pretty with no opposing solution. Her office, together with about 25 other Republicans and 25 Democrats, as well as industry and environmental groups, is working to draft a bill that would impose a net zero carbon tax. GHGs would be taxed at the narrowest possible source (perhaps entry into the system, perhaps somewhere else) – and one hundred percent of the revenue would be redistributed to the American citizen through a refund of their FICA tax or a direct credit for those who do not pay a FICA tax. It seems that this bill is still pretty far off though.
The conversation then turned to more Alaska-specific issues – ones that I, as a non-Alaskan, had no idea were even on the agenda or of concern. What an eye-opening moment for me! I’m in the midst of studying environmental policy at the Bard Center for Environmental Policy, and these were issues that had never come up in classes.
Alaska’s dependence on oil is one source of concern – those famous dividend checks are a powerful incentive to want to keep the oil industry booming in Alaska, but Mr. Campbell pointed out that Alaska’s legislature is looking actively at ways to diversify the energy portfolio in Alaska, with lots of debate happening in Juneau. Possible options include geothermal, wind, and tidal – depending on the region and the resources.
The next issue – the opening of the Northwest Passage. One student asked, “What are the cultural and environmental challenges as the Northwest Passage becomes navigable? Are we prepared and is the federal government prepared to defend against environmental destruction?” Mr. Campbell’s answer was heated – this is one of Senator Murkowski’s biggest complaints about the federal government at the moment. She thinks that the Arctic is not being talked about enough and it’s something we have to consider. As a representative of the Arctic Parliamentarians Group, she is fighting for the government to consider everything from how we handle vessel response to emergenices to how to secure funding for defense and climate change adaptation. Currently, said Mr Campbell, the nearest Coast Guard station is located in Kodiak. That’s like dealing with problems in Florida with Coast Guard vessels sent from New Jersey – hardly an effective defense strategy.
What are the defense and foreign policy implications of an ice-free Arctic? Fisheries, mining, and passage fees are some of those mentioned by Mr. Campbell. Fisheries along the Western United States are already endangered – how should we treat these newly opening fisheries? The prudent thing to do is to restrict expansion of fishery rights into these areas until more information is known about the fish populations in the areas – but will we do the prudent thing?
The natural resources possibilities in the Arctic Circle are unknown – but the USGS has reported the possible existence of large amounts of oil and natural gas. Russia has been assertive about planting the flag and claiming rights – the United States less so. Overall, said Mr. Campbell, the US needs to be far more aggressive and active in this area than it is being. All the countries surrounding the Arctic Circle bump into each other up there – and therefore we need to assert ourselves as well.
This telephone conversation with McKie Campbell was the second in a series of conference calls being arranged by the Bard Center for Environmental Policy between Senators and their constituents about climate change policy. For more information, contact the Bard Center for Environmental Policy at climate@bard.edu, or visit our website. Calls are scheduled for New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina, and Florida.
