Drilling in the Alaskan Wilderness Term Paper

Pages: 2 (825 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 0  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Animals

Buy full Download Microsoft Word File paper
for $19.77

SAMPLE EXCERPT:

[. . .] These groups can make their support known to decision-makers through lobbying efforts. They can also express their opinions to the American public through campaigns and supporters such as environmental advocacy groups. Wilderness as a stakeholder has no direct voice. Its interests must be represented by federal legislators, traditional users such as the Inupiat Eskimos and the Gwich'in, environmental advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and other organizations that give a voice to wilderness. These diverse groups must determine what level of development will be supported, and then let this desire be known to decision-makers.

Congress must debate if the consequences of development are outweighed by the benefits that would result if development of the oil reserves happens in Section 1002 of the ANWR. Congress can decide if no development will occur, if limited development will occur, or if full development will take place by removing some or all of Section 1002 from the protection of the ANWR. If no development occurs, then the current situation will continue, allowing wilderness to evolve in a natural state. If limited development occurs, then some impacts will likely occur on the land, the wilderness including wildlife populations and habits, and the groups who rely on the land. The Inupiat Eskimos and the Gwich'in could benefit financially from oil development, but traditions could be negatively affected. If full development occurs, then the wilderness as it currently exists could be irreversibly changed, with consequences being as drastic as eliminating caribou from this part of Alaska.

Based on the above analysis of the ethical issues that are presented in this case, I propose that no development occur at this time. Five reasons support this recommendation:

Demand for development is not currently proven, since world supplies have not yet been irreparably affected

Consequences of developing Section 1002 are not fully understood

Agreement has not been reached on whether to develop the land by the Inupiat Eskimos and the Gwich'in

Alternate energy strategies have not been developed including conservation or alternate energy sources

Low impact drilling technologies continue to be developed. By delaying a decision now, less intrusive technologies could be developed in the future, reducing impacts on ANWR

Critics will argue that national security is ignored by this recommendation. However I argue that alternate solutions to national security must be found to preserve the… [END OF PREVIEW]

Two Ordering Options:

?
Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Buy full paper (2 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions, guaranteed!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Arguing Against Drilling for Oil in Alaska to Protect the Natural Wildlife Term Paper


Oil Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Term Paper


Environmental Ethics Humans Term Paper


Increased Access to Offshore Oil Exploration Term Paper


View 6 other related papers  >>

Cite This Term Paper:

APA Format

Drilling in the Alaskan Wilderness.  (2004, May 5).  Retrieved December 15, 2019, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/drilling-alaskan-wilderness/9957171

MLA Format

"Drilling in the Alaskan Wilderness."  5 May 2004.  Web.  15 December 2019. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/drilling-alaskan-wilderness/9957171>.

Chicago Format

"Drilling in the Alaskan Wilderness."  Essaytown.com.  May 5, 2004.  Accessed December 15, 2019.
https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/drilling-alaskan-wilderness/9957171.