A front page story in the New York Times of March 18 presented the view that Alaskans favoring oil field development there are motivated only by money. For Alaskans there is substantial money involved in the flow of oil. Not bad in a state where making a decent living is problematical. Lots of people live there because they love the place, not because they make big money. The article also points out that the flow of oil from yesterday's bonanza, Prudhoe Bay is slacking off and so future state checks might well be thinner.
Less oil means less royalties, means less cash to help support a marginal lifestyle.
I'm not here to challenge the mighty Times on the money issue. But I do wonder if Alaskans who have been around their state might not be as entranced with the wonders of the trackless tundra as are the militant environmentalists who have never seen it and probably never will. It could be said that living next to a scenic wonder a person loses appreciation for it. In Northwest Montana many years ago I found that to be true in a workaday world where gazing at the snow-capped mountains was not encouraged on the job. But it is also a fact that the tundra in Alaska is not scenic, take away the view of distant peaks.