One half of one percent is too much of ANWR

David J. Mackett, Las Vegas

Sunday, June 29, 2008 | 2:07 a.m.

Recently the Bush administration and John McCain, along with their corporate and media supporters, have been touting drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. One of their arguments for doing so is their assertion that “less than one-half of 1 percent of the refuge would be affected by production activity.”

They are implying, no doubt, that the effects of scattering the pumping, piping and maintenance facilities on the refuge over such a low percentage of the area is inconsequential for man and beast. Let’s put those figures into perspective by studying an easy fifth grade mathematics problem.

Say your neighbor’s dog, Rover, likes to conduct his own “production activity” on a convenient piece of your refuge — in this case, your 1,200-square-foot lawn. To keep the peace, you think to yourself that if Rover uses only one-half of 1 percent of the yard for conducting his business, you can live with it.

So Rover trots on over to your place whenever he wants and does what dogs do. After a few days you become a little concerned and, with no in-depth research into the matter, you find that each production site occupies about a 16-square-inch plot. Harkening back to your fifth grade training, you suddenly realize that one-half of 1 percent of your 1,200-square-foot lawn equals a whole 6 square feet, and that Rover is on his way to opening 54 production sites on your beautiful lawn before he reaches his limit!

How many days of Rover’s activity will go by before you revise your original thought that one-half of 1 percent is inconsequential? Apply your thinking to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and its denizens.