Climate Change, Oil Spills, Coastal Erosion, And Alternative Energy

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

Massive cleanup efforts were initiated within a few weeks of the spill and they continued at reduced levels for the next three years. Approximately 14% of the spilled oil was recovered by cleanup crews (Newsweek, p.50). As a result of these efforts and natural weathering, little oil from the spill remained in the affected area by 1992. However, according to the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration some oil residues are still found under the ocean surface in areas sheltered from wind and waves. Yet, these residues are highly weathered and the toxicity is reduced to levels tolerable by organisms in the water (7). Nonetheless, the magnitude and timing of the Exxon Valdez oil spill raised immediate concerns about possible effects on marine fish and wildlife and prospects that these effects might be long lasting.

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.

     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

In the case of the Arctic over the past twenty-five years, biologists have been studying and have quantified how underground petroleum activities disturb the life on the surface. For the past thirty-years, petroleum geologists have worked to create less destructive methods of locating and removing oil. Typically people think of science and technology working together to better our lives. In the Arctic situation it is more a case of science versus technology. These two groups of scientists, biologists and geologists, have been pitted against one another. It is difficult to determine who to believe and in that decision, it depends on what one feels to be more important: nature or need. What we must also consider is who the funding for the studies is coming from.

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

Pipelines and oil-drilling platforms will harm caribou, polar bears, and millions of migrating birds (Come on in.: 38). Whenever some country drills for oil it is more likely than not for that country to have an oil spill. Oil spills are deadly to animals, hard to clean up, and it takes the land thousands of years to recover. The United States has already had one major oil spill off the coast of Alaska in Prince William Sound. If another large oil spill occurred on the water it would have a substantial effect on whales and other marine wildlife (Experts say Alaska Oil Drilling Hurts Wildlife: 43). There are over 130 bird species that find breeding, nesting, or resting places on the coastal plain (Defenders of Wildlife).

As the issue of global warming becomes more prevalent, we must evaluate choices that are “green” or do not impact our environment in a negative way. Thus, the impacts of oil sands as an energy resource on the environment will be discussed. The Canadian and Global environment take the hardest hits from the tar sands. Depleting and contaminating water, air pollution, processed lands and tailing ponds are left barren with their geology disrupted, and take years to generate new life. Wildlife patterns and populations are disturbed, and greenhouse gases are emitted at an incredible rate, to accompany the huge expense of natural gases. The oil sands do not just produce

The damage caused by extraction of these oil sands is not a theoretical problem. Over the past sixteen years more than two million acres of the Canadian boreal forest has been cleared to extract these sands (Nikiforuk). Not only does the extraction process cut down trees it also produces more greenhouse gasses than the extraction of crude oil, and leaves polluted residue across the extraction sight. These contaminants then spread to surrounding bodies of water. Once these contaminants have reached these water supplies they have an immediate effect on wildlife. Fish have been found with cancerous growths in rivers near extraction sites (Forrest). From this we should infer that not only has this oil mining had a negative on wildlife, but it could also pose health risks to local residents near the extraction sites. Though there is little Americans can do to prevent Canada’s current extraction. By not installing the

These areas of concern to environmentalist include: (1) The protection of the Porcupine caribou herd, polar bears, musk oxen, grizzly bears and many other forms of diverse wildlife that could be adversely affected by the oil exploration. (2) Preservation of the land itself and the local communities culture that has supported a thousand generations of native Alaskans. (3) That there is only enough oil in this region to supply America’s needs for six months. The environmentalist and the proponents for oil drilling continue to pursue their arguments, each one deciding that their argument is more popular to the American people.

It is one of the last remaining ecosystems to be largely untouched by man. To drill in that area is to drill into, and to destroy a vital portion of the ANWR. The pursuit of oil would also lead to the contamination of water. With the coastal plain already having very low amounts of fresh water, this would be a crippling blow to the area’s diversity. In addition to this, the ANWR’s wetlands would be crippled. Contamination of the wetlands would lead to the loss of many species that solely inhabit that area. To see what might happen to the ANWR if oil is drilled there, one could look at nearby, Prudhoe Bay. The constant development in the area has led to what is essentially a cesspool of human waste. As the article “The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Should Be Conserved,” said, “The result (of oil drilling in Prudhoe Bay) is a landscape defaced by mountains of sewage, sludge, scrap metal, garbage and more than 60 contaminated waste sites that contain—and often leak—acids, lead, pesticides, solvents and diesel fuel.” One counterargument to these statements is that, oil is worth more than the ecology of one area. This thinking, while seemingly practical, is flawed. The tundra is a rapidly shrinking biome. If the tundra is left to rot, countless species of plants and

To begin, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill was a man-made environmental disaster that occurred in 1989. On March 24, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker struck Bligh Reef and spilled 260,000 barrels of crude oil into the waters of Prince William Sound in Alaska (Piatt, Lensick, Butler, Kendziorek & Nysewander, 1990). Eventually, this oil spread across 30,000 km² of water, damaging ecosystems and marine life along the way (Piatt, 1990). Evidently, this oil spill is considered to be one of the most destructive man-made environmental disasters in history (Dimdam, 2013).

In this set of materials, the reading passage describes the harmful effects of drilling oil in Alaska. In the lecture the professor’s view on this issue is therefore different from the one expressed in the reading. According to the reading, drilling in Alaska affects ecosystem of the area and livelihood of the people who live there negatively. However, the professor casts doubt on this view with several points.

Petroleum is the oil found underneath the Earth’s surfaces also known as crude oil. It is considered to be highly toxic as it is composed of many organic chemicals. In 1989 the Exxon Valdez tanker collided with Bligh Reef, which is off the coast of Bligh Island in Prince William Sound, Alaska. The collision resulted in over 11 million gallons of oil to spill into the ocean. It has been 27 years since the Exxon Valdez oil spill and it is important to understand what happened to cause the spill, the impact the oil spill had, the process used to clean up, and changes made to prevent future spill.

In Santa Barbara, California, in 1969, even though the spilled oil was not even very large, thousands of dolphins, seals, and birds were killed (Ivanovich, and Hays, 2008). Moreover, in the Gulf of Mexico, 82,000 birds, roughly 6,165 sea turtles, approximately 25,900 marine mammals, and indefinite amount of oysters, fishes, corals, and crabs have been harmed or killed by the spilled oil. Additionally, the spilled has killed many aquatic plants. ( A Center for Biological Diversity Report, 2008). As a result, vegetation, which are the most essential part of the ecological pyramid, and other animals will be affected negatively by the dangerous impact of the spilled oil, which probably is going to cause some problems in the ecological pyramid. In fact, any defect in the ecological pyramid may become a dreadful problem that occurs an ecological