JaniDebate+Paper2ANWR

Arctic National Wildlife Reserve has been one of the biggest reserves of oil; given oil trapped in the oil sand is not considered. People who favor the drilling consider benefits to USA, American citizens and Alaskan residents. This will expand gross national product of this nation which has lost its manufacturing base. ANWR drilling will help decrease the trade deficit and it is a product that can be labeled as “Made in America”, which is one of rarity in today’s world. The second side of this issue is ideological environmentalists, who want to stop global warming. When we decide whether some issue needs to be solved globally, we need to learn effects of its implementation locally. The first discussion is local opinion. Alaskan senate has unanimously asked US congress not to declare Arctic National Wildlife reserve as wilderness, which will prohibit ANWR from oil exploration. This debate is not new. Initial inquiry about ANWR drilling made in 1980. Today, latest Gallup poll has showed that 60% of Americans support oil drilling in Alaska (Saad, 2011). Moreover, 78% Alaskans supports oil drilling in the ANWR. Why should they succumb to the environmentalists with some vague goals? Wharton Econometrics study has published a detailed report about oil reserves and job opportunities. There has already been a test well drilled in ANWR and the oil drilling could be done from a concentrated small area, about the size of Dulles Airport. Compare this to the total size of ANWR, which is roughly equivalent to the size of South Carolina. Its reserves are estimated at 10 billion barrels by the U.S. Geological Survey, compared to 32 billion nationwide, almost a 33 percent increase. At full production, ANWR would add a million barrels per day to U.S. production. At $100 per barrel, this would equal over $36 billion per year that would not need to be spent on foreign oil. It would also create some 700,000 well-paying jobs (Utley, 2008). There can few arguments against it. However, it is possible that US geological survey might have made a mistake in calculation of oil reserves. If we use tar sands in Alberta or North Dakota, we might not need to do drilling in ANWR. Historically, we have seen that public polls might change with leadership of the nation. Arguments against drilling in ANWR can be divided in two parts: generic and particular. Generic argument justifies ending all the fossil fuels to “fundamentally transform” the way of human life. According generic arguments, sea levels will rise by 20 feet in 2050 and most of the world will be under water. We should stop all carbon dioxide emissions now to stop the catastrophe. Second generic argument is that it is not possible to support whole world population and we have to learn to live in scarcity. Living in scarcity might promote parents to stop producing children and population might come under control. Therefore, all developments including oil drilling should come to a halt. There are a few specific arguments against ANWR oil drilling. 1) ANWR is a national monument with “pristine nature” and it should be left untouched. If one cannot drill in Grand Canyon, why Alaska? 2) These oil resources take about 10 years to develop and there cannot be any immediate impact on the national oil security, price or supply. Drilling will take at least five years to change oil prices by 1%. 3) Drilling will clean out massive amount of forests and might results in “catastrophic” oil leaks that will “permanently” degrade the environment. Historically, environmentalists have misled national energy policy by false numbers and agenda driven presentation of facts. I will provide three examples to repudiate environmental doomsayers. 1) “Peak Oil” concept is not new. There has been “peak coal” in past. This was questioned in the 1865 about book on coal by William Jevons; which speculated that coal will run out in 1900. However, this book merely hypothesized the claim and probably was mere an honest speculation without an agenda to shut down the industries. However, USA still has enough coal to go by for next 200 years. Similar “peaks” for oil and Uranium have been hypothesized to meet the agenda of deindustrialization. According to the quote of famous environmentalist prince Philip, “I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.” (Fleur cowles, 1987) 2) Another classic example of environmental misinformation is the book “Silent Spring” by an environmentalist Rachel Carson that poisoned public minds about DDT misinformation as a potential “baby killing” pesticide. Each reference was cited separately every time it appeared in the book to create an “impressive list” of references. She mentioned that DDT is more deadly than Arsenic (page 17). However, human volunteers who have ingested 35 mg of DDT every day for two years did not suffer any adverse health effects (Edwards, summer ). The 1972 US ban on DDT followed by global ban on this chemical has resulted in the at least 500 million deaths in the developing world. However, these massive deaths cannot shock some “humanitarian” environmentalists. According to Dave Foreman, US environmentalist and co-founder of the environmental movement “Earth First”, “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” (Foreman, 2010) These are not isolated environmentalist quotes, if you want to hear more anti human quotes from environmentalists, I will give ten more. 3) People have been calling for the beginning of the end of the oil for more than half past century. This is a chimera without substance. “Peak oil” only takes into account current oil reserves. Ever since 1920, new oil resources have been discovered without any problem to continuously increase the oil supply ever since it was first discovered in 1850s. Huge oil reserves (40 billion barrels) have been discovered off the shore of Brazil and Venezuela (Radetzki, 2010), I bet Russian undiscovered oil reserves will put an end to “peak oil” nonsense. I have frequently saw in the media that newly discovered Alaskan oil field may take as much as 10 years to develop and may require at least five years to impact international oil prices by 1%. This is a flawed argument. It is true is ANWR might not significantly affect oil prices, at the same time world’s oil prices cannot be brought under control by one swoop. This requires a decade long investment and efforts in oil and gas production. There are huge swaths of oil sands in Albert and North Dakota that can supply the whole world with oil for hundreds of years. Environmentalists know this, and they want to stop drilling and exploration in all of them. Environmentalist strategy is to designate each potential oil field as a fortress that has to be fought for to stop any construction, exploration and production. Assuming I have done enough to discredit environmental side and support my position, I will refute both generic and specific arguments against ANWR oil drilling. It is not possible to fundamentally transform human lifestyle because technology is not there. Wind and solar power get $24 per MW hour subsidy and still in cannot compete with gas powered power plant (Bradley, 1997). Moreover, wind technology is not new; this is 150 years old technology and still has not become viable. When will it be viable? In 2040? (Of course! Just ask an environmentalist!). Global warming is the biggest scam in the human history. If you look at ice core climate data, carbon dioxide lags behind temperature by 800 years. In last one thousand years, we had a mini ice age and a medieval warm period. What created that? Carbon Dioxide? Scarcity does not decrease world’s population. Modern history shows that as nation’s wealth increases, population stabilizes. World’s highest population growth rate is in Nigeria (3.7%) and Liberia (4.5%). (United Nations, 2006). Both are desolate nations with world’s poorest standard of living. On the other hand, European population is declining (not including Islamic immigration). Economic progress is the only way to decrease world’s population. For economic progress, we need oil and gas. Therefore, this argument against ANWR drilling is wrong. Grand Canyon and ANWR are two completely different locations. Grand Canyon is a national monument and draws millions of visitors and provides tourism income to the state of California. On the other hand, ANWR is not a tourist attraction. If oil is not drilled, this region is no use to Alaska. Massive deforestation is not an issue. Modern technology can build oil well and storages within the area less than one regional airport. Moreover, this oil drilling is not likely to bring “urban sprawl” in the region, given harsh winter weather. According to CNN in June 2008, ANWR development will take more than 10 years to develop. However, Brazil’s Petronas Oil Company has said that it will start construction and initiate drilling oil in 24 months in Brazil (BARRIONUEVO, 2008). Moreover, in today’s political environment, high unemployment is a norm; not a short term event. Putting some of the soldiers of American unemployed army to work will not hurt either. Finally, it is not too far away when US dollar is no longer world’s reserve currency. In those conditions, oil production will be a viable option to support economy without an industrial base. Based on the evidence provided on both sides, I am clearly in favor of oil drilling in ANWR. International oil prices are likely to stay above $100. This will result in massive corporate profits resulting in further investment in oil industry. By the way, who are these environmentalists to decide if there is enough oil supply in ANWR to make profit or make any changes in oil prices? If profit is not possible, oil companies will not drill in the first place. What experience environmentalists have in oil drilling except dooms day boon dongle? Oil companies produce energy to move the whole world. What do environmentalists produce? If you are against oil drilling, these questions are hard to answer.
 * Should we drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve?**
 * Meghal Jani**
 * Introduction**
 * Pro arguments**
 * Questions about Pro argument**
 * Con argument**
 * Falsehood of con arguments**
 * My position**

=Bibliography= BARRIONUEVO, A. (2008, July 31). Strong Economy Propels Brazil to World Stage. //New york Times//. Bradley, R. (1997). //Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not "Green".// Cate institute. Edwards, G. (summer, 1992). //The lies of rachel carson.// Retrieved April 03, 2011, from 21stcenturysciecetech.com: []

Fleur cowles, P. P. (1987). //If I were an animal.// Morrow. Foreman, D. (2010, June 17). Depopulation Quotes. Radetzki, M. (2010). Peak Oil and other threatening peaks—Chimeras without substance. //Energy Policy//, [|6566-6569]. Saad, L. (2011, March 14). //U.S. Oil Drilling Gains Favor With Americans.// Retrieved April 04, 2011, from gallup.com: []

United Nations. (2006). //World Population Prospects .// Utley, J. B. (2008, August 14). Open ANWR Already. //Reason Magazine//.