Twitchell researched the Northern Slope of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and found out that there is a large amount of untapped crude oil. Twitchell states (2001) that the government and environmentalists have fought over drilling rights in this area and the government wants money but the environmentalists do not want to abolish the habitat. After researching this topic, Twitchell realized that he was not going to be able to pick one side of the argument. He says that both parties made good points but they either contradicted one another or were very biased (Twitchell, 2001, p. 1). According to the research done by Twitchell, ANWR is “19.8 million acres and was established in 1980 under the Alaskan National Interest Lands Conservation act” (Twitchell, 2001, p. 1). Within that act, section 1002 contains the 15 million acre coastal plain with huge amounts of crude oil available. According to Twitchell’s research, there is approximately 5.7 to 16 billion barrels of oil that could be recovered within that area. Many different environmental groups have come together to ban the allowance of drilling within ANWR. All of these groups believe that ANWR needs to be protected from oil exploration (Twitchell, 2001, p. 2). The main argument that these …show more content…
Twitchell sees similarities in Linton’s most recent book and the research he has done of ANWR. In an online article posted by the Sierra Club, a group of environmentalists, the words dirty and dangerous are used to describe oil companies to make readers see the oil companies in a negative aspect. Other words like threatened and attacked are used to make it seem like the government wants to go to war with the land and not solely drill for oil. There are also articles written to shine a negative light on environmentalists. An article in the Los Angeles Times describes environmentalists as tree huggers (Twitchell, 2001, p.
My opponents 1st/2nd/3rd contention was the drilling in the ANWR will harm the environment. This is absolutely incorrect. Lets put this into perspective, the ANWR is 19.6 million acres out of Alaska, which is 240 million acres. The proposed drilling in the coastal plain will be 1.5 million acres. Now, with the new technology we have today, we can tap into the 1.5 million acre oil supply with an oil area that is 2000 acres. 2000 acres is 1/10000 or .0001% of the ANWR. 1.5 million acres of oil and a minuscule possibility of harming at max, 1/10000, I repeat 1/10000th if the ANWR. (Arctic Power)
These two sides of the issue bring about a major controversy in America today. Should the Pacific Northwest’s old growth forests and the welfare of the Northern Spotted Owl be sacrificed for America’s economy, and the jobs of the people in the logging industry? Which should be placed at a higher value, the forests in the Pacific Northwest and the northern spotted owl, or the American economy and the jobs and welfare of thousands and thousands of people?
The environment needs protecting because even before the drilling started hunting was rapidly decreasing the amount of animals in the area. So if drilling occured in Alaska the animal count would go down even more. Drilling is gonna need space, and because Alaska is a mountained and woodland area they will have to make space by destroying trees etc. Destroying trees means destroying animals’ homes. According to document E ‘just look 60 miles west to Prudhoe bay- an oil complex that has turned 1,000 square miles of fragile tundra into a sprawling industrial zone containing, 1,500 miles of roads and pipes’. Also the document states that the would be
Although industrialization revolutionizes America, it has devastating effects on nature. In 2003, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was threatened by plans for oil drilling and the construction of roads and pipelines. In response, former United States President Jimmy Carter crafted a speech, found in the foreword to a book written by Subhankar Banerjee, with the intent of protecting the reserve. By utilizing diction, imagery and pathos, President Carter was effective in convincing America to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The connotations of words can hold a powerful effect in the hearts of humans, and President Jimmy Carter used this knowledge to his advantage.
The British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was one of the worst ecological catastrophes in human history, causing vast damage to a fragile and beautiful ecosystem while at the same time calling attention to the deficits in current approaches to energy prospecting, risk management, and cleanup. This analysis of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill will devote attention to the following questions: (a) What kind of technology is in use for deep-sea oil extraction, what are the factors that accounted for the BP catastrophe, what were the statistical components of the spill in terms of volume and concentration, and what was the spatio-temporal scale of the oil spill? (b) What were the environmental (physical, biological, hydrological, and atmospheric) impacts of the oil spill, in addition to the economic and social impacts? (c) What were the scientific, technological, and policy solutions implemented by various actors to pursue the cleanup of coastal areas, wildlife, and wetlands damaged by the oil spill? (d) What is the feasibility of long-term biodiversity conservation measures and the limits of such solutions?
The debate on drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is an intensely debated topic in America today. Proponents of the oil drilling believe that the oil in the refuge will solve the high prices of gasoline, but they don’t even know what amount of oil the refuge holds and the amount of oil that we use every year in the United States. The drilling in ANWR will severely damage the wildlife refuge and its environment. The oil would take years to access with drilling and so far there has been no proof that the drilling would actually produce enough oil to sustain our needs as a country. Also, a reason to not drill in the refuge is because the reserve is being saved for when our country is in a national emergency, or until when there is no oil left because of its rapid decline in availability.
In Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, there are over 1 million acres of non-federal inholdings to which access is, and has been a major issue of controversy. Park managers and landowners alike are trying to reach an agreement which would provide for the access to private property, as well as towns such as Nabesna, McCarthy, and Kennecott. The following information will be used to convince park managers and conservationist groups that access via R.S. 2477 rights-of-ways are not only necessary, but also guaranteed by state and federal law.
..."Alaska Oil Spill Fuels Concerns Over Arctic Wildlife, Future Drilling." National Geographic News. 20 Mar. 2006. Web. 3 July 2010.
Last year, news spread of an oil spill off the Gulf Coast. These events occur periodically and usually register much media attention. As British Petroleum (BP) executives could not shut off the crude oil or prevent the damage it caused, people took notice. Millions of dollars in tourism, commerce and sales were lost. Thousands of wildlife acres and ecosystems were also compromised. There were more questions than answers.
Manatees are loved by many Floridians. Manatees are known as one of the state’s natural wonders. They were once marked as one of the endangered mammals in Florida. The federal government considers a species endangered when it is at risk of extinction. Therefore, the federal government is downlisting manatees from “endangered” to “threatened.” The manatees are now downgraded from endangered to just threatened, the level of protection for the manatees are also reducing. Since the federal government has spoken out that manatees are no longer endangered, does it decrease the risk of manatees being extinct?
The powerful word choice of Carter shows his opposition to the idea of an oil drilling industry in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As an illustration, Carter uses phrases like, “... windswept coastal plain where polar bears and caribou give birth …”, “... the migrations of tens of thousands of caribou with their newborn calves”,
The environmental danger taken by offshore drilling is very straight forward, made clear by oil spills such as the recent BP oil spill and the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 off the shore of Alaska. In the circumstances of the Exxon Valdez spill up to 250,000 sea birds died, over 2,800 sea otters and thousands of other animals], (figures from the BP oil spill are not yet concluded), having had a heavy strike on the regional wildlife and directing to a ban on all offshore drilling in America, until George Bush overturned it in 2008 to this repeal was a misjudgment because two years later there was the Deepwater Horizon spill. In this way, offshore drilling ruins ecosystems and fish supplies which creates a wasteland of a shoreline among southern USA.
In 1995, an important event marked a victory for the national GreenPeace organization, and for humans alike. The Brent Spar oil installation was not allowed to be dumped into the ocean. The importance of this decision lied in the fact that there were over 600 oil installations that would someday expire just as the Brent Spar had. When the decision was made to not allow the dumping, it set a precident that the other installations would not be allowed to be dumped, either.
Imagine wanting not a puppy, but a tiger for your birthday, imagine the expenses of that tiger and the dangers and hazards of owning that tiger. Do you really think it’s a good idea to get that tiger? No, it’s not. It’s a lot of work, and it’s also very dangerous. Exotic animals are not good to buy and have. If you buy that cute tiger, it will eventually grow up and not be so cute, it will be dangerous and strong, it’s also a wild animal and it’s very unpredictable, also there are many diseases you can catch from that tiger, and there are many dangers of having that tiger as well. (Long sentence)
The worst imaginable environmental catastrophe that could occur in Maryland has just become a reality. The lifeblood of Southern Maryland's Watermen has been forever affected. The ecosystems of the Patuxtent River and Chesapeake Bay have been irreversibly contaminated. The Three Mile Island and Chernobyl Nuclear Accidents have affected the world ecosystems; but the Chalk Point oil spill has reached us here in Southern Maryland. The ethical considerations with generating electricity from fossil fuels, specifically oil, has a profound impact on us all. We all use electricity to make our lives easier and more productive. By using this electricity have we given our permission for the oil companies free reign in order to provide us with the service we demand?? Are we just as responsible for the oil spill as the corporate leaders who run the companies? As citizens we are in a position to develop and enforce regulations to protect ourselves. Do we also protect the environment; or is the environment just something for us to use? These and many other moral dilemmas exist for modern man.