Introduction: Pro/Con Speech
I. Has anyone been to Alaska, or will plan a trip to Alaska? Well it’s a land of cold dark weather that doesn’t appeal to most, but Alaska has been a major topic to the government that affects me and you. The Alaska tundra has been in question to drill oil or to protect the precious environment there. Should the Alaska tundra be opened for oil drilling?
II. Should the Alaska tundra be opened for oil drilling?
III. I will analyze this controversy in terms of the following stock issues.
A. Ill: Is there a problem with the American energy supply?
B. Blame: Is the present (non-ANWR) policy inadequate to deal with the problem?
C. Cure: Would opening the ANWR help solve the problem?
D. Cost: Would the
…show more content…
II. Is the present (non-ANWR) policy inadequate to deal with the problem?
A. Con: No, America is heading towards a better way to produce energy, a clean renewable energy that is not dangerous to the environment.
1. Evidence: According to the Obama Administration, the United States has nearly doubled clean renewable energy generated by wind, solar, and geothermal since 2008.
a. In fact, last year, according to industry experts, the United States reclaimed the title as the world’s leading investor in clean energy technologies, besting countries like China, India, and Germany.
B. Pro: Yes, the present policy is too inadequate to deal with the problem America is too dependant on foreign oil.
1. Evidence: 18.6 million barrels per day (MMbd) of petroleum products during 2012, and the United States imported 11.0 million barrels per day of crude oil and refined petroleum products in 2012.
2. Evidence: The other sources for energy are not as sufficient because of the high cost. The technology is not advanced enough to have the opportunity cost equal the demand.
III. Cure: Would opening the ANWR help solve the problem?
A. Pro: Opening up the ANWR will affect the United States to have an economic boom and become more energy independent.
1. Evidence: According to the U.S. Geological Survey they have estimated that there are 16 billion barrels of oil available for drilling, and would be sufficient enough to replace all of America’s imports from Saudi Arabia for
America shouldn’t drill in Alaska because it doesn’t really help our economy. In document B it states that “ If oil is discovered less than 2,000 acres of the 150 million acres of the coastal plain would be affected.” The oil from the ANWR possibly created up to 735,000 jobs because they are building a new oil refinery and they need places to get
The world, as we know it, is in the midst of having an oil crisis. Our nation starves and bends at the will of this dreadful calamity. Our deprivation for this atrocious corruption has led us to look for oil deposits in the Alaskan Wilderness. The US needs oil and by drilling for oil on our own land, we would help our economy, but in doing so would destroy the beauty of the wilderness and harm many others. The matter on hand is that should we drill for oil in Alaska’s wilderness? My opinion and answer to this question would simply be no. The United States of America should not drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness.
In drilling for oil in ANWR, the destruction of the land will be kept to a minimum. Everything that can possibly be done to limit the destruction
At the beginning of last year, I convinced my family to start using environmentally products, focusing on green technology. In order to apply environmental technology properly and effectively, I had to figure out what alternative forms of energy existed and how well they worked. This led to my questioning: what other forms of energy could the United States be pursuing to increase its production of electricity? In an effort to research different form of energy and their benefits and detriments, I read two articles: “A Letter to the Editor” by David Rockwood and “Why Uranium is the New Green” by William Sweet. In his letter, David Rockwood, a professional engineer, discusses the several inaccuracies and possible ramifications of wind power as a main source of electricity. Rockwood claims that wind power is unreliable because of flaws in its system and design, not to mention the detrimental environmental impact. Similarly, in his article William Sweet, a college graduate, talks about different ways to impose some kind of carbon regulation. Sweet compares nuclear and wind power to coal-burning power, remarking that nuclear and wind power technologies can make an immediate beneficial difference on greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the fact that Rockwood goes in depth on only wind power while Sweet talks about multiple sources of power, both of the articles made me think that the United States should pursue some other form of energy to increase its production of electricity.
The Alternative energy industry in the United States has been at a steady rate of growth for the past decade, however there is still controversy over the use of renewable energies, their impact on the economy, and their impact on the environment. As controversial as the topic is, the argument boils down to a moral need to support environmental regulations, and an economical need to sustain domestic growth in the Energy industry of the United States. Mainly, the question is can alternative energy effective replace fossil fuels? There are of course arguments for both sides of this question.
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.
You wake up one day but everything seems odd. Its freezing cold in your house and you wonder what happened to the heat. You go to the kitchen and try to find something to eat and there is no food anywhere. Suddenly you hear scattering and banging in your parents bathroom.Your mom is looking for medicine because she is extremely sick but there is no medicine that she can find to help her. Do you know why, it’s because this is how our future will look like if we have nothing efficient enough to transport the oil that we use in almost everything to us.Therefore we believe the U.S should build the Keystone Pipeline XL because doing so will provide more jobs and increase tax revenue, oil is extremely essential for daily life and the keystone will help to transport our oil easier and safer.
Foreign oil dependency is a major topic that is hotly debated in US politics. The United States relies on imported oil for about 40% (in 2012) of petroleum consumed and is the world’s largest consumer of oil. About 53% of the foreign oil imported is from other Western nations such as Canada, Mexico and Brazil. 28% is from the Persian Gulf, 16% from Africa and the remaining from other areas of the world. Canada is currently the leading crude oil supplier to the US. Some believe that importing oil has benefits to our economy, while others believe it is a security threat.
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.
Would you like to have the US drill near your community? The United States is planning to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) located in Alaska. Being a US citizen I believe we should not drill for oil in Alaska because it would affect the economy, the environment, and the Alaskans. Drilling for oil in ANWR can be beneficial in some ways, but this is why it is unreliable.
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 contrast, some believe that renewable energy is a key factor involved in helping the economy to grow. Many jobs are created in the manufacturing and running of renewable energy plants. The renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies created 8.5 million new jobs and $970 billion in revenue in the year 2006 (Langwith, “Renewable Energy is Economically”). The American Solar Energy Society says by 2030 it could generate up to $4.5 trillion in revenue for the U.S and create 40 million new jobs. This would represent one in every four jobs (Langwith, “Renewable Energy is Economically”). This shows how vital it is to get renewable energy companies in the U.S. It is important to build a stable economy again and do it all while helping the environment.
With American population expected to increase by approximately fifty percent over the next fifty years, some sort of energy reform is needed (Lehrman 2). The most commonly proposed idea is for America to stop relying so heavily on fossil fuels, and to turn its focus onto renewable sources of energy, such as solar power and hydroelectricity (Energy Information Administration). If the United States could realize the benefits of renewable energy, then much of the world’s energy problems could be solved.
The International Energy Agency estimates that by the year 2003 forty percent of the world's energy production will be from sources other than fossil fuels or nuclear power. Nevertheless, the need for