The impacts of United States politics on the Arctic wilderness in Alaska

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR or the Refuge) has been at the core of the conservation-development debate in the U.S. for over fifty years. The Refuge case epitomizes how policies shape territories governed by overlapping federal, congress, local, and Indigenous regimes. For instance, bet...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPolar geography (1995) Vol. 47; no. 2; pp. 90 - 105
Main Authors Bennett, McKenzie, Postigo, Julio C.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Abingdon Taylor & Francis 02.04.2024
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Subjects
conservation
Drilling
Federal government
Federal policies
Hydrocarbon development
Indigenous peoples
Modernization
oil drilling
Oil reserves
Policies
policymaking
Protected areas
Refuges
Revenue
Shape
Wilderness
Wildlife
Wildlife refuges
United States > US
Alaska
Arctic region
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR or the Refuge) has been at the core of the conservation-development debate in the U.S. for over fifty years. The Refuge case epitomizes how policies shape territories governed by overlapping federal, congress, local, and Indigenous regimes. For instance, between 2017 and 2023, the Refuge was opened and closed to hydrocarbon development by two U.S. Presidents. ANWR is among the largest environmental refuges in the U.S. with oil reserve between 4.3 and 11.8 million barrels. Our analysis of U.S. policies about the ANWR shows the contestation between pro-environment and pro-oil development at the federal and state levels. Federal policies of Republican and Democrat administrations align with pro-drilling and pro-environment positions, respectively. Alaskan policymakers are pro-drilling, which puts them at odds with pro-environment legislators from Democratic states. Tensions between Alaska and the Federal government are about control and distribution of the oil revenue. Further, Indigenous peoples are on different sides as well. Traditional Gwich'in oppose development because it threatens their way of life. Iñupiat favor oil development because oil revenue has supported their modernized lifestyle. The fate of the ANWR will shape what happens with protected areas in the U.S. and with species across national boundaries.
ISSN:1088-937X
1939-0513
DOI:10.1080/1088937X.2024.2349517