By ROBERT SEITZ

The article printed in the Anchorage Daily News on May 23, “For Alaska politicians, renewable energy is about the economy not the environment,” was written as if the author thought the environment should be more important than the economy. 

My past commentaries have pointed out that a viable economy and the well being of the Alaska citizens during cold weather is much more important than counting carbon dioxide molecules and many other environmental concerns. We are in the habit of taking care of the environment, but no matter how much we can care about the environment, we must have a focus on the economy of Alaska and the energy of Alaska.

Without a viable economy there would not be enough people left in Alaska to produce enough CO2 to raise a plant during the summer. Without a viable economy, without an adequate supply of energy our environment would be at great risk. Trees would become the primary source of heat as long  for those people left in Alaska.

I’ve heard it said a number of times that Alaska is warming 2 to 4 times faster than the rest of the planet. Since I live here, and have for a long time, it has not seemed to me to be warming much at all. 

I did a little research. The USDA (US Department of Agriculture) has a statement on line at “Alaska and a Changing Climate” from the USDA Northwest Climate Hub:  “Alaska is at the forefront of climate change. Because of its northern latitude and seasonal changes in sea ice, the state is warming at two to three times the rate of the global average. Rising temperatures can be tied to most of the effects of climate change in Alaska. Reduced ice coverage, including shrinking glaciers, retreating sea ice, and thawing permafrost, are all serious impacts of rapid warming.”

I looked at some recent reports and recent data and found that they are comparing current annual average air temperatures with average annual air temperatures from the past. For years in which there are no extreme low temperatures (e.g. -30 to -60 degrees F) the average anomaly appears to 8 or 9 degrees, but the high temperatures for the year are pretty much what we are used to.  It is not that we have hotter weather; we just have less cold in the winter.  With the “less cold” winters there is some warming of the surface soil,  some deeper thawing (or less freezing) of the active layer into the upper portion of the permafrost and there has been some warming of permafrost to depth of 50 ft., but it is still frozen. 

I think there is some dishonesty in how data and information about Alaska are presented to the public. In other words, people are lying about the climate.

I had difficulty finding soil temperature measurement profiles, from the upper soil level, the active layer that freezes and thaws annually.  It looks like researchers are more focused on monitoring CO2 and methane in the upper soil layers, than they are of the temperature profile of the active layer. What I did demonstrate to myself is that Alaska is not warming 2 to 4 times faster than the rest of the planet. The past two winters also indicate that we may be getting some of our extreme cold back to balance out the years that weren’t so cold.  

Sean McDermott wrote a commentary, “There’s nothing radical about protecting the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska,” published in the Alaska Beacon May 23. His first sentence began with “With climate change rapidly reshaping the Arctic…”  

Aside from the eroding of river banks and coastal features along our shore line, I question whether there is rapid reshaping of the Arctic. We have had a warming that has extended the growing season and which also reduced some of our discontinuous permafrost in the southern areas of the State. McDermott compared the Northwest Arctic Boroughs push for heat pumps and solar power as more positive than advocating for future oil development. One has nothing to do with the other. Solar panels and heat pumps are a local issue that is being addressed because there is no central power source that can distribute energy to the remote communities. Oil and gas development is about Alaska’s economic viability. The solar panels, wind turbines ,and other alternative energy sources for remote communities in Alaska need to be paid for somehow, and a very active Alaska economy is a good way to do it.

And there is something radical about the change in the management of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. We’re seeing an extreme change from earlier policy that greatly affects Alaska’s ability to have some control over how it drives its economy. 

Alaska needs to provide some defense against the radical announcements about the condition of the Arctic and ensure that certain data are collected and maintained for those, who really care about conditions in Alaska, to refer to as daily decision are made.  The Data should be at least air temperature, soil temperature profiles (with active layer and permafrost, heating degree days, precipitation and snow depth.  Let’s find out if we really have a warming problem,

I’ll be discussing some of the other features of Alaska and the world which may demonstrate that we are not in danger from our weather.

And to reflect on this last legislative session, if there is one producer who would say that a reduced royalty payment for Cook Inlet Natural Gas would make all the difference such that they would be able to begin drilling new gas wells in Cook Inlet, then the legislature should be called into special session.   It would be for the good of Alaska.

Robert Seitz is an electrical engineer and lifelong Alaskan.