Offshore drilling is where companies are spending exploration and developement money. There are millions, billions of them that count on these areas for breeding habitats. Pro asserts that most of the job creation is not in the the arctic but in other states. Alaskans have a right to revenue from their resources I gave evidence that Alaskans were extremely sensitive to environmental issues, and that there was no good reason for not allowing them to make the development decisions. Oil and gas development has in other areas. On July 21, 2015, U.
Exploring more oil wells will only lead to the animals receding and moving away from their natural habitat. Many lawmakers took the podium yesterday to give strong testimonial support to the resolution and directly urge Congress to open the 10-02 area to oil and gas exploration. It also takes a lot of people and training to efficiently and safely run these operations. Are you beginning to see where this is going? While one of the benefits of oil drilling in Alaska is the reduction in the cost of oil in the United States, a negative is the disruption that could occur to the Alaskan natural environment and ecosystem, according to Resources for the Future. Danger to Animals There is no getting around the fact that drilling is extremely problematic with the natural environment.
Moreover, new seismic studies have been blocked, and all exploratory drilling has been blocked. And the increase, in large part, is due to the newly mobile millions around the world who've been lifted out of poverty in the last few decades. I have not proposed any solution until now. I usually don't vote on sources but Con's highly detailed and current evidence deserves a sources vote in his favor. How to weigh the arguments in this round: 1 Environment This is the most important issue in this round because it has the largest impact. Oil spills can pose threat to the lives of people living within the oil-drilling communities. But all that is poised to change with the current administration's plans.
Reasons for the present energy situation 1. Additionally, Pro risks damage to the arctic through pollution causing acid rain, routine oil spill, etc. The House Committee on Natural Resources held hearings on the issue concluding on November 18, 2011. The National Academy of Sciences panel said that development of the area since 1968 has produced large social and economic effects — some positive, such as better schools and health care, and some negative, like increased diabetes and alcoholism. When supplies are plentiful, the prices of oil and associated products go down.
Despite long lists of potential problems, the total risks amount to nothing compared to the benefits. Potential for Catastrophe An Arctic spill could be even more disastrous than the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. The 160,000 tonnes of natural oil seepage is unquestionably toxic, yet it doesn't destroy the environment. No specific impact is even alleged. The pipeline company works with the researchers to get them access to some of the restricted roads. When looking at wind though, pay attention to what the annual wind efficiency of the turbine location and not just the wattage of the wind turbine.
How long would our society last if starting tomorrow, there was no oil that could be used. This is the definition of a non-sequitur. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge covers 19. Even when all the signs are correct and it appears that there is a large reserve of fossil fuels that can be tapped, there is always the possibility that nothing may be found. I used the parallel to the many dangers of getting out of bed in the morning.
The alternative is to buy oil, which takes money out of the country and gives the wealth to other countries who then get the induced economic benefits. After that, it could take a few more years to set up the necessary infrastructure for drilling. The analogy to getting out of bed is apt. Economic Benefits Even as we continue to explore green energy alternatives to fossil fuels, there is no question that oil still holds sway. Boelman suspects waterfowl and caribou are most likely to be affected. But to harm ecosystems for no benefit at all is just plain stupid — and it would cause harm.
The rigs are very far from emergency services, making it hard to provide quick assistance to a worker in need. How would we heat our homes? In addition to the lawsuits and negative attention from environmentalists, that oil explorers would face from drilling in an area where they haven't got much experience. We do not have a booming economy, so we desperately need all the jobs we can get, and there is n reason to ignore the bulk of the economic benefits as Con does. I've otherwise only encountered this level of rationalization by Young Earth Creationists. Offshore drilling refers to a drilling operation on a seabed from an oil rig in order to draw out the oil beneath the sea. It shouldn't be surprising that production is almost always much higher than original estimates.
You might slip immediately, break your neck and die. Con only argues that the estimates may be less than the study I cited suggests. The 100,000-plus caribou of the Porcupine River herd are a focal point for the Gwich'in people: they are a main source of sustenance as well as the key element in the group's rituals, dances and stories. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the largest and most pristine patch of publicly owned wilderness in the U. At this point I have won this issue and since Pro cant bring up new arguments in his final round, I have won this issue overall.
There are a hell of a lot more bears. A few percentage points does not give us a secure oil supply. There can be direct attacks on animals which could be conscious and intentional. Arctic offshore project, took 22 years from lease sale to production startup. Caribou aren't a threatened species, but biologists think they may be on the brink of a steep decline due to climate change. The precautionary principle does not allow humans to live on earth. Less tanker travel means less danger of spills.