Environment: Hurricanes threaten Alaska

It seems a long time ago, and far removed from today's crises but when Americans voted Bush into office one of the big issues was power. Not the power of the presidency but the power required to run the USA's industry, offices and homes.

Empowered, as he thought, by brownouts across California, the most environmentally active state in the Union, Bush proposed that the US should aim to become self sufficient in oil by exploiting the massive reserves in Alaska.

Two things stood in his way: first, the pipeline costs would be enormous - even the least expensive construction option - via Canada's land or waters - would be politically difficult and extremely expensive for the oil companies. The alternative, a pipeline in international waters, would be fabulously costly. But, he reasoned, self-sufficiency in oil is in the national interest so the state should shoulder the cost of getting the oil (no matter that the profits would flow to the operating companies).

But the biggest problem is that the oilfields are in designated wilderness and they are protected by strong laws.

The environmentalists won and Bush and his Texan pals gave up. For a while. At least in the full glare of publicity.

But there was an alternative strategy: if it could be demonstrated that the USA's dependence on foreign oil was harmful to the USA's interests, and to the interests of individual voters, then he may be able to build a groundswell of opinion to reopen the issue.

He adopted a strategy to disrupt the international flow of oil to the USA. He picked a fight with Venezuala, a provider of cheap crude. He caused trouble in the middle east (although a sub-plot there was to gain control of the Iraq oilfields, which he did by locking existing contractors out of the post-invasion industry in favour of US companies).

But although the price went up, supplies remained more or less enough and there were no queues at petrol pumps and no more brownouts.

Then came Hurricane Katrina. It did not devastate the oilfields nor the refining industry but it caused so much disruption that there was concern over supply, but it turned out to be localised and still things moved on.

Now the Texas oil industry is facing a major threat from Hurricane Rita. And there are fears that, if a similar degree of damage is done as was done by Katrina, then there will be substantial disruption.

The result is that prices have leaped by almost 10% in the past three days.

That prompted commentators to claim that the USA must reduce its dependence on foreign oil.

In the UK, itself an oil producer and exporter, Chancellor Gordon Brown has called on OPEC to open the taps to dampen prices. OPEC has told him to get lost - there's enough oil, they say, but there is profiteering. That's no doubt true, but the profits flow back to OPEC as companies bid for the supplies in what amounts to an auction. In the UK, Brown speaks with forked tongue for the UK government benefits greatly from increased oil prices - for it applies not only a duty (flat rate tax) to petrol but also an ad valorem (percentage on price including duty) tax. As the base price goes up, so to Brown's revenues. During a past fuel price crisis where there was minor public unrest, Prime Minister Blair said the immortal words "We will not be swayed by public opinion." Unfortunately he said them on Sunday evening when the world's news media was asleep, and most Britons were dozing in front of the telly, and no one noticed. This time, the public are not even bothering to mount a serious demand for tax reductions - they know the Blair-Brown axis will

But in the USA, where tax on petrol is hardly worth collecting, changed in oil prices are much more directly felt (although the percentage changes are not magnified in the way that they are in the UK). For oil is a business not a public service; its exploitation is a commercial not national resource. And therefore if more money can be made from exporting the oil than by selling it domestically, that's what companies do.

Bush has not given up on his Alaskan project. But it's taking a very low profile. In April this year, he told a U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce meeting that the US must reduce its dependence on foreign oil. John Kerry is trying to stop him but he's shooting at the wrong target. He says Bush's policy will increase dependence on foreign oil.

But Bush is acting clever: he is not avoiding the environmental issue. He's still trying to start exploitation in Alaska (where the region under threat is known as The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or ANWR) : "Technology now makes it possible to reach ANWR's hydrocarbons by drilling on just 2,000 acres of the 19 million acres of land and we can reach ANWR's oil deposits with almost no impact on land and local wildlife," he told the Chamber.

Of course, the US Hispanic Chamber is not the first place that environmentalists from California would be looking for policy statements. Nor is it the place where Alaskans are likely to be laying in wait for him.

Bush even played the nationalism card in that speech: " "Our dependence on foreign energy is like a foreign tax on the American Dream -- the tax our citizens pay every day in higher gas prices, higher cost to heat and cool their homes -- a tax on jobs. Worst of all, it's a tax increasing every year."

The Bush Energy Bill has been in and out of the political process for four years: it is thrown out, brought back changed, chopped about, things are given away and others taken back as the bill is shaped by lobbyists more than by national interests.

But the one thing that remains is the drilling in Alaska despite the estimated USD30 milliard tax bill for making it happen.

What Bush failed to do with foreign policy, that is to harness public opinion in favour Alaskan oil exploitation, the post hurricane hysteria may do for him. He's aided by the fact that the news media has now stopped showing the mounting number of body bags returning from Iraq (it's now almost 2000 since the "war" was "won") but the steady drip of bad-enough news is distracting voters and pictures of bloated bodies floating in the Lousianna mire is proving enough of a side-show that anything that can be argued as in the national interest is likely, at worst, to see reduced resistance.

Of course, there are those who try to raise the "thin end of the wedge" argument - even if we allow drilling in the tiny proportion, what is there to say that the companies won't say "didn't find it here, let's move there" and pockmark the ground as they have in Texas.

Answer? Nothing. Which is kind of ironic because it's nothingness that the conservationists want to protect.

Bush is disingenuous: his arguments relate only to the drilling sites. They do not relate to pipeline, roads for logistical support and pollution from fallout, especially in the (reasonably common) event of blow out or fire to say nothing of light pollution from installations, pipeline and road illumnation all of which impact upon the environment far away from the platform.

And if you don't believe that, try flying over an oil refinery at night: from five miles up, it is a flare of light. It can be seen from space. That disturbs the creatures of the night - disorientating them. Pipelines and even roads disrupt migration patterns. This is not some super-specialist eco-warrior's argument against inevitable progress - it's common sense.

As is the idea that if there is a part of the planet that remains unspoilt, spoiling it should be a last resort. We are not there yet.

Which is the point of some of those arguing against the use of oil for power stations. Unfortunately, they are arguing for coal fired power stations instead. But that's another problem Bush is turning a blind eye to. The question of emissions and his refusal to accept Kyoto is a disgrace and there's only so many of those a man can handle at one time. Currently he has his hands full.

.