特朗普政府继续推进扩大北极圈可用钻井用地的计划环境影响评介(EIS)上一次month⁠—despite会议上，各种团体对它的气候和当地生态系统的影响表示严重关切。

　　自然资源保护委员会(NRDC)的工作人员律师加雷特·罗斯说，土地管理局(BLM)已经把目光投向了沿海平原的“发展之网”——北极避难所的生物心脏。

　　“看起来是这样的:钻台、道路、管道、驳船站、砾石矿山和加工设施。这个工业基础设施网络将不可逆转地破坏敏感的北极生态系统，”他告诉记者新闻周刊。

　　世界野生动物基金会美国发言人劳伦·格里森补充说，该机构无视公众的评论，强调了与气候相关的对保护区生态系统和野生动物的影响。相反，他们“倾向于备选方案B，文件中最宽松、限制最少的备选方案，开放整个沿海平原。”

　　事实上，该文件包括BLM对解决这些问题的回应，甚至说“不存在气候危机”

　　如同E&E新闻据周一报道，文件中使用的语言似乎暗示，拟议中的钻探几乎没有或根本没有造成气候危机的威胁。BLM以声明回应了五项批评:“BLM不同意拟议的发展与维持宜居星球不一致(即没有气候危机)。”

　　在报告的其他地方，该机构淡化了任何提议的钻探可能对气候变化的影响，认为这种增加“在全球范围内微不足道”。该文件称，“[提议的行动本身不会对北极或全球的气候变化适应或缓解挑战产生显著影响。”州。

　　NYU法学院政策完整性研究所的自然资源专家杰尼·福利·海因将这些评论描述为“欺骗性的空话”和“公然无视科学，并为法律挑战打开了大门”

　　海因告诉记者:“这里的分析对美国人民是一种伤害，他们应该理解在ANWR钻探大约70年的全部环境和经济影响。”新闻周刊。

　　“BLM声称，要燃烧的石油和天然气的增量‘在全球范围内很小’，但BLM低估了预期排放量，气候变化是一个‘千减一死’的问题。”

　　海因表示，特朗普白宫北极国家野生动物保护区的搬迁是对历届政府的180度转变，上届政府自保护区于1960年成立以来一直在寻求保护。事实上，奥巴马政府的最终政策之一是引入全面的禁令附近地区的海上钻井。然而，提议的钻探冒着该地区作为国家野生动物保护区和碳汇的地位，以及为北极熊等濒危物种的野生动物繁殖提供安全空间的风险。

　　动物福利研究所野生动物律师约翰娜·汉布格尔回应了这些观点，说道新闻周刊声明仅部分披露了可预见的油气租赁和开发预计会产生的二氧化碳污染量。

　　她说:“它没有采取必要的下一步措施来揭示这种污染，包括甲烷污染，对气候变化的影响。”。

　　格里森还强调了钻探将对当地野生动物产生的直接影响，称这会伤害已经面临气温上升、食物来源转移和栖息地减少的物种。受影响的物种包括北极熊和驯鹿，北极熊面临工业噪音干扰的风险，驯鹿的古老迁徙路线正好穿过避难所。

　　“由于气候变化已经威胁到许多北极物种，最大限度地减少对它们的其他威胁，并确保它们有漫游的自由，是至关重要的，”她说新闻周刊。

　　BLM的声明是purchased⁠钻井租赁前必须采取的最后一步，官员们表示，尽管遭到强烈反对，他们仍希望在今年晚些时候开始销售。

　　罗斯说:“没有理由也没有必要在北极钻探——这实际上是世界上试图为美国创造一个安全的能源未来的最糟糕的地方。”。

　　“特朗普政府愚蠢地追求几十年都不会上市的极端石油，这使得全球破坏气候的政策合法化，给人类健康、社区稳定和整个自然世界带来难以言表的后果。”
 

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S ARCTIC DRILLING PLANS A 'BLATANT DISREGARD FOR SCIENCE' THAT THREATENS CLIMATE AND WILDLIFE, WARN EXPERTS

　　The Trump administration is continuing to push ahead with plans to expand land available for drilling in the Arctic Circle with the publication of an environmental impact statement (EIS) last month⁠—despite serious concerns levied against it by various groups regarding its impact on the climate and local ecosystems.

　　The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has set its sights on "a web of development" across the Coastal Plain—"the biological heart of the Arctic Refuge," says Garett Rose, a staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

　　"Here's what that looks like: drill pads, roads, pipelines, barging stations, gravel mines, and processing facilities. This web of industrial infrastructure will damage the sensitive Arctic ecosystem irreversibly," he told Newsweek.

　　The agency ignored public comment, adds Lauren Gleason, a spokesperson from the World Wildlife Fund U.S.—comment that stressed the climate-related impacts on the ecosystems and wildlife in the Refuge. Instead, they "favored Alternative B, the most permissive, least restrictive alternative in the document, opening the entire Coastal Plain."

　　In fact, the document, which includes responses from the BLM to address these concerns, goes as far as to say "there is not a climate crisis."

　　As E&E News reported on Monday, the language used in document appears to imply there is little to no threat that the proposed drilling will contribute to the climate crisis. The BLM responds to five criticisms with the statement: "The BLM does not agree that the proposed development is inconsistent with maintaining a livable planet (i.e., there is not a climate crisis)."

　　Elsewhere in the report, the agency downplays the contribution any proposed drilling may have on climate change, arguing the increases would be "small in a global context." "[T]he proposed action, by itself, would not measurably affect climate change adaptation or mitigation challenges in the Arctic or globally," the document states.

　　Jayni Foley Hein, the Natural Resources for the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, described the comments as "deceptive hot air" and "a blatant disregard for science, and opens the door to legal challenges."

　　"The analysis here is a disservice to the American people, who deserve to understand the full environmental and economic implications of drilling in ANWR for an estimated 70 years," Hein told Newsweek.

　　"BLM claims that the incremental amount of oil and gas to burned is 'small in a global context,' but BLM understates expected emissions, and climate change is a 'death by a thousand cuts' problem."

　　Hein says this move from the Trump White House Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a 180-degree turn on previous administrations, who have sought to protect the Refuge since its inception in 1960. Indeed, one of the final policies of the Obama administration was to introduce a sweeping ban on offshore drilling in nearby areas. The drilling proposed, however, risks the area's status as a National Wildlife Refuge and carbon sink, and its ability to provide a secure space for wildlife breeding for endangered species like the polar bear.

　　Johanna Hamburger, wildlife attorney for the Animal Welfare Institute, echoes these sentiments, telling Newsweek that the statement only partially discloses the amount of carbon dioxide pollution expected to be generated by the foreseeable oil and gas leasing and development.

　　"It fails to take the essential next step of disclosing the impacts that such pollution, including methane pollution, would have on climate change," she said.

　　Gleason also emphasizes the direct effects the drilling will have on local wildlife, saying it will hurt species already facing the brunt of warming temperatures, shifting food sources, and diminishing habitat. Species affected would include polar bears, who risk disturbance from industrial noise, and caribou, whose ancient migration routes cut right across the refuge.

　　"As climate change already imperils many Arctic species, minimizing other threats to them, and ensuring they have freedom to roam, is critical," she told Newsweek.

　　The BLM's statement is the final step that has to be taken before drilling leases can be purchased⁠, with officials saying they are hoping to start selling later this year—despite the strong opposition.

　　"There is no reason or need to drill in the Arctic—it is literally the worst place in the world to try to create a secure energy future for America," said Rose.

　　"The Trump administration's foolish pursuit of extreme oil that won't come to market for decades legitimizes climate-wrecking policies around the world, with untold consequences for human health, community stability, and the entire natural world."

　　The article has been updated to amend Johanna Hamburger's comments and include additional quotes from Lauren Gleason and Garrett Rose.