Saving The Environment or The Economy: Two Opposing Stances Essay examples

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.

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.

     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

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

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.

The “U.S. became the world’s top producer of petroleum and natural gas” in 2013 (Energy Infrastructure). “Capital spending in the infrastructure that moves and transforms oil and gas into everyday products … has increased by 60 percent between 2010 and 2013” (Energy Infrastructure). The rise to become the top producer has led to the decrease in “U.S. oil import dependence” and the “rise of U.S. product exports” (U.S. Oil Import Dependence). The increased exportation of oil and gas by the U.S. has allowed both of these products to become large moneymakers for the United States. Although we will probably never “completely eliminate our need” for oil, we can reduce our petroleum consumption and the damage we inflict on the environment (Reduce Oil Dependence Costs). By decreasing the “dependence on oil” in new vehicles, there has been a

Environmental issues are one of the most controversial topics to argue about. Passions flair when two opposing viewpoints clash together to figure out an environmental problem. Two such problems that many are bantering about are the impacts of two things: the Keystone Pipeline XL and fracking. Richard Korman, the senior editor of magazine Engineering News-Record wrote an article on the Keystone dilemma named Building the Keystone XL Pipeline: A Necessary Evil. His prospective audience were those who would benefit greatly from the pipeline, like construction professionals, as he believes that this pipeline should be made. Tackling the fracking issue, David Brooks, a generally right-wing leaning writer for

George F. Will article, “Being green at Ben and Jerry’s” is in a conversational manner and throughout stays that way and uses witty metaphors and sarcastic remarks throughout while poking fun at how he feels about environmentalists and are just plain mistaken when against drilling. He also finds area to state what he believes and reasons why we are not drilling and the reasons why we should be drilling. He breaks sentences down in a descriptive but a simple way of understanding just the importance of the topic and makes it seem like a beneficial opportunity but one that is being wasted.

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

It is becoming increasingly certain that climate change will have severe adverse effects on the environment in years to come. Addressing this issue poses a serious challenge for policy makers. How we choose to respond to the threat of global warming is not simply a political issue. It is also an economic issue and an ethical one. Responsible, effective climate change policy requires consideration of a number of complex factors, including weighing the costs of implementing climate change policies against the benefits of more environmentally sustainable practices. Furthermore, this analysis must take place amidst serious gaps in the existing research and technology concerning the developing climatic condition.

Since the beginning of civilization humanity has adopted a subjugating stance toward nature. Ecological exploitation has become the de facto standard, contributing to the illusion of self-subsistence provided by modern society. This mindset is untenable given humanities reliance on the natural world, as best demonstrated by the critical importance of various parts of the environment to humanities continued existence. This includes the importance of biodiversity to medicinal advancement and climate adaptation, the role of insects in the renewal of the biosphere, and the importance of the environment for humanities psychological health.

Environmental problems are something which belongs to nature or known as “Mother Earth” [13]. Nature was created to help people survive from gathering foods until build a house. This phenomenon happens continuously without thinking how much damage that nature has because human’s fault. Nature gradually becomes worse and animal’s life in danger. People who are aware of the importance of nature react. Those people do several ways to save the environment. Although these efforts can return back the environment, these efforts only can be hold temporarily. This problem happens because those people who are aware of the environment only slightly; for remaining, there are people either do not know or do not care about the nature. People’s efforts

The difference between a green economy and a non-green economy lies in the economic values held by individuals. Technically speaking, the only difference between a green economy and a non-green economy is public policy. But if it’s that simple, why haven’t things changed? Through my research during my time in this class, and especially when reading Fitzgerald’s work, I have learned that in order to reach a green economy we must shift our values. Fitzgerald emphasizes that we need to focus on sustainable actions and let the rest work itself out. The economic “growth” or “development” is more of an after thought, or an effect, but not necessarily something to be sought after. Economic development now refers more to the creation and consumption of goods. Job creation is a goal and something to strive towards, even if it means that it comes before sustainability. I think that Fitzgerald’s description of economic development has a larger focus on sustainability, while everything else (such as job creation) gets worked out in its own.