|
|
| | |
| |
 |
| Summary: Should the United States Congress allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? |
|
|
| |
Author:The Debatabase Book ( United States )
Topic written specially for The Debatabase Book, 2003. Updated by The Editor of Debatabase. |
Created: Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Last Modified:
|
| |
In 2006, the US House of Representatives passed for the tenth time a motion that would allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. Environmentalists oppose such drilling on the grounds that the 19 million acre Refuge is ecologically sensitive. Oil developers and environmentalists have never had a more highly-charged and symbolic debate in which to engage. Supporters of drilling claim that growing foreign dependence on oil threatens American security and that drilling in ANWR would help reduce that dependence. They also argue that drilling and extraction of oil would not meaningfully harm the environment. Opponents of drilling maintain that US dependence on foreign oil is inevitable and that drilling in ANWR would not significantly reduce dependence, while damaging a sensitive ecology and undermining the principle of national environmental protection. Drilling is supported by the Bush Administration, and critics charge that the White House is enthusiastic because it wishes to do favours for its friends in “big oil”. However, although most Congressional supporters of drilling are Republican, and most opponents Democrats, the issue crosses party lines with well over a tenth of Congressmen voting with the other side on this issue. Despite the continuing majority for drilling in the House of Representatives, opponents have so far managed to block the opening up of the ANWR in the Senate. |
 |
|
|
| An oil pipeline runs through ANWR already, and the same argument (ecology) was used to attempt to oppose that pipeline’s construction. However, the pipeline actually increased caribou numbers. Perhaps “keystone” species are not as sensitive to disturbance as has been supposed. |
|
Drilling would disrupt certain ecologically sensitive areas. Alaska has caribou herds that move north to the ANWR seasonally, and drilling carries the risk of diverting and potentially reducing the herd. Sources have also revealed that other key species live on Alaska’s shoreline and could be threatened. |
 |
|
|
| Substantial amounts of time and energy are needed for drilling (in some cases, many years). If we do not put the exploration and drilling structure in place now, they won’t be at hand in times of crisis. |
|
Drilling would undercut a vital reserve that we may need in the future. The USA is without long-term recourse, it is dependent on foreign oil; in times of crisis, however, drilling in the ANWR could regulate prices for a limited time. So we should not drill now, we need to hold those reserves for an emergency. |
|
|
|
| The USA needs urgently to reduce its dependence on foreign oil producers. At present the United States needs 10 million barrels of imported oil a day, and much of this comes from unstable or unfriendly areas of the world, for example the Persian Gulf, Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran. National security depends upon ensuring that the American economy is never held hostage to foreign oil interests, and the government should act to achieve energy independence. An important part of this is the exploitation of untapped US reserves, including the huge ANWR oil fields in Alaska. |
|
Drilling in the ANWR will do nothing to make America more energy independent. Even on the most optimistic estimates, the fields under the Refuge amount to only ten billion barrels of oil - equivalent to only two years US consumption. Even if as much as a million barrels of oil could be pumped fro the ANWR per day, this will not even offset the likely growth in US oil imports over the next ten years. Achieving true energy independence means getting serious about conserving energy and investing in alternative energy sources, not feeding the US addiction to fossil fuels. |
|
|
|
| Consumption is inevitable. Proponents of renewable energy have not made clear how opening ANWR would delay a transition to renewable energy. Opening ANWR could speed up the transition by making the US more dependent on foreign oil in the future (once the ANWR reserves were depleted) and thus give more of an incentive to convert. |
|
Oil development is unjustified because it further exacerbates the problems of consumption. The more we rely upon fossil fuels, the longer we delay the inevitable: the vital shift to renewable energy. Other action should be taken to limit fuel consumption, such as an increased use of hybrid cars, stricter emissions standards and government support for promising new technologies. |
|
|
|
| Drilling in the ANWR is an economic necessity. The high cost of oil over the past few years has meant misery for millions of Americans who cannot afford high gas prices for their automobiles, or heating oil for their homes. These costs are also hitting the wider economy and threatening American prosperity. Only by bringing more oil to the market can prices be driven down. Opening up the ANWR is also necessary to the Alaskan economy, bringing investment and safeguarding jobs as well as the way of life on America’s last frontier. |
|
Drilling in the ANWR won’t reduce the oil price because the amount of oil there is tiny compared to America’s need. The price is set by global conditions such as the rise in Chinese demand and the disruption to supply caused by the crisis in Iraq. In any case, we must be prepared to pay the costs of environmental protection, the principles of which are breached by this proposal. If ANWR is developed for oil extraction, not only is its status as a National Wildlife Refuge under attack, but all other NWRs are also threatened. Big oil and other extraction companies will look greedily at other protected areas and begin to lobby for their status too to be downgraded. If NWR status is to mean anything, it must be upheld everywhere and absolutely. |
|
|
|
| Proposed development may need to be spread out, but drilling can be made seasonal to avoid disruptions to animal migration. Caribou herds move into ANWR during specific and predictable times, thus drilling can be scheduled, which would reduce the impact of human activity. |
|
Proposed “limited development” will still intrude hundreds of miles into pristine areas. Alaska doesn’t have a major reserve under ANWR; rather ANWR contains several reserves. Thus, even with “minimal” development, the damage would cover thousands of acres. |
|
|
|
| | This House supports measures to allow oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
This House believes development should be valued over ecology
That limited development in the ANWR is justified
That we should act to reduce US dependence on foreign oil
|
| View the full discussion |
Author | Post |
|---|
Debatabase
Member
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:08 pm |
|
Author: The Debatabase Book (United States)
Topic written specially for The Debatabase Book, 2003. Updated by The Editor of Debatabase.
Created: Tuesday, June 13, 2006
View Topic
In 2006, the US House of Representatives passed for the tenth time a motion that would allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. Environmentalists oppose such drilling on the grounds that the 19 million acre Refuge is ecologically sensitive. Oil developers and environmentalists have never had a more highly-charged and symbolic debate in which to engage. Supporters of drilling claim that growing foreign dependence on oil threatens American security and that drilling in ANWR would help reduce that dependence. They also argue that drilling and extraction of oil would not meaningfully harm the environment. Opponents of drilling maintain that US dependence on foreign oil is inevitable and that drilling in ANWR would not significantly reduce dependence, while damaging a sensitive ecology and undermining the principle of national environmental protection. Drilling is supported by the Bush Administration, and critics charge that the White House is enthusiastic because it wishes to do favours for its friends in “big oil”. However, although most Congressional supporters of drilling are Republican, and most opponents Democrats, the issue crosses party lines with well over a tenth of Congressmen voting with the other side on this issue. Despite the continuing majority for drilling in the House of Representatives, opponents have so far managed to block the opening up of the ANWR in the Senate.
|
|
| Login to leave a quick reply or View the full discussion |
|
|
|
