The documentary, 'Alaska's Last Oil', tells the story of a company that is desperate to drill for oil in the Antarctic Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. The company doesn't seem concerned about the environmental or human impact of its actions. The US government is planning to authorise the company to drill for oil. If it does this it is also responsible for the consequences. The drilling will destroy the fragile habitat which supports many endangered species. We all have an interest in this issue. While the oil the industry extracts is used to power the things we need in our everyday lives, it also pollutes the Earth and ads to global warming. The company says that drilling in this wildlife reserves is the only solution to oil shortages claiming: "the easy pockets around the world have already gone." They claim we are running short of oil and this is the only answer. It is not entirely true to say there are no other oil sources. There are but they are often in countries which are not friendly to the USA …show more content…
NASA have done studies to prove that the sun is going to be around for 6.5 billion years, so why waste it. This means we have plentiful energy sources we just need people and governments to invest in it. So therefore solar is the only resort; the best resort that our country, world and universe can have. Solar has incredible potential for our nation. We just need to know how and when to use it. If we turn to solar energy as our main energy source provider our world as we know it won't be disappearing. This solution will minimise greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide which is released into the atmosphere, this will decrease our dependency on fossil
Significance: Right now, The United States of America languishes in an economic decline. Jobs are being lost. Drilling in the ANWR will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Also, 80% of Alaska’s state revenues are oil. With the North Slope oil fields in decline, Alaskans could lose jobs. Drilling in the ANWR will create jobs for Alaskans. As Jennie Wodkowski, who has lived in Alaska for 34 years said, “Oil’s important. We don’t have anything else going on here.”
The environment needs protecting because even before the drilling started hunting was rapidly decreasing the amount of animals in the area. So if drilling occured in Alaska the animal count would go down even more. Drilling is gonna need space, and because Alaska is a mountained and woodland area they will have to make space by destroying trees etc. Destroying trees means destroying animals’ homes. According to document E ‘just look 60 miles west to Prudhoe bay- an oil complex that has turned 1,000 square miles of fragile tundra into a sprawling industrial zone containing, 1,500 miles of roads and pipes’. Also the document states that the would be
The opposition to this project is increasing because the people living in those areas are already feeling negative consequences. The large communities living in Boreal Forest and other Natives lands are being affected by the extraction and process of tar sands. Not only this people are being rushed away from their lands, but also, the rate of cancer, renal failure, lupus, hyperthyroidism and other decease, are higher than ever. This health conditions increased because of the air pollution and the high quantities of metals and chemicals in the drinking water. Yet, lots of precautions are being taken by the company, oil spills keep happening over and over. The external metal corrosion caused by extreme temperatures and the corrosive acid components of the bitumen are factors that contribute to accidents like explosions and oil
Almost every single nation in our world today, the United States included, is extremely reliant on oil and how much of it we can obtain. Wars have been started between countries vying for control of this valuable natural resource. The United States as a whole has been trying to reduce its reliance on foreign oil and has had some success, especially with the discovery of the Bakken formation and projects like the Keystone Pipeline.
The debate on drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is an intensely debated topic in America today. Proponents of the oil drilling believe that the oil in the refuge will solve the high prices of gasoline, but they don’t even know what amount of oil the refuge holds and the amount of oil that we use every year in the United States. The drilling in ANWR will severely damage the wildlife refuge and its environment. The oil would take years to access with drilling and so far there has been no proof that the drilling would actually produce enough oil to sustain our needs as a country. Also, a reason to not drill in the refuge is because the reserve is being saved for when our country is in a national emergency, or until when there is no oil left because of its rapid decline in availability.
There is an abundance of oil underneath earth’s crust on land and in the water but getting to that oil can be proven as a challenge and a negative impact on the earth. Many of these oil reservoirs lie in federally protected land or water to minimize the negative impact on the earth. But should those restrictions be removed? Removing the restrictions can allow the US to tap into domestic reserves rather than rely on imported oil from the Middle East and Asia but tapping these reservoirs can also leave behind an impact that is harmful to this planet. “Critics oppose this move for fear that it will cause irreparable harm environmental harm. They point to the April 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as evidence of the risks associated with offshore drilling” (SIRS).
Over the last thirty years the United States has been faced with the problem of dependence on foreign countries for oil and the tight control that these exercise on the energy policies and economics of America. Many of these instances include: the oil embargos of the 1970s, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. Since the 1970s, one solution offered to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign countries for oil has been opening up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Proponents say that drilling in ANWR would make the United States more self-sufficient in the area of energy, while at the same time not doing excessive damage to the environment of the area. Opponents of drilling in ANWR cite the environmental problems of off-shore drilling and maintain that this land should be left alone and allowed to stand as an environmental wonder. Given that some environmental groups do not mind allowing technology to invade the environment when it profits them and given the threats of global terror and the ever-increasing dependence our nation has on foreign oil, I believe it is in the best interests of the United States to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.
..."Alaska Oil Spill Fuels Concerns Over Arctic Wildlife, Future Drilling." National Geographic News. 20 Mar. 2006. Web. 3 July 2010.
The United States relies on imports for about forty percent of its crude oil, which is the lowest rate of dependency since 1991 according to the U.S Energy Information Administration. Today our country is trying to keep on track in becoming less and less dependent. When it comes to the topic of the future ways the United States will get its fuel, most of us readily agree that the United States should become more independent by using natural gas that is already here on our land. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question of the consequences drilling for natural gas brings. Whereas some are convinced drilling is safe, others maintain that it is actually in fact dangerous. Hydraulic fracturing or "fracking", the terms for drilling for natural gas, is dangerous to our public health and to the environment because of the water contamination it causes. Therefore, it is not something that should become a project for alternative fuel used by the United States.
The environmental danger taken by offshore drilling is very straight forward, made clear by oil spills such as the recent BP oil spill and the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 off the shore of Alaska. In the circumstances of the Exxon Valdez spill up to 250,000 sea birds died, over 2,800 sea otters and thousands of other animals], (figures from the BP oil spill are not yet concluded), having had a heavy strike on the regional wildlife and directing to a ban on all offshore drilling in America, until George Bush overturned it in 2008 to this repeal was a misjudgment because two years later there was the Deepwater Horizon spill. In this way, offshore drilling ruins ecosystems and fish supplies which creates a wasteland of a shoreline among southern USA.
Claim: Solar power has the potential to become the United States main supply of energy and replace are needs for more conventional and harmful forms of power generation.
According to an online article from Thought Company, the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill polluted the waters of Prince William Sound, coated more than a thousand miles of pristine coastline and killed hundreds of thousands of birds, fish, and animals. This crisis has become a symbol of human-caused environmental disasters all over the world. Many years after the accident, and despite billions of dollars spent on cleanup efforts, crude oil can still be found under the rocks and sand on the beaches of southwest Alaska, and the effects of the spill are still apparent in the lasting damage done to many native species. (West, 2017) This specific incident was a major crisis that acted as a prodrome for the oil industry. For the purpose of this assignment it is important that we take a look at the details of this event. From there, we will look at how Exxon handled the
The sun has been a major aspect of life since the beginning of time. People used many other forms of energy before electricity was discovered. There has been a debate over energy resources for years. Many people are worried about what current energy resources may be doing to the environment. Oil spills and nuclear power plant mishaps have only been a few accidents that have had a big impact on the environment and the people who inhabit it. There are plenty of energy sources that do not harm the environment and are still able to get the job done. Solar energy is one energy alternative that will insure the betterment of the country and, at the same time, protect the natural environment.
I am certain that all have heard of the terms green house gases, fossil fuels, and global warming. Have you ever questioned what will happen if nothing is done about the environmental problems facing the world today? What if I answer you that, we can merely use the power from the sun to power up our entire planet without the use of harmful energy sources, which affect our atmosphere? The power from the sun is what we call solar power. Solar power is the energy that comes from the sun as light and heat energy, and then it is later converted into electrical energy through solar panels (Nelson, 2008). This kind of power is completely free, right? Why should we put a lot of expense on other sources of energy, when there is a complete free and healthy power? It is evident that solar energy is a healthy source of energy, which will help stop global warming all together, but it is economically efficient to switch everything to solar energy. Solar energy is capable of becoming the world's future power supply because, it is renewable, eco-friendly, and extremely efficient when strategically placed.
The Earth captures around 342 W/m2 of energy from the sun. This energy is in the form of solar radiation, which the atmosphere reflects about 77 W/m2 and will absorb around 68 W/m2 of solar radiation annually. Therefore, the Earth’s surface is receiving, on average, about 197 W/m2 of solar radiation annually. This amount of energy received is roughly more than 10,000 times the amount of all energy humans consume per year. This energy can be used to produce electricity or heat. This energy source is not being used to it’s potential considering how much effort would come into effect to store and transport this energy.