Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arctic national wildlife refuge oil drilling
Arctic national wildlife refuge drilling opposing viewpoints online collection, gale 2017
Arguments against drilling in anwr
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arctic national wildlife refuge oil drilling
In many cases around the world, our economy struggles so we look for ways to fix it in things such as environmental destruction. These things vary from oil drilling to freeway placement. Things such as these are beneficial to the economy by bringing in more cash for the community or region. Yet as we increase our economic value, the environment around us decreases. An example for this issue would be drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Now the idea behind this is that the Republicans have been trying for so long to be able to drill on this sacred land. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been said to be the most pristine areas in the entire United States. The supporters of this drilling have said that by drilling in this place, the oil …show more content…
All of this sounds fantastic, especially laid out in this way. We are in desperate need for jobs and money. Now that Trump is planning this new taxation rule, we are in need of money to recover what we will be losing and this seems like a fair;y successful and well planned idea that could bring in exactly enough for what they need. Unfortunately, the opposing side of the argument disagrees. After a 37 year band on drilling at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, while also bringing in big amount of money for Alaska and the government, the supporters want to end the band in an attempt to gain a bit more cash. The opposing team now has accused the supporters of using an outdated resource estimates. They say that this drilling can only bring in a maximum of 37.5 million in the next ten years. This is no where near 440 billion. This is not enough to pay for what they need and not only will it be a useless effort, but then the sacred land and the most pristine area in the US will be completely
My opponents 1st/2nd/3rd contention was the drilling in the ANWR will harm the environment. This is absolutely incorrect. Lets put this into perspective, the ANWR is 19.6 million acres out of Alaska, which is 240 million acres. The proposed drilling in the coastal plain will be 1.5 million acres. Now, with the new technology we have today, we can tap into the 1.5 million acre oil supply with an oil area that is 2000 acres. 2000 acres is 1/10000 or .0001% of the ANWR. 1.5 million acres of oil and a minuscule possibility of harming at max, 1/10000, I repeat 1/10000th if the ANWR. (Arctic Power)
In his essay “Being Green at Ben and Jerry’s,” George F. Will lays out his argument against the environmentalists who hypocritically prevent coal mining and oil drilling in or near foreign soil. Despite the United States having enough oil and coal to be self dependent for years, tree huggers want to save our earth and import instead. However, letting places like Iraq do all of the resource extraction and the United State buying it from them is not much better. These environmentalists then call for a decrease in energy consumption, but no politician in his right mind would go against the Americans who love their big, gas-guzzling cars. Mostly, energy conservatives make policies that help them sleep well at night, rather than anything of actual
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
Although industrialization revolutionizes America, it possesses devastating effects on nature. In 2003, The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was threatened by plans of oil drilling and the construction of roads and pipelines. In response, former United States President Jimmy Carter crafted a speech, found in the foreword to book written by Subhankar Banerjee, with the intent of protecting the reserve. By utilizing diction, imagery and pathos, President Carter was effective in convincing America to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
In the foreword to "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land, A Photographic Journey," former US President Jimmy Carter voices strong opposition to proposals that aim to industrialize areas of natural tundra in Alaska. He urges readers to look beyond short term financial gain and to protect nature’s innate beauty. In order to persuade his audience that the Arctic Refuge should be preserved, Carter develops pathetic appeal through the use of personal anecdotes, precise word choice, and evocative imagery.
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).
In Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, there are over 1 million acres of non-federal inholdings to which access is, and has been a major issue of controversy. Park managers and landowners alike are trying to reach an agreement which would provide for the access to private property, as well as towns such as Nabesna, McCarthy, and Kennecott. The following information will be used to convince park managers and conservationist groups that access via R.S. 2477 rights-of-ways are not only necessary, but also guaranteed by state and federal law.
Before stating both sides of the argument, I would like to make two observations that I found interesting while researching from the book, Taking Sides. The first thing that I found interesting was that in an environmental science class and in an environmental science textbook, the two articles used to present the pros and cons of opening up oil drilling in ANWR were not written by environmentalists or scientists or even oil technology experts, but rather by an economist, a physicist and a lawyer. The second thing that ran through my head as I was reading both articles was the time at which both were written. ?To Drill or Not to Drill: Let the Environmentalist Decide,? written by Dwight R. Lee, a professor of economics, and ?Fools Gold in Alaska,? written by physicist Amory B. Lovins and lawyer L. Hunter Lovins, were both written in the months prior to the September eleventh terrorist attacks in the United States and the subsequent United States invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq. As I read both articles, especially that of the Lovins, which opposes oil drilling in ANWR, I could not help but wonder if ...
The Arctic has a key role in Canada’s history and future, as 40% of Canada’s landmass composes of its three northern territories. Arctic Sovereignty has become a national priority for Canada in the 21st Century due to international interests, such as rapid industrialization, climate change and transportation. Therefore, the geopolitical importance of the Arctic has never been any greater than it is now.
The oil company is essentially placing profit over cultural heritage and the lives of human beings.
The Debate Over the Idea of Drilling for Oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Jimmy Carter in his foreword to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge argues why we should protect "America's last truly great wilderness" from industry. Therefore he uses powerful and emotional elements to describe the wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge such as when he uses his own experience visiting the refuge with his wife, presenting the reader of the environment and atmosphere, for instance "we walked along ancient caribou trails and studied the brilliant mosaic of wildflowers, mosses, and lichens that hugged the tundra. There was a timeless quality about this great land". This as a result makes the effect of a serene fantastical place that should be never taken for granted. Another example is when Jimmy Carter describes
The Arctic Tundra The Tundra is located in the northern regions of North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. as well as a few regions of Antarctica. The Tundra is the second largest vegetation. zone in Canada. It can be divided into three different sections: the High Arctic Tundra, the Low Arctic Tundra and the Alpine Tundra.
It is an unquestioned fact that the climate is changing. There is abundant evidence that the world is becoming warmer and warmer. The temperature of the global land average temperature has increased by about 8.5 degrees centigrade from 1880 to 2012 (Karr, et al 406). The one or two degrees increase in temperature can cause dramatic and serious consequences to the earth as well as humans. More extreme weather occurs, such as heat waves and droughts. The Arctic Region is especially sensitive to global climate change. According to the data in recent decades, the temperature in the Arctic has increased by more than 2 degrees centigrade in the recent half century (Przybylak 316). Climate change has led to a series of environmental and ecological negative