Andrew Revkin reports on a National Academies of Sciences finding which, he correctly notes, “was eagerly awaited by supporters and foes of drilling” along America’s northern Alaska Arctic coast. Bottom line: wildlife “adapted well to oil drilling,” but wilderness “in the sense of wildness and sweep and emptiness -- was another matter.” Coming just two weeks before a key Senate vote on whether to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (see related Reading Rack), the piece reports that scars from drilling efforts 18 years ago still can be seen in today’s photos. Revkin reports that the study finds “companies would need a sharp prod from the government if they were to commit the $6 billion or more it might take to restore such a remote region.” He quotes the report’s “simple parting message”: “Continued expansion will exacerbate existing effects and create new ones. Whether the benefits derived from oil and gas activities justify acceptance of the foreseeable and undesirable cumulative effects is an issue for society as a whole to debate and judge.” That said, the Senate’s narrow vote against opening ANWR drilling is widely recognized to be its most recent word on the issue …but unlikely it's “last.”

(See: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60D12F73D5A0C728DDDAA0894DB404482)