The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) sits on what we might call a pot of black gold; a reported 7 billion barrels of oil can be found here (Primack), and we can find a lot of debates online regarding the ANWR. On one side the oil industry’s potential role in accessing the land, pulling this resource out for the benefit of the energy independence and economic growth of North America. On the other side of the debate is the protection of this majestic beauty of the vast grasslands and herds that live in this refuge and the ugliness and loss of biodiversity that will occur if or when drilling activities are allowed. The question that I think we need to address in forming our opinion on this topic is how we weigh the value of the competing
…show more content…
This land, isolated, and primarily untouched, is abundant with wildlife and considered a National Treasure. Currently the ANWR does not see the same needs that other refuge areas face due to the human activities that occur within them such as hunting and fishing, grazing, logging, and mining. The ANWR is to its benefit is too remote to be promoted for tourism and its economic values for timber and oil resources. Home to 19 million acres, 37 mammal species, eight marine mammals, 42 species of fish, and 200 + migratory bird species this wildlife refuge it is a natural wonderland, (Defenders of Wildlife). The oil industry is not the only threat to this area, the species are being forced to adjust to the changing climate. Those in the area that have adapted to the cold, ice, and snow are at that greatest threat to the warming climate. Those subject to the greatest challenges include the caribou, Dall sheep, Alaska marmot, lynx, wolverine, arctic ground squirrel, singing vole, northern bog lemming, and the tundra and barren ground shrew, all facing decreasing numbers in the next 25-35 years, (Defenders of Wildlife) due to climate change alone, the impacts of increased traffic to the area and land disturbance due to oil drilling will only compound the issues these mammals face …show more content…
But the decisions are just not that easy. Preserving the natural beauty and the species comes at a cost to the people and drilling a cost to the land and its inhabitants. Though there is no easy side to take one important point can be made to support not drilling in this refuge. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 7.08 billion barrels of oil are used in the United States annually. So, though the reserves in Alaska would help support the needs of North America Alaska accounts for only approximately 7% of our current oil needs (National Geographic). The opportunity costs of preserving this remote set of biodiversity are the loss of a portion of 7% of our oil resource. In this situation, I feel that the opportunity cost does not out way the anticipated cost that will be associated with the losses within the species whether through accelerating their current challenges are being their initial threat. The suggested compromises of slant drilling or trucking in supplies during the frozen winter months still brings increased and new activities to this otherwise very quiet and untouched parcel of land. The cost to the area is just too great to seek access to such a short-term solution to our oil needs, National
This land, isolated, and primarily untouched, is abundant with wildlife and considered a National Treasure. Currently the ANWR does not see the same needs that other refuge areas face due to the human activities that occur within them such as hunting and fishing, grazing, logging, and mining. The ANWR is to its benefit is too remote to be promoted for tourism and its economic values for timber and oil resources. Home to 19 million acres, 37 mammal species, eight marine mammals, 42 species of fish, and 200 + migratory bird species this wildlife refuge it is a natural wonderland, (Defenders of Wildlife). The oil industry is not the only threat to this area, the species are being forced to adjust to the changing climate. Those in the area that have adapted to the cold, ice, and snow are at that greatest threat to the warming climate. Those subject to the greatest challenges include the caribou, Dall sheep, Alaska marmot, lynx, wolverine, arctic ground squirrel, singing vole, northern bog lemming, and the tundra and barren ground shrew, all facing decreasing numbers in the next 25-35 years, (Defenders of Wildlife) due to climate change alone, the impacts of increased traffic to the area and land disturbance due to oil drilling will only compound the issues these mammals face …show more content…
But the decisions are just not that easy. Preserving the natural beauty and the species comes at a cost to the people and drilling a cost to the land and its inhabitants. Though there is no easy side to take one important point can be made to support not drilling in this refuge. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 7.08 billion barrels of oil are used in the United States annually. So, though the reserves in Alaska would help support the needs of North America Alaska accounts for only approximately 7% of our current oil needs (National Geographic). The opportunity costs of preserving this remote set of biodiversity are the loss of a portion of 7% of our oil resource. In this situation, I feel that the opportunity cost does not out way the anticipated cost that will be associated with the losses within the species whether through accelerating their current challenges are being their initial threat. The suggested compromises of slant drilling or trucking in supplies during the frozen winter months still brings increased and new activities to this otherwise very quiet and untouched parcel of land. The cost to the area is just too great to seek access to such a short-term solution to our oil needs, National