State of the State of Alaska: too pristine?

Gov. Parnell gave his first SOS speech (full speech at Alaska Dispatch).

It's mostly Alaskan boilerplate: federal environmental regulations are bad because it hampers development, and development is good. But Alaska also will "leverage" $800 million in "federal infrastructure funds" for capital projects: that's like $1,200 for every man, woman and child in Alaska, right? Dang feds! Dang stimulus!

Here's my favorite part, though:

We will continue work on the road to Nome . . . .

Folks, I lived in Nome for several years. The Road to Nome has been a dream since before statehood, I think (and a nightmare to some Nomeites). It's about 500 airmiles from the road system; the dog trail is about 1,000 miles. Plus the road would probably need at least one ice-proof bridge across the Yukon. Most of it would go through federal land and over permafrost. The cost of a real live road would include the word "billion," maybe in the plural, and nevermind the upkeep. Unless someone finds the world's largest deposit of something special out there, it ain't happening. But if someone DOES finds the world's largest deposit of something special, especially oil, then that road would appear like magic.

It cracks me up when Alaskans seem genuinely angry at the effect of federal environmental policy on Alaska natural resource development. Of COURSE it sucks. The policy is that unique places, critters, and plants are off-limits. Most of Alaska is "unique." So 60% of the land and most of the water is off-limits. Duh.

In other words, Alaska is a giant park for the rest of America, which drives a lot of Alaskans nuts. Americans want the park to be pristine, and Alaskans want to dig it up - not a lot, just a little bit, here and there. You wouldn't even notice! Besides, Alaskans know that the odds of any American actually visiting said park is ridiculously small. And letting the locals dig up the frontier (a little bit, here and there) is the Story of America. Anyway, what else is Alaska supposed to do? Make toys? Resource development was the whole point of statehood, for cry-i-ay.

I'm pro-oil myself, if only because I understand that Alaska has two (related) major businesses: oil and the military. Everything else - timber, fish, minerals, tourism - is small potatoes. None of it can pay for Alaska's government. Oil can, and does, and thus oil is king. Therefore, I say: Long Live the King. It is a very thin line in Alaska between being anti-oil, and hypocrisy. But I can't line up behind the "feds are killing Alaska" meme. It's political noise. If I've learned one thing over the years, it's this: there is no real conflict between Big Oil and federal policy. And Big Oil always, always wins.