Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, commonly referred to as ANWR has been the source of media and political controversy for the last twenty years and has only increased in recent years. President Eisenhower reserved this land in 1960 to preserve and protect the native and diverse plants and wildlife. When oil was discovered in the Prudhoe Bay a determined group consisting of large oil corporations, politicians and locals insisted that exploration in the wildlife refuge would lessen the United States dependence to foreign oil, there would be numerous economic benefits and could be achieved with an inconsequential effect on the environment. Opponents of drilling reject this argument citing grave environmental concerns. These adversaries that include many environmental groups argue that the various economic benefits associated with drilling in ANWR are not significant enough to warrant the destruction of one of the last remaining pristine wildernesses. The costs associated with drilling evident in oil spills, changes in habitat and the possible extinction of Polar bears and wolves demonstrate that the benefits of drilling for oil does not outweigh the negative consequences. In 2015, President Barack Obama pushed policy to ban oil exploration by designating more than 22 million acres in Alaska of which 12 million are part of the ANWR (Bourne). Background Alaska became an official state of the United States in 1960.
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.
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
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
Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a very controversial topic. On one end you have the people who want to drill for oil to help out our economy, and on the other end there are the environmentalists and the Alaskan natives who do not want their land destroyed. Our economy needs help; oil prices keep rising, gas prices have reached an all time high, and America is depending too much on foreign trade. Drilling for oil in Alaska will solve these problems. There are ways of drilling without disturbing the environment and keeping the animals in their original habitat.
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.
Drilling oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is a serious issue for environmentalists and for the future of the United States. Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be opened to oil drilling? This paper will debate whether or not we should allow Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be opened to oil drilling. This will also show the impact it has on the environment, and I will show a critical analysis of the current issue of whether or not to drill.
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.
Another reason against drilling much research has shown that all the oil that will be produced will only last for about six months. The fact that the British Petroleum has greater potential to produce more oil and natural gasses (Markey 2004) than ANWR so why bother with it , supporting the case that drilling is pointless. Then there is the percentage that after oil production of ANWR, the foreign oil dependency will only drop from 56% to 50% (Markey 2004).Then the oil produced would reach the market ten years later after it was produced, leaving the gas price decrease to one percent(Lamar and Markey 12). There was also the reality of natural gases. ANWR does not confirm any sign of them, when President Bush ordered exploration for natural gasses (Klyza and Ford-Martin 1).Again proving drilling pointless.
Alaskan men have a long history of struggling to survive in the wilderness. Today, some, like the Gwich 'in, a native Alaskan tribe, still choose to live off nature. Recently, though a new argument has come to Alaska, one that could destroy the traditions of the Gwich’in forever. Politicians, environmentalists, economists and neighbors now fight over the prospect of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Many of the arguments for drilling are worth consideration; however, in comparison to the evidence against it, they are neither convincing nor compelling.
Summary Alaska is well known for its abundance in oil. Obama has now proposed a bill to ban energy exploration on 12 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With this bill comes this are being considered as wilderness and Alaskans are not happy with the bill at all. Many of the people who are Native to this are feel as if they have been disrespected or unconsidered.
America should drill in Alaska for oil because it's good for the economy. Document C says the United States uses more oil than it could find domestically, even if we were to drill on all public lands. The United States uses 25% to 30% of the oil produced
America must wean itself off of dependence on foreign oil, and one valid solution to this problem is offshore oil drilling and production. America’s economy is heavily based on petroleum, as though it is the nation’s blood; a necessity for survival. About 25% of oil produced in the U.S. comes from offshore rigs. Most of the U.S. coastline has been off limits for oil drilling since the early 1980s. Due to environmental concerns after an oil spill off the coast of California in 1969, an offshore drilling moratorium was imposed. Since then, the U.S. has amplified its energy consumption to where it uses nearly 25% of the world's oil. Meanwhile, the U.S. produces about 10% of the world's oil. That has made the U.S. heavily reliant on imported
In civics class we are doing a One to the World project to make the world a better place to live in. Our group members are Gayathri Kavitha, Manognya Janga, and Naomi Cho. We are trying to make the world a better place by stopping the oil drills in the Arctic. Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress want to use our tax money drill oil in the Arctic. This can cause lots of problems such as polluting the Arctic climate. When we drill oil, there is a huge chance that there will be an oil spill. Almost all the time, the oil spill is not successfully cleaned up. When the oil is not cleaned up, it can pollute the Arctic waters. This can cause thousands of wildlife living there to lose their original habitat.
America Should Reject the Oil Businesses Plan and Permanently Protect The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Oil Drilling has many effects on the environment from the air we breathe to the oceans that inhabit many species. While one of the outcomes of oil drilling is money, it is forgotten that money won’t help repair all of the damage that is done to mother nature. Not only does the outcome of drilling for fossil fuels affect the oceans, rainforest, etc. it also has an effect on local business’ and the health of humans. If people want change, they need to be the