It's an Alaskan dance that makes the merengue seem trite: Resource development and environmental protection.

They are both essential. Yet, both, are often in direct opposition to one another.

Resource development drives our economy, pays for state spending, creates jobs. Environmental protections help to preserve life (fewer chemicals, etc) -- and quality of life.

Without resource development, most of us would have to leave the state. There simply would not be the economic backbone to sustain hundreds of thousands of people.

Without environmental safeguards, air and water would be polluted, harming humans, animals, and fish. And, the wilderness would always be a temporary place… (Development would, sooner or later, take it all…)

I often think about this tension... On one hand, I am a strong believer in private enterprise; on the other hand, I have a great love and appreciation for the outdoors...

This past weekend, I was having dinner with some friends, one of whom, is an environmental activist (we’ll call him Jim). I have long known that Jim opposed off shore drilling in certain areas of Alaska. However, I never knew his background-reasons for his opposition (aside from the raw facts about the consequences of a spill).

I did not want to bring politics into the conversation; so I asked Jim about some of his youthful adventures. Jim acquiesced, relating many fascinating details about his younger days.

I was still thinking about an earlier story, when Jim mentioned that he had once lived in Cordova.

“Was that during the Spill?” Another friend asked.

“Yep,” came the reply.

I could not let it go.

“So,” I said. “You lived in Cordova during the Exxon Valdez oil spill?”

“Yep.”

“And didn’t that basically devastate the town?”

“Yep.”

I took a deep breath… “So, is that why you’re against off shore drilling?”

A short pause.

“Yep.”

Oh… That explained a lot...

Jim's response opened up a myriad of questions about the impacts of the Exxon oil spill.

Jim said that the consequences of the spill are still widespread.

Twenty-some years later, he said, oil is still embedded in about 1% of the Prince William Sound Ecosystem, down in the mussel beds.

Not a big deal -- until you realized that 99% of the ecosystem feeds off the mussel beds…

Given this information, I thought that Jim would be flat-out-opposed to all offshore drilling.

Nope.

Bristol Bay was another matter.

"The risks just aren’t worth it," he said.

The government has estimated that Bristol Bay’s oil and gas will bequeath a net total of $7.7 billion.

Compare that to Bristol Bay fisheries which make $2 billion per year.

Advantage: Fisheries. They are much more valuable in the long run.

The conversation with Jim, brought to mind Governor Jay Hammond’s three tier method for deciding whether or not to go forward on a project.

1) Is the project environmentally safe?
2) Does the project pay for itself?
3) Are the people in favor of the project?

If any of the three were not met, the project would be terminated.

(Of course, a question then becomes, what is “environmentally safe?” That’s rather subjective…)

Personally, I’ve always been leery about Bristol Bay drilling. Alaska’s sockeye salmon industry would be destroyed a single large spill (such a spill is a near-statistical certainty).

And, with Target’s recent announcement that Alaskan Wild Salmon will be exclusively sold in their stores (no more farmed salmon), our future is more intertwined than ever with the fishing industry.

But…

We need oil and gas money: to support education, roads, basic government… People need the jobs. And our state and nation need energy.

This leads me to favor offshore drilling -- overall… But, not in Bristol. It’s just too much to risk.

This question of environment versus development will (as always) be front and center in this session’s Legislature. My hope is that our legislators fully fund studies to assess both the environmental and economic impacts of all the projects (dams, gas lines, roads, mines).

In the end, sacrifices will have to occur. Development to create jobs will destroy natural habitat; environmental regulations for purer water/air will (often) harm the economy.

But we need them both.

They are imperatives in this uniquely Alaskan dance.