We say NO to drilling!
Environmentalists and Animal Conservationists such as: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, National Resources Defense Council, Alaska Wilderness League, Sierra Club, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are all stakeholders that are against drilling and energy exploration within the Arctic. Environmentalists say it will contribute to ecological destruction and damaging climate change.
Last year, an 11-volume environmental impact review by the State Department found that oil extracted from the Canadian oil sands produced about 17% more carbon pollution than conventionally extracted oil.
A specific study has shown that drilling in the arctic will destroy the Caribou population in the Arctic. Up to 40% of the Caribou population could be erased. Specifically, Central Arctic Caribou, mostly female, would be displaced and has been from the previous oil exploration. The study found that over 52% of the surrounding Central Arctic Caribou were displaced.
Scientists worry that oil activity will prompt mother bears to abandon their dens early, endangering their cubs. Around 250 Musk Oxen also live on the plain year-round to conserve energy in the harsh weather by moving very little. Disturbing them causes stampeded which, wastes critical reserves.
Animals would have no natural habitat if oil companies came in and began drilling, forcing the herds to migrate and would disrupt their daily patterns and grazing. Smaller grazing areas would cause vegetation to decrease, disrupting the pattern of grazing and the natural habitat of the ecosystem.
The advocates against drilling feel that there is a great chance of an oil spill in off shore drilling, which would harm, exponentially, the marine and mammal. population of animals. They also point out that the pollution would contribute to climate change.
It has been proven that drilling in the Arctic would not help the U.S.'s economy, nor be cheaper than continuing the import oil. The dependency on foreign countries, also, theorized, would not decrease.
The 'Keystone Pipeline' has been proven by the Environmental Protection Agency that if built, the pipeline would add to greenhouse gases.
Alaskan oil-seeking companies say that they only need 4,000 acres for oil extraction compared to the historic 12,000 acres. However, this is not enough, though they say it is, to decrease the ecosystem and animal harm substantially to enable safe extraction without worry of endangering animals. Oil companies also would extract more water from the land than could be replenished.
Indigenous tribes within Northern Alaska and in the area of wanted-oil exploration would be greatly harmed, too. They live solely off the land and animal population, and disturbing the ecosystem would disrupt and decrease animal life and gathering/agricultural needs. Whaling would even be disrupted, which is a large part of the indigenous peoples lifestyles and livelihoods. They also follow the previously mentioned caribou around for skins and food, which would be disrupted in all ways if drilling occurred.
The ANWR, a 19.6 million acre nature preserve, was created in 1980. It is important that the ANWR stays untouched because there is hardly any untouched land within America and the world anymore. Without this land the world could be changed negatively (climate, animal population, pollution, agriculture, indigenous tribes).
An alternative to fossil fuels and negative impacts from oil extraction and consumption is renewable energies. From wind to solar, hydro to marine, there are many different types of renewable energy sources America could channel into for more energy, rather than using oil. Though it is known that in the past it has been more expensive to use renewable energy sources, if the money spent on oil would be put into renewable energy use and research, America could continue to lessen the price of the renewable energy, and have more money to produce renewable energy sources.
http://www.savebiogems.org/stop-shell/
http://perc.org/articles/caribou-question
http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/features0109/arctic.html
http://fordham.bepress.com/environ_theses/7/
http://connection.ebscohost.com/science/arctic-drilling/overview-arctic-oil-drilling-alaska
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/us/politics/as-expected-obama-vetoes-keystone-xl-pipeline-bill.html?_r=0
http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/Drilling-for-Oil-in-the-Arctic.aspx
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es0123756
http://cid.bcrp.gob.pe/biblio/Papers/NBER/2007/julio/w13211.pdf
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=renewable_home
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01697.x/full
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/12/1111.full
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug02/barnes/grandcoulee/bull.html
This page was created for Marc Bousquet's English 363 at Emory University.
http://perc.org/articles/caribou-question
http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/features0109/arctic.html
http://fordham.bepress.com/environ_theses/7/
http://connection.ebscohost.com/science/arctic-drilling/overview-arctic-oil-drilling-alaska
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/us/politics/as-expected-obama-vetoes-keystone-xl-pipeline-bill.html?_r=0
http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/Drilling-for-Oil-in-the-Arctic.aspx
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es0123756
http://cid.bcrp.gob.pe/biblio/Papers/NBER/2007/julio/w13211.pdf
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=renewable_home
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01697.x/full
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/12/1111.full
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug02/barnes/grandcoulee/bull.html
This page was created for Marc Bousquet's English 363 at Emory University.