Hendry, Patrick. Took a walk on lunch break to create a collection of industry and "gas punk" type photos. UnSplash, 25 Jan. 2018, unsplash.com/photos/ 6xeDIZgoPaw. |
This week, I read a New York Times post, which is an article that focuses on the Plan to Open Arctic Refuge to Drilling.
The main idea of this article is that in Washington — The Trump administration on Monday finalized its plan to open up part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas development, a move that overturns six decades of protections for the largest remaining stretch of wilderness in the United States. And Opponents say that opening the refuge to development would be a step backward in an era when the world should be burning less oil in order to avoid drastic global warming. They also say drilling could harm vulnerable wildlife in the area, including polar bears, which are already struggling because of climate change, and Porcupine caribou herds that use the coastal plain as a calving area.
One idea that I found interesting was that drilling opponents have also said that the Interior Department downplayed the risks of climate change in its review. For example they had said “the agency estimated that the refuge could produce as many as 10 billion barrels of oil over its lifetime, but argued that the effect on greenhouse gas emissions would be minimal, since most of that oil would simply displace oil being produced elsewhere in the country. In comments submitted to the agency, the attorneys general from 15 states, including New York, called this displacement theory “completely unsupported.”(NYT)
I thought it was interesting because if people seem to care about the Earth, it’s animals and global warming, why would you want to continue the use for fossil fuels and oil? Going through with the oil drilling plan will cause harm to vulnerable wildlife in the area, including polar bears, which are already struggling because of climate change, and Porcupine caribou herds that use the coastal plain as a calving area. Going through with this will cause so many animals to lose their homes and food sources.
I disagree with this idea because although the administration’s push to open up the refuge has been backed by lawmakers in Alaska, as well as by local energy firms and other Alaska Native groups, who have said that drilling could provide much-needed jobs and revenue for the state, where oil production has declined since the 1980s. Wonder why? I still believe that these kinds of benefits are not enough to almost destroy animal family homes.
One piece of evidence that supports my view comes from the New York Times article on the oiling drilling in the Arctic. It states that as part of the process, the Department of Interior was required to conduct a review of the potential environmental effects of drilling. The final version of that environmental impact statement was released in September and recommended that oil and gas leasing be allowed in the 1.5 million acres of the coastal plain. But it suggested that there were ways to blunt the effects, such as limiting the use of heavy equipment for one month of the year during caribou calving season. This supports my view because environmentalists have criticized the agency’s review as insufficient, saying it was largely based on older research and failed to address several concerns. For instance, critics have noted, the environmental impact statement does not provide an estimate of how many polar bears could potentially be killed or harmed by exploration in the coastal plain. Proving that it really doesn’t need to happen.
Works Cited
Hendry, Patrick. Took a walk on lunch break to create a collection of industry and "gas punk" type photos. UnSplash, 25 Jan. 2018, unsplash.com/photos/6xeDIZgoPaw.
Plumer, Brad, and Henry Fountain. "Trump Administration Finalizes Plan to Open Arctic Refuge to Drilling." New York Times, 17 Aug. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/climate/alaska-oil-drilling-anwr.html.
