Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: An Economic Analysis

One of the last of the world’s true wilderness, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is “one of the largest sanctuaries for Arctic animals, (where)… it is a vital birthing ground for polar bears, grizzlies, Arctic wolves, caribou, and the endangered shaggy ox” (Document E). By drilling for oil on this land, we would potentially endanger the wildlife and the

Bush campaigned for the 2000 election, he explicitly opposed Kyoto as it “would cause serious harm to the US economy” (Borger, 2001). The international issue of global warming was thusly labeled as something that could be ignored in favor of local economic profit, and emission reduction was assumed to be impossibly expensive.

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 Reserve (ANWR) is a beautiful 19.6 million acre coastal plain, and is located in the Northeastern part of Alaska. ANWR is home to numerous species of wildlife and one of the largest untapped oil preserves in the United States. There is an immense debate between the opposing environmentalists and the politicians who want to drill for oil on a section of ANWR, which is only 1.8% of the refuge. Environmentalists who oppose drilling for oil in Alaska say the wildlife and the native populations are threatened by drilling for oil in ANWR, even though most of the natives are strongly in favor of drilling. ANWR could save the US from having to import $800 billion worth

The way that innovation is sought after is a prominent player in the way that policy is shaped with regards to the environment. An increase in funds for the improvement of existing technology for burning fossil fuels can be viewed in complete contrast to the increase in funds to develop new solar panel technology to decrease the United States dependence on oil and gas. As is the case with many issues in the US government the approach to this seems to fall in to two distinct categories – republican or democrat. Examples come from the Presidency of George Bush and in 2001 President Bush announced the development of “FutureGen” this was a policy that was aimed at the capture and sequestration of CO2 emissions. The aim of FutureGen was to improve

The Western existence of modernization, especially technological and industrial development, economic growth, material prosperity, urbanization, and democracy, has been built upon a long line of industrial capitalism, an economic system predicated on the accelerating extraction and consumption of fossil fuels for energy (Clark & York, 2005). A major unintended consequence of the use of fossil fuels is an increase in the average temperature of the earth; known as global warming or climate change. Recognizing and responding to climate change, arguably the most challenging social problem of the modern era (Giddens, 2009), thus poses a fundamental critique of continued modernization processes around the world (Freudenburg, 2003). Climate change is a major issue that affects all life across the

Environmental protection has been always a global issue that affected all the people. National authorities including politicians play a big role in ensuring nature protection and encouraging the nation to support environmentalism movement. Jimmy Carter shows a great example of persuading the big audience to take an action and to endorse the proposal not to develop Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for industry.

Can you imagine the grocery stores and restaurants in your neighborhood disappearing bit by bit? The oil drilling in North Slope Borough, Alaska, has affected 95,000-square miles of wildlife’s habitat. The development of oil industry takes away what is essential to the lives of the Gwich’in: the Caribou. Gwich’in villages rely on caribou to supply their food and clothes. As the oil industry develops in a close proximity to the Gwich’in village, caribou do not go near the area anymore. The villagers can hardly find any caribou now. In her book Silent Spring, Rachel Carson questions how powerful agents, like the oil industry, can have such a devastating impact on others: “[t]he decision is that of the authoritarian temporarily entrusted with power; he has made it during a moment of inattention by millions to whom beauty and the ordered world of nature still have a meaning that is deep and imperative” (Carson, 376). We human beings carry the responsibility of ensuring harmony amongst the living organisms inhabiting all of this planet. We need to ensure that our ecosystem is protected. In order to prevent further damage to habitats and extinction of species, we should stop developing oil drill in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska.

Thank you for contacting me about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me.

Climate change, specifically in reference to C02 Emissions released by human use of fossil fuels and their consequential effects on the environment, is perhaps one of the most pressing issues we, not just as Americans, but as human beings face in our lifetimes. Though it may sound like a sensationalist statement the facts are hard to deny. In May of 2013, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

This case study concerns possible oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) on the north slope of Alaska’s Brooks Range adjacent to the Gwich’in reservation. This could put the Porcupine Caribou Herd at risk and possibly jeopardize the food source and traditional culture of the Gwich’in people (Pg. 129). However, as fossil fuel sources begin to run out, Americans seem to feel entitled to drill for oil anywhere there is a reserve, even when that means sacrificing the greater good of a community or nature. One of the questions asked is if America deserves the oil at the risk of the Gwich’in people, when we have such an excess of energy consumption and the failure of North Americans to restrict this energy consumption?

Politics is connected to natural resources, the issue of global warming, and sustainability. In order for the economy to grow, it feeds on natural resources that produces waste and pollutes the earth and the air. This threatens the environment and the eco-system in which our lives depend. The use of natural resources exceeds the amount the earth can undertake and recover. And the foundation of all our economic growth is built upon the counterbalance of the resources spent and recovered. Therefore, it can be taken away anytime; when our planet can’t supply and take the amount we are asking from anymore, we would have lost everything, the economy, environment and our lives.

In recent years, the controversial subject of global warming has been more predominantly brought to our attention. Is the threat of global warming real? Is it man-made or is this just a natural cycle of earth? Does it really affect earth’s inhabitants? Should action be taken against it? If so, what kind and to what extent? It cannot be only a coincidence that the alarmingly rapid climate change coincides perfectly with the increased amount of pollutants that humans release into the environment. The once stable climate has in recent years begun to skyrocket, thus altering the delicate structure of earthly life. This proves to be hazardous to the future of the planet; some people worry that many of the resources the environment provides that

Climate change otherwise known as global warming has been an ongoing issue for decades. Beginning in the 19th century, climate change has increasingly affected Earth and its atmosphere. Rising levels of carbon dioxide are warming the Earth’s atmosphere, causing rising sea-levels, melting snow and ice, extreme fires and droughts, and intense rainfall and floods. Climate change has and will continue to affect food production, availability of water, and can add to many health risks in humans and animals. In fact, in an article by Justin Gillis titled, “Scientists Warn of Perilous Climate Shift Within Decades, Not Centuries” he focuses on a paper written by a former NASA climate scientist, James E. Hansen, explaining the effects of climate change on Earth today. Although many believe Hansen’s theories in the paper are quite far-fetched, the author mentions, “Despite any reservations they might have about the new paper, virtually all climate scientists agree with Dr. Hansen’s group that society is not moving fast enough to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, posing grave risks” (Gillis). Gillis validates the fact that climate change has been rapidly expanding throughout Earth and society has not been able to reduce it fast enough. Many negative risks are being posed and will continue to mount if the issue of climate change is not taken seriously. Although climate change negatively affects nearly all aspects of Earth, it poses a big

Global warming has been a very contentious issue of late in regards to environmental health and safety. Many pundits and critics alike exclaim that global warming is not as prevalent as individuals claim. One such pundit is that of George Will, whose article, "Dark Green Doomsdayers" indicates that global warming is simply a hoax. The statistics however prove otherwise. Global warming and its effects are far reaching. Society is affected due to higher frequency of natural disasters and drought. Wildlife suffers as many animals become extinct, primarily in the artic region. Agriculture suffers as warming creates a larger propensity for drought and forest fires. This ultimately affects the American tax payer as more money is needed to help abate the fires influences on society. Currently, global warming is coming to the forefront both politically and nationally. It is a very real problem, that can easily be solves through ingenuity and perseverance.