Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Research Paper

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.

Many people would find it easy to sympathize with the conservation of the natural, magnificent wilderness and all of its glory; and Subhankar Banerjee, the author of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land, A Photographic Journey, uses that sympathy to gain the reader’s support in his claims. While his article does offer a very compassionate viewpoint with vivid imagery to capture the reader’s attention, it lacks strong logos arguments to back up his claims and falls victim to a few major logical fallacy points that injure his stance.

The tundra is one of the cooldest land biomes on the planet. Due to the high winds and the permafrost there are no trees becuase it dosent allow the growth of deep roots. All the producers and othe need to get adapted to the cold temperatures, little sun and short growing season to stay alive. The tundra is considered a poor enviroment thats low in resources. The dead minerals get recycled by othe decomposers like the slime molds, fungi, and bacteria. Rain increases photosynthesis and decomposition. Air pollution kills lichen in the cold tundra. The warmer climates allow trees to invade the shade out the small tundra plants. And warmer temperatures can increase decompositon, while releasing more CO2 into the air causing mor global

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

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

In a letter from the former United States President Jimmy Carter, he argues the importance of the Arctic National wildlife refuge, expressing the negative impacts that future industrialization of the Alaskan wilderness would have, not only on the environment and organisms living within it, but among the indigenous peoples whom the ecosystem provides.

“Since I have left office, there have been repeated proposals to open the Arctic Refuge coastal plain to oil drilling.” This direct quote makes me feel like we, as humans, could do some severe damage to the environment. How much damage could we do? Who would be the ones to clean up the irreversible damage we have done? Without the persistence of the indigenous people, this great refuge would not be what it is. “There are few places on earth as wild and free as the Arctic Refuge.” This statement has so much truth and should hit us on a personal level because it makes you wonder how many places are there left like this on the earth? How long can we preserve this place? We should be more careful and use our resources

A major claim from the supporters view is that there would decrease United States dependence on foreign oil. Although, it seems logical for the United States to drill on its own land to decrease dependence on imported oil, but that would not be the case in ANWR. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there are 4-10 billion barrels of oil that can be recovered from the refuge’s coastal plain that is enough for another 4-10 months (Cunningham, 2009, p. 287). A poll from February 2000, Alaskans support opening ANWR

Protect the native’s land and the planet! The Dakota Pipeline project is not going to be as beneficial as it’s made out to be. “It’s a 3.7 billion dollar project that would cross four states. The results could be an economic boon that makes the country more self-sufficient or an environmental disaster that destroys sacred Native American sites” (Yan). Construction of the Dakota pipeline does not only violate the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, but implementing this pipeline will release more pollution, risk contamination of the water supply, and provide temporary jobs.

In his Foreword to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land, A Photographic Journey, Jimmy Carter effectively convinces his audience that the wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not be developed for industrial purposes. He first appeals to his readers' emotions through a detailed account of his personal experience in the Arctic Refuge. He goes on to refute those pushing for the development of the Arctic Refuge by providing an easy solution to their reason. Finally, he calls his readers to action by saying that we should keep one of America's last great wildernesses intact.

Legislation which would make this entire available for oil drilling. Ms. Norton has been given the right to impose necessary and appropriate measures to protect refuge resource while efficiently removing oil. Despite the remote location, it is the most attractive onshore petroleum exploration target in the United States (‘Resource Assessment '). It appears that the President, his Interior Secretary, and the Department of Interior have forgotten the first reason for creating this refuge. It was done by humans, who valued

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

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

I am writing to you in regard to the Bridger -Teton National Forest. I write to you as someone who believes in preservation. I believe that the forest should be preserved and not conserved. The Bridger -Teton National Forest is a landmark and should be kept that way. “It is a place where locals find solitude in huge tracts of forest backcountry when nearby wilderness areas and national parks are crowded with out-of-state visitors. It’s also a place that supports traditional, sustainable activities such as outfitting, guiding, ranching, and recreation” (“Wyoming Outdoor Council” 2009-2013). All of these values are being threatened because the forest is being considered for oil and gas development. While oil and gas may be useful to us, I do not think that the forest should suffer the consequences. The natural resources should be left alone for everyone to enjoy in its natural state. To upset this would be environmentally incorrect.