'Arctic National Wildlife Refuge' By Jimmy Carter

Stegner wants to conserve the untouched land because he fears a world with no silence. He argues for the preservation of Robbers’ Roost country, as an example, “It is a lovely and terrible wilderness, such as wilderness as Christ and the prophets went out into… Save a piece of country like that intact, and it does not matter in the slightest that only a few people every year will go into it. That is precisely its value (Stegner, Wilderness Letter).” Saving the untouched lands, he contends, is a reminder of how uncontrolled the Earth is and how timeless it remains. Others disagree with this viewpoint, one of those people being American forester, Gifford Pinchot. In his writing “The Fight for Conservation,” Pinchot argues that conservation

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land, A Photographic Journey is an editorial that argues in favor of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and how it must be protected from the dangers of human industrialization and oil exploration that would surely destroy the land. The author of the passage dwelves into great detail about the vast, untouched beauty of the Arctic Refuge and how its majesty is among the greatest things he has witnessed. Banerjee, however, fails to support his argument using substantial facts that might otherwise sway skeptics. For instance, Banerjee states: “I was saddened to think of the tragedy that might occur if this great wilderness was consumed by a web of roads and pipelines, drilling rigs and industrial facilities”. The author here uses an ethos and pathos standpoint, coming from the perspective of personal experience and opinion of how distraught he should feel if the land were

Jimmy Carter is a well known Democratic president who served between 1977 to 1981 who strongly opposed opening the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. His writing on the preservation of the refuge came after his term as president while new proposals were being put forward for drilling. Carter’s argument is very effective at encouraging the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge to be protected. Carter effectively uses logos, ethos, and pathos to construct a strong argument for the refuge to be preserved.

“Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land” is written by Former President Jimmy Carter in his response about the Arctic National Wild Refuge being preserved and kept safe. Carter is most definitely able to backup his point about this subject by using different forms of rhetorical devices such as logos, ethos, and pathos.

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

He announced it was the first symbolic act of “the environmental decade.” Between the years of 1970 and 1972, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and signed laws including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Another thing he did was sign executive orders and international agreements on environmental issues. In early 1973, an international conference was held to discuss endangered species. The product of the conference was the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The U.S. needed a new legislation to meet some of the agreement’s provisions and it led to the Endangered Species Act. In Nixon’s State of the Union speech in 1973, he called for stronger wildlife protection. The results of these environmental laws and international agreements made the public extremely happy. Even though Nixon’s intentions were selfish when he got involved in environmental concerns, he responded unquestionably positive. All his hard work helped pave the way for a cleaner society.

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.

In his foreword, President Jimmy Carter proposes his thoughts on oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge. He contends that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not be developed for the oil industry. He believes in the preservation of wildlife and the natural beauty that it provides. His argument is solidly structured by a personal anecdote, historical evidence of actions taken towards preservation, and a refutation to advocates of the drilling activity.

In government many political leaders love to get peoples votes because the more votes they get the better chance of winning the election they have. So many political leaders sway towards what they believe the people feel they need and want their government to do about certain problems. This then makes for political leaders seem to know what they can do to help the people and get a benefit out of not only being elected but being able to save the environment. Due to this fact political leaders realize that people are all for conservation because they want to save the Earth so they will be able to keep living on this planet. This is why many political leaders have at least one or more conservational benefit that they want to proceed with if they get elected into government. This sometimes doesn’t happen in government though because they may get elected then a big event happens and they have to worry more about the major event then there ideas on how to save the environment. This can be seen by one of the biggest influences in government our current President Barack Obama. In Barack Obama’s first term he placed a law into place that in turn ended up being “one of the most significant conservation milestones in a decade. Chock-full of new protections for pristine and historic places, the measure sets the gold standard for land preservation by designating more than 2 million acres in nine states as wilderness.”(Danowitz 1). Due to this Obama became very popular with all the conservationist organizations and it also boosted his appeal to the people to see that he was

Is developing the Arctic for oil and natural gas worth the powerful negative impact on the environment and native communities? The article published on September 20th, 2013 by Jennifer Weeks titled, “Future of the Arctic” examines the Arctic and the controversies within it. In the pro/con section of her article, Weeks asks the question, “Should the United States suspend Arctic offshore drilling?” Senator Mark Begich argues that the resources in the Arctic are too great of an opportunity to miss out on. Although Arctic drilling is a controversial topic, many people believe it should continue because of the financial and ethical circumstances; however, evidence to support this is lacking, which leads to the other side of the debate to be in

The Endangered American Wilderness Act, today, protects America’s wilderness areas. Mr. Carter was concerned about the population growth spilling over into the nation’s wilderness population. At the time, strip mining and logging had resulted in already endangered wilderness areas. The act was introduced, in large part, for the generations to come, so that they may enjoy America’s wilderness.

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

During his time, Aldo Leopold was a conservationist who believed in the longevity of the land and that we should protect it, even if we must protect the land from ourselves. While this was an unpopular opinion, realizing that the land and animals naturally work together in a symbiotic relationship to protect one another was very apparent to Leopold. He believed that humans should be doing our best to lessen our impact on the environment. Time has caught up with Leopold’s ideologies and it is time that our efforts and contributions to the earth did too.

Right from the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century, there has been a fierce debate concerning how economic growth or development affects the environment or ecological setup of a country. The debate has its basis on whether it would be recommendable for a nation to concentrate on growing its economy while at the same time hurting or harming its ecological system. Naturalists like Pinchot Gifford, John Muir, Love Canal and Cuyahoga County always argued in favor of environmental preservation as opposed to concentrating all efforts towards developing the economy (Olmes 154; Miller 150-51). This paper will, therefore, discuss the struggle between economics and ecology specifically looking at particular events across the Twentieth Century. It will also attempt to explain the factors involved in the pursuit for change on the way people and the administration perceived the environmental conservation as opposed to economic growth.

Environmental issues have been a cause of a lot of debate in the recent past. Governments and nongovernmental organizations have been in constant consultations on how to help protect the environment. Apparently, as a result of man’s many actions, the natural environment is getting torn apart so quickly that the coming generations will not enjoy this kind of environment, unless a