McLaughlinDebatePaper2

Brendan McLaughlin Debate Paper #2 Should the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve be opened  to oil drilling?  Words: 1538

America, as a nation focused on consuming and progress, has long been divided as to how exactly it’s natural resources are to be used. The struggle between those who favor total preservation and those who favor limited use has been raging since we first developed the west over one hundred years ago. As our last unblemished frontier, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, also known as ANWR, is now at the forefront of this debate. The ANWR is such a critical point because it can be seen as a paradise for both sides; as a veritable Garden of Eden for tundra life such as a caribou or as the last, largest oil reserve left in America today. Of critical importance is the most northwest area, known as the 1002 Area, where the oil reserves are most abundant and the main caribou herd has traditionally taken its young to survive. As such, both sides focus on making the other sides claim seem trivial. The pro-drilling side makes claims that the caribou don’t mind and life will be alright even after drilling, while the anti-drilling side contends that there really isn’t that much oil there in the first place. Arguments for drilling rely primarily on the potential energy independence that ANWR can provide and also to help feed our addiction to oil until alternatives can be found. The current oil production on the rest of the north slope of the Arctic Ocean is falling quickly, and we need something new to fill in the gap caused by this. Also, drilling is only proposed on 8% of the land, while the remaining 92% would remain undrilled ANWR preserve. Arguments against drilling are almost entirely environmental, as ecological devastation tends to follow oil development. Oil spills have happened in the area before, and they caused massive damage to the environment. Many Alaskans are on the pro-drilling side, as more drilling equals more financial dividends for them, and they are joined by many Americans tired of Middle Eastern oil, the Inupiat, and of course, the big oil companies. Against drilling are many environmental groups and Alaskans whose way of life will be directly affected by increased drilling, including the Gwich’in. The government has been taking a neutral tone so far, as congress is very split on the issue. However, many polls show that most Americans favor drilling in ANWR. An opinion article from the otherwise fair and balanced Fox News written by Ben Lieberman highlights many of the pro-drilling counters to environmental concerns. In the article, Lieberman immediately jumps right into his argument and begins listing common environmental arguments and countering them one by one. He mostly sticks to facts and attempts to directly contradict his opponent to effectively undermine their position. His main points center on the small amount of total land being used and the blandness of the coastal environment, saying it won’t be missed. He brings up quite a few unattributed facts, such as that the total protected area in Alaska is larger than the areas of California and New York combined. He also mentions staggering poll numbers and increasing caribou numbers in already drilled areas as evidence for his cause. First and foremost, the most blatant flaw in Lieberman’s argument is the constant and deliberate use of the straw man logical fallacy. His entire argument is based on this, and it really makes the article look nearly childish. By using this “tactic”, Lieberman is able to quickly and brutally trash less thought out versions of common anti-drilling arguments without fear of any sort of response. He fails to bring up points that he could not effectively apply his strategy to, such as the actual amount of oil in ANWR and the effect it may have on local indigenous populations. Also, his entire tone comes off as completely arrogant, wondering why this issue is being debated at all. It is obviously a controversial issue with legitimate arguments for both sides, so to say that it is that simple shows a complete lack of understanding of the debate involved in ANWR. He is also guilty of some slight over exaggeration concerning his poll numbers, which I routinely found to hover more around the 55-60% pro-drilling rather than the 75% he proposed. In his defense, however, his arguments do raise a few interesting points and does provide somewhat effective counter arguments to common anti-drilling arguments, even if he tries to ignore the counter-counter-argument. Writing for the Environmental Defense Fund, Sheryl Canter argues that ANWR is actually not our last great hope or even a good place to drill for oil at all. Even ignoring the environmental arguments, she argues, there is no good reason to drill there as opposed to other, less protected places. Using actual data and citations, she shows in her first paragraph that ANWR can only produce a small percentage of our nation’s total oil consumption needs, and that’s only fifteen or so years down the line and at peak production. She argues that instead of investing in oil know, the money would be better spent finding alternative fuels in fifteen years rather than hoping ANWR saves us. She also states that oil prices won’t fall anyway, as OPEC can easily manipulate the market to keep the prices constant. Basically, she shows that drilling is not worth it, and then adds the environmental cost to fully paint the negative picture intended. Why waste even potentially important land on such a foolhardy prospect as this? Compared to Lieberman’s argument, Canter’s is much more effective, mainly through its much more prevalent use of actual statistics than facts. Her tone comes off as more angry than pompous, which definitely lends her argument credence. She has a logical progression from showing the limited effects that drilling will have in the beginning, followed by the high environmental cost. Overall it’s a very logical argument, which starts off with a nice statistical dazzling and keeps it up for the remainder of the article. The organization she has associated herself with also gives her article a certain legitimacy that Lieberman is unable to get for as long as he works for Fox News. This structure leaves the reader wondering why exactly we’re drilling at all. One point I did have a problem with was Canter’s final point that there are many places left to drill for oil. I honestly think that this is truly just not the case. The private sector would obviously go after those areas first, not out of some sense of ecological necessity but rather as a cost cutting measure. Going through the effort and paying the salaries of lawyers and lobbyists when oil is available in unprotected lands seems ridiculous to me.  This article, a guideline on pros and cons of drilling in the ANWR for debating purposes allows the reader to fully extend their knowledge about the potential arguments used by commonly by both sides. It has a grounding effect after reading mostly emotional or less than factually based arguments. The neat summation allows a nice unbiased approach, which is particularly needed for this debate. It challenges the misconceptions that pop up often in papers on this topic, and could help reduce the tricky use of logical fallacies by giving each side effective counter arguments. Also, the final argument, which I had not seen in any other articles, about limited use, seemed fairly logical in particular. Personally, my perspective on the issue is not black or white, as that kind of thinking is impossible for this type of issue. There are effective arguments for both sides, both in quality and quantity. For the pro-drilling side, I am particularly affected by increased energy independence argument, though I do acknowledge its flaws. If more studies could be done to see if the oil in ANWR could actually have an effect on our national energy levels I would support it. As for the anti-drilling side, I notice the environmental impact that oil drilling can have on an environment, and it is quite frankly terrifying. The caribou herds and the native populations that survive on them are applicable, however I am not exactly sure what the effects on the caribou population or migration patterns would be, especially if drill operators were careful not to drill if a herd was approaching soon. However, limited drilling also has its problems, mainly in enforcement. How can anyone trust the oil companies at this point to morally do the right thing?  I don’t generally support government intervention into state or private matters, however in this case the companies may be infringing upon individual rights too much. Thus, as you can see, I am still very much undecided on this issue. If I were forced to decide on an action to take right now, it would be to not allow drilling in ANWR for at least another few years to enable more information to be gathered on the potentially affected parties.   Works Cited:  <span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Canter, Sheryl. Why Drilling in ANWR is a Bad Idea. September 11, 2008. <span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">< []> <span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> Lieberman, Ben. // Myths About Drilling in ANWR //. December 16, 2010. [] Author Unkown. International Debate Education Association. []

<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">