“This is our world, although the people who drew this map decided to put their own land on top of ours. There is no top or bottom, you see.”
—Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Half of a Yellow Sun. The environment is a very important and fragile place. The government believed this was true, so they established the reserve to preserve it. However, some already want to take over a “small” portion of the reserve and make it theirs. So in other words, should we overtake something that is rightfully for the wildlife, or take over and destroy 1.5 million acres for a limited supply of oil? The obvious reply, for me, would be a solid “No” because one reason is if they do get the 8% they will eventually want more, another reason is that it is already being …show more content…
B states, “only 8% of ANWR would be considered for exploration.”I believe that they might be considering the piece of the reserve e now, but later they will want more. There is a psychological reason for this, and it is the need for achievement. According to psychologytoday.com, these needs were studied by psychologist David McClelland. The need for achievement is a need for further success in your business, which in this case the need for more land to harvest oil. The companies won’t stop until there is no oil, taking over the land.
ANWR hosts a numerous amount of wildlife, which means every part of the reserve should stay a part of the reserve. According to document E and https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/endangered/species.htm some animals like the polar bear, Northern sea otter, Short-tailed albatross, Eskimo curlew, and shaggy musk ox just to name a few that are endangered or are threatened to be endangered. That means if we take over even a bit of the reserve they eventually cause the animals to go extinct.
There is a chance there is no oil. We can not consider the chance of destroying 1.5 million acres of land that is being occupied. Doc. B is filled with only assumptions on the oil. There are no hard facts, so in other words, there is “probably” no to very little amount of oil that will not be enough to help our
—Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Half of a Yellow Sun. The environment is a very important and fragile place. The government believed this was true, so they established the reserve to preserve it. However, some already want to take over a “small” portion of the reserve and make it theirs. So in other words, should we overtake something that is rightfully for the wildlife, or take over and destroy 1.5 million acres for a limited supply of oil? The obvious reply, for me, would be a solid “No” because one reason is if they do get the 8% they will eventually want more, another reason is that it is already being …show more content…
B states, “only 8% of ANWR would be considered for exploration.”I believe that they might be considering the piece of the reserve e now, but later they will want more. There is a psychological reason for this, and it is the need for achievement. According to psychologytoday.com, these needs were studied by psychologist David McClelland. The need for achievement is a need for further success in your business, which in this case the need for more land to harvest oil. The companies won’t stop until there is no oil, taking over the land.
ANWR hosts a numerous amount of wildlife, which means every part of the reserve should stay a part of the reserve. According to document E and https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/endangered/species.htm some animals like the polar bear, Northern sea otter, Short-tailed albatross, Eskimo curlew, and shaggy musk ox just to name a few that are endangered or are threatened to be endangered. That means if we take over even a bit of the reserve they eventually cause the animals to go extinct.
There is a chance there is no oil. We can not consider the chance of destroying 1.5 million acres of land that is being occupied. Doc. B is filled with only assumptions on the oil. There are no hard facts, so in other words, there is “probably” no to very little amount of oil that will not be enough to help our