So as you may know, there is a currently a huge issue within the federal government of deciding whether or not to drill oil in certain areas of Alaska that are protected by conservation laws. To me this seems like a no-brainer: save the environment at all costs. But others disagree for a number of reasons. Obviously it would be nice to have access to a more oil than we currently have, but the argument goes a little deeper than that. If you can bear with me, I’d like to give the pros and cons of drilling in Alaska before making my case as to why it is a horrible idea.
The main area in debate is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area of land about the size of South Carolina located at the northeastern corner of the state. It has been under federal government protection since 1973, and many efforts have been made to repeal it throughout the years. It is impossible to know how much oil is recoverable from this location, but estimates range from 1 to 15 billion barrels.
Pros:
The Trans-Alaskan pipeline, an 800-mile long pipeline system that runs from the North Slope of Alaska to Valdez, has transported over 16 billion barrels of oil since its completion in 1977. Recently, cold weather has caused the flow of the pipeline to slow dramatically, and it is feared that it will soon freeze up altogether. One way to prevent this from happening is to add more oil to the flow, and the ANWR could provide enough oil to do so. Allowing the pipeline to stop flowing would not only increase prices at the pump, but would also eliminate hundreds of maintenance jobs. With the current recession as deep as it is, keeping these prices and jobs can be considered critical. Many also support the idea of drilling for its benefits in decreasing our dependence on foreign oil.
Cons:
One of the major concerns of the government in dealing with this issue is the possibility of losing the land. The 1973 law was put into place to conserve 19 million acres of land in Alaska, and repealing it would give the land up completely. Drilling would be an invasion of the homes not only of animals like caribou and polar bears, but also of the Gwich’in Indians. Oil spills and other accidents could completely destroy the environment for good, drastically reducing the number of these animals and Indians in the area. Also, the plan would be expensive to carry out, as it would require construction and machinery that would have to be paid for by the government. The money used for the operation could arguably be used for better causes.
Personally, I think the government should leave things the way they are. The point of passing laws creating refuges is to protect the land, and protect it for good. If we make exceptions and repeal laws like this, eventually none of the land we originally intended to protect will be safe. Congress and the president cannot be trusted if they continue to change their minds about certain issues. Also, the Indians living in this area will lose their homes if the land is destroyed, and that just seems cruel. They will not be able to survive if the animals they live off, like caribou, are eliminated from the area. No one knows how much oil is located in the refuge anyway, and depending on how much is recovered, it might not even be worth it. No matter how much is there, though, it is a limited supply and eventually it will run out. The money that would be used to drill should instead be put toward green energy research so that in the future we won’t need oil at all, and the environment, as well as the future generations that live in it, will be safe.
Thanks for reading =]
Information taken from:
No comments:
Post a Comment