Your editorial "The energy-economy link" (OGJ, Dec. 17, 2001, p. 17) has some terminology that is undoubtedly and unnecessarily offensive to many, probably most people. Writing about the prospect for oil and gas leasing on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, you refer twice to "hikers and gawkers." Land on which nothing can happen except hiking and gawking produces no jobs, no income…" and "…ANWR's bleak coastal plaine… its few hikers and gawkers."
I passionately agree with your intent; this part of ANWR should be opened to the industry for many reasons, one of which is that it is really not pristine, another that the industry has demonstrated that it can operate in that environment with minimum damage to the ecosystem (and no harmful effect on the caribou population) and yet another, as you say, that very few people, indeed, visit this remote area as eco-tourists.
But referring to such visitors as "hikers and gawkers" is inflammatory not only to environmental activists who, though vocal, are few in number. I think it would also be regarded as offensive by most people who love to visit and enjoy places of natural beauty. That's most of us.
This is terminology of extremism. Even though we regard our opposition as ex tremist, we can't effectively oppose them with extremism. We have to be objective and accurate, even though environmental activists seem not to be held to those standards. I believe that, as an important voice of our industry, you should keep your language at a professional level.
Dennis E. Gregg
Houston
