America Does NOT Need to Drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Drilling in Alaska will not help stop the oil crisis. Many colonial Americans weren’t concerned about protecting natural resources because they thought they had a lot but they also knew that they needed to preserve the oil. Should the United States drill for oil in Alaska’s wilderness? America shouldn’t drill in Alaska because of the environment wilderness, protecting environment, and economics.

Energy has easily become one of the most important necessities for our everyday lives. Without it we would simply not be able to have transportation or be able to gather any of our other resources that we depend on. If at anytime our energy supply ceases or no longer attainable the results may be horrific. However, it is quite easy to keep this from happening, It is crucial that our current population realize the importance of sustaining our present non-renewable resources. An examination of all the present energy issues and human impacts of energy conservation along with the a resource plan will show importance of energy

Cravens shows that fossil-fuels cannot be considered as a future energy source because of its baleful impact on environment and people in society. Those people who read this article would definitely disagree of using fossil -fuels for power generation. She creates a bond between herself and the audience by finding something in common. Also, despite listing several frightening facts about fossil-fuels, she conveys that America’s electricity demand is going to rise by almost 50 percent in next two decades (583). Furthermore, she adds that all energy sources, such as the wind and sun are not going to save our planet. According to Cravens, these sources of energy are either impractical or will years to make a consequential impact, and therefore cannot be found as efficient and will be unable for supply the energy demands of United States. Carvens’s sentiment greatly affects her audience to see that nuclear energy is the only environmentally considerable energy source. Also, she gets in touch with her readers through their outlook, which helps them link with what she is trying to persuade them to see. This helps strengthen her argument and makes the audience to eventually support her case about nuclear energy.

The U.S obtains more than 84% of its energy from fossil fuels including oil, coal and natural gas. This is because people rely on it to heat their homes, power industries, run vehicles, manufacturing, and provision of electricity. It is apparent that the country’s transportation industry highly depends on conventional petroleum oil, which is responsible for global warming, thus threatening economic opulence and national security. Apart from that, increasing consumption of fossil fuels have elevated health problems in the state, destroyed wild places, and polluted the environment. After conducting Environmental Impact Assessment, projections showed that the world energy consumption would increase by more than 56% between 2010 and 2040. However, fossil fuels will cater for more than 80% of the total energy used in 2040. Sadly, it will be a trajectory to alter the world’s climate, as well as, weaken the global security environment. Importantly, the rate at which the US relies on fossil fuels needs to reduce since it has adverse effects on the planet’s supplies. The society needs to realize that fossil fuels are nonrenewable, thus taking millions of years to form (Huebner, 2003). Notably, the country can reduce dependency on fossil fuels by practicing energy conservation and efficiency,

Earlier this year the Havasupai Tribe and a coalition of conservation groups sued the United States Forest Service for allowing Energy Fuel Resources Inc. to operate a mine under a 1986 federal environmental review without tribal consultation. The Canyon mine was previously in non-operational status due to low uranium stock prices in 1992. Opponents of the uranium mining operation want the federal environmental review updated and

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been the center of a strident controversy and national debate that has raged for over 40 years. The question raising so much contention is whether the federal government should allow drilling for oil and natural gas with the levels of contention paralleling the rise and fall of gas prices. The National Democratic and Republican Parties have taken opposing positions in their national political platforms, with the debate emerging and re-emerging in Congress as a significant issue. The Republican are proponents of drilling whereas the Democrats are opposed. With Sen. Lisa Murkowski ascending to the top post of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee many observers believe that the Republicans will renew their push for drilling in the ANWR in the upcoming 114th Congress. This paper will explore the different arguments that are used to oppose drilling to protect the ANWR followed by arguments that are in support of drilling. As a result of a preliminary review of current literature outlining the pros and cons surrounding drilling, it is the thesis of this paper that drilling in the ANWR is unnecessary based on (1) the potential to cause irreversible damage to a very unique ecosystem that has not been adequately studied by scientists; and (2) the limited impact that drilling in the region will have on overall market prices and supplies due to the estimated small size of the ANWR’s oil and gas reserves. A brief history of the

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is a large piece of land in Alaska. It

One of America’s greatest conservation achievements is the Wilderness Act of 1964. Fifty-two years later, this act has a legacy to withhold. A legacy that meant something in 1964 and remains the same today: to protect unspoiled land. Even though, through this act millions of acres have been conserved, the key word is continue. That is why America should pass laws to preserve the wilderness before developers spoil them.

Another reason this land should be protected is because it is one of the last natural living ecosystems. Alaska’s diverse ecosystem is one of the last places on the planet that has not effected by man. The Alaskan citizens follow a special way of life that has been going on for thousands of years. This way of life is used so that the people can coexist with nature. By mining this lad, that way of life would be completely

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not only America’s last “truly great wilderness”, but it is home to a multitude of species that would be affected if it were transformed into a place for an oil industry. It is also a symbol of our national heritage where settlers once called it the wilderness. Throughout the essay, Jimmy Carter gives thorough evidence on why we should not destroy this beautiful environment. His evidence includes descriptive language, the use of pathos, and logical reasoning.

The question is should we drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. While there are downfalls to drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, the benefits to the country and to Alaska far outweigh them. These benefits include lower gas prices, more jobs, energy independence.

Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the crowned jewel of the nation’s 544 refuges is in danger of destruction (Lamar and Markey 12). ANWR has been in existence since 1960 and has slowly become one of the most controversial topics to hit Congress. ANWR is composed of 19 million acres on the northeast coast of Alaska. Although the government has been provided with this immense land they are fighting to gain more land. Why? ANWR is the second biggest oil field that is owned by the U.S. Now the government wants more land to construct oil reserves. The refuge is home to many endangered species such as migratory birds, polar bears, and wolves (Lynne and Roberts 1). Most of ANWR’s designated oil area is owned by indigenous Alaskan

In the passage above, Jimmy Carter stated that there has been a repeated proposal to open the Artic Refuge to coastal plain to oil drilling. He also said that he experienced a devastating time of his life when he was expecting to see the caribou but instead they saw a great amount of caribou and their calves migrating. The president during that time, Dwight D. Eisenhower, established the original 8.9 million-acre Artic National Wildlife Range to preserve its wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values.

One of the most detrimental events to occur in nature are oil spills. If the rules were to stay as they are, or become even looser on drilling, it would inhibit the park authority to hold companies responsible for the damages they cause as a result of oil spills and other events. “Regulations are needed to be sure spill prevention measures are in place and finances are available to ensure safe and complete closure when operations cease” (Geltman). Even with the 1978 version of the 9B rules, it is easy for companies to skirt around responsibilities such as these. That is the reason the NPS took so long to perfect a new set of updates for the 9B rules -- to make sure that their park lands could be protected the best that they could. It is no doubt that regulations play a large part in the protection of operations, and the 9B rules are no

With all the good the Arctic National Wildlife refuge has to offer as a safe haven for endangered animals and plant life, comes the burden of sitting on an oil reserve. As noted earlier in 1980, under President Carter, the protected area was doubled. However, the oil industry lobbies succeeded in having the U.S. Senate refuse to designate the critically important Costal Plain as wilderness. Instead, Section 1002 of the Alaskan National Interest Lands Conservation Act legislation directed the Department of Interior