SchneiderDebatePaper2

Bobby Schneider Debate Paper #2 Should ANWR be opened to oil drilling? Word Count: 2,097   As the world’s remaining oil supply continues to deplete further and further, the race to the ends of the earth has begun to find, and extract, every last drop of the resource. As expected, the United States has joined the effort in this search to find untapped reserves and all eyes are on Alaska. The discussion to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is full of great controversy as Americans fight over which is more important: oil or environmental conservation. Being so isolated from the rest of the developed and humanized world, introducing the oil industry to this area could spell disaster for one of planet’s last pristine environments. Ultimately the decision must be made: do the benefits outweigh the risks?   In an article by Paul Driessen, entitled “It’s time to support ANWR drilling,” it is argued that drilling in ANWR is common sense and should be done without question. Driessen opens with a puzzled attitude as to why many politicians, both Democratic and Republican, are so closed off to the idea of drilling in Alaska when the cost for energy is growing rapidly, leaving more and more people unable to afford the oil and petroleum required to “heat and eat” (page 1). For years American legislators have opposed numerous proposals to drill domestically for natural gas and oil while, in the meantime, the country has set itself up to rely on “oil-rich dictators. . . send American jobs and dollars overseas, reduce US royalty and tax revenues. . . and blanket habitats with ‘ecologically friendly’ wind turbines and solar panels” (page 1). With a potential 16 billion barrels of oil in the region, ANWR could supply America with the equivalent of thirty years of Saudi Arabian imports. As if this decline in foreign dependency was not enough, drilling in this region could also provide almost 700,000 new jobs and help the country earn “hundreds of billions in royalties and taxes” (page 1). Environmentally speaking, the amount of space the drilling process would actually require is remarkably small compared to what some may have thought. In fact, a mere 2,000 acres, just 0.01% of the total 19 million acres making up the refuge, is all that would be touched. Since the drilling will occur during the winter months, when the ground freezes “rock solid” and the temperature approaches painful extremes (-40 °F), wildlife, which migrates away from the region during this frigid time, will not even be threatened by the work. This cold temperature will also allow for roads, operation platforms, and landing strips to be built of ice that will melt in the spring, leaving fewer traces of human interference (page 2). “The benefits are many and obvious. The negatives few.” So why wait? “It’s time to drill in ANWR” (page 2).   While Driessen made a valid, and strong, argument in support of drilling for ANWR oil, there are a few problems with the claims he made. Not only did he base his entire argument on temporary ideas, but also questioned the use of energy alternatives by sarcastically referring to them as “ecologically friendly,” or in translated words, “not ecologically friendly, relatively useless, and a waste of time,” which they are not. As for his arguments’ temporary aspect, the points Driessen made were that by drilling in ANWR, America could reduce its foreign dependence on oil and create new jobs, both of which will not last forever. Yes, maybe this might have some truth value for the present moment, but what happens as soon as ANWR runs dry? The answer: America says “goodbye” to those jobs and “hello again” to foreign dependency. In a final argument, Driessen establishes that only 2,000 acres will be used, the roads and landing strips can be made of ice, and no wildlife will even be present due to the unbearably cold conditions. What happens, then, when summer comes back around? Yes, maybe the ice will melt and the people will leave, but the drills and oil wells themselves will still exist and is that really fair to the wildlife? Furthermore, it does not matter how little the area of land being utilized is because all it takes is one small problem to turn the entire refuge into an environmental catastrophe.   As supporters of oil drilling seem to argue from an economic aspect, those who argue against drilling in Alaska reach out to the long-term environmental effects and cultural concerns. Walter Schneider wrote an article entitled “Environmental Reasons Not to Drill in Alaska,” in which he discusses the key environmental issues that accompany Alaskan and Arctic energy exploration. One of the biggest concerns for Alaskan Natives is a fear that onshore drilling will encourage offshore drilling, which can threaten the migration patterns of the Bowhead whale, an important part of the native’s “life and diet” (page 1). This Arctic drilling could also violate a 1987 agreement between the United States and Canada which was designed to preserve and protect the Porcupine Caribou population, as well as disturb a wide variety of other indigenous wildlife including, but not limited to, polar bears, fish, and birds (page 1). Many also fear the possibility of more oil spills which can taint waterways, decrease animal populations, and ruin the natural landscape, all of which are needed for the locals’ “survival and subsistence” (page 1). In addition, the natives follow a belief system in which the Alaskan territory is viewed as a sacred land and thus drilling “would be interrupting not only wildlife and culture, but a religious part of their lives as well” (page 1). Global Warming is another major problematic topic in the Alaska drilling debate. Seeing the environmental issues that have already occurred from distant industries, such as the increase in both temperature and pollution in ANWR, as well as melting Arctic glaciers, people are afraid to imagine how much worse the area will become if a more proximate drilling industry were to be developed (page 1). Lastly, even if the amount of oil in the reserves is near the highest estimations, it still will not provide a “limitless or lengthy supply,” yet the damage that the industry can cause the environment could in fact be limitless, as well as “. . . long term, and permanent. . .” (page 2). Scientists, as well as many American citizens and Alaskan Natives, feel the best action to be taken is to work toward developing new and renewable energy sources “rather than investing in a temporary solution that bares potential for other environmental problems” (page 2).   Although opposition to drilling in ANWR has many supporters that hold valid arguments, there are a few flaws to be found in the logic used within Schneider’s article. One of the biggest fears that many environmentalists have is that the drilling will destroy the landscape and harm wildlife. However, as stated in Driessen’s article, the majority of the drilling process will occur during the frigid winter months and nearly no wildlife is to be found during that time because they all migrate away from the area until spring. By spring the transportation roads, constructed of ice, will be long gone, thus leaving no heavy traces of human disruption. This way the wildlife can come back to the region, reproduce, and live healthy until the next winter season when they all migrate back out of the refuge. Furthermore, the fear that a major oil spill will occur and destroy the habitat is a bit far-fetched. While yes an accident could happen, the chance of this actually occurring is not very high. Many people simply believe devastating oil spills are bound to happen because we as humans have an innate way of thinking that causes us to believe rare, but major, events happen regularly (similar to how many people fear airplanes for terrorist attacks or plane crashes, when in reality these occurrences are incredibly rare and unlikely to happen). As far as finding alternative energy goes: yes research could be going into finding and studying renewable resources, but are we really supposed to rely on foreign dependency for oil until the solution is found? Though it may only be a temporary supply, right now America needs oil to survive and it seems safer to rely on domestic sources as opposed to sources which come from hostile nations overseas.   While most people have a clear and absolute opinion on the debate to drill in ANWR, there are still others who, though they are in agreement with the drilling process, feel now is simply not the time. In an article by Chad Gray, entitled “The Case for Not Drilling ANWR,” this “hold off” way of thinking is effectively presented. Gray opens the discussion by stating how in recent years, due to the dramatic increases in oil costs, people have suddenly taken an interest in “‘creating an energy policy that will end our dependence on foreign oil. . .’” by either supporting alternative energy research or backing up domestic oil exploration (page 1). On the “investment side,” people are looking into alternative and renewable energy technologies, while those viewing the problem from the “consumer side” favor fuel efficiency, and ANWR appears to be stuck somewhere in the middle (page 1). The problem with drilling in ANWR now is that it will not help either of these views because obviously oil is not an alternative energy to itself and it is also economically pointless to invest in ANWR at this point in time. By using the Alaskan oil now to help reduce gas prices, the nation will revert back to “pre-2006 levels,” meaning that because oil prices will drop to an acceptable price, congress will remove the oil problem from their top priorities list, moving it “somewhere behind investigation of steroid use in baseball,” said Gray (page 1). Gray’s point: ANWR oil is “an appreciating asset” that should be used and sold ten or twenty years from now, when oil is incredibly “scarce and valuable” and “we’ve reached the tipping point in development of alternative sources” (page 1). His ultimate belief is that, as painful as “living with scarcity” may be, rather than solving the problem now and then still facing the problem again later (the problem being that we still need oil in the future, but this time none will be there for us), leave the oil alone “to assure future availability” for a time “when you really need it” (page 1). <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> In my opinion, as important as oil is to the American economy and lifestyle, by now we all know that oil will not always be there to fulfill its duties and a new form of energy, preferably renewable, will have to pick up the pace. As eco-friendly as the oil companies may claim to be, such as willing to build the roads and platforms of ice and disturb as little land as possible, the problem is not so much the activity that accompanies the oil industry as much as it is the oil industry itself. Supporters of drilling in ANWR, though they have valid and persuasive reasoning for their support, have yet to realize that making the price of oil at the pump cheaper, and not by much mind you, is never going to effectively solve our growing energy crisis. If money is going to be invested in something, make it a renewable and more environmentally friendly energy source instead of one that still carries enough danger to threaten one of the world’s most important and delicate natural landscapes. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not only potentially home to one of the biggest oil reserves left on Earth, but it is also already home to a wide variety of Alaskan wildlife. Collectively, it must be determined which is more important: the American economy and the present or American beauty and the future? Some people only think short-term and want cheap energy while others think long-term and want the best of both worlds: cheap fuel and a preserved environment. Unfortunately, as in many cases, it is nearly impossible to please everyone, yet everybody, happy or not, will have to live with the decision and any consequences that it may have, so the government must think carefully and choose wisely. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Works Cited <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Driessen, Paul k. “It’s time to support ANWR drilling.” __anwr.org__. 2005. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> < <span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">[] <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">>. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Gray, Chad. “The Case for Not Drilling ANWR.” Seeking Alpha. 25 May, 2008. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">< [] >. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Schneider, Walter. “Environmental Reasons Not to Drill in Alaska.” EnzineMark. 4 April, 2010. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> < [|http://education.ezinemark.com/environmental-reasons-not-to-drill-in-alaska-4d4b0939cf0.] <span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> [| html]  <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">>.