The U.S. should legalize and encourage drilling in ANWR

1. I argued that the security of the U.S. would be enhanced by independence from foreign oil. Con argues that the oil would be sold rather than consumed domestically, so that we would continue to import foreign oil. This is, of course, ridiculous. However, if that were to happen, the U.S. would nonetheless remain energy independent. If a source of foreign oil were to withhold supplies, the US. would simply stop selling the domestic oil and use it locally instead. 2. (1) Con argues that transportation costs from Alaska will be high. The transportation costs amount to only a few cents a barrel, and they would be cheaper than the costs of transportation from Russia or the Middle East. Besides, transportation costs only affect the profit margin on the price, which is set internationally. (2) Pro argues that alternative energy will replace foreign oil in 7 to 20 years. There are no legitimate projections by any legitimate source that such a scenario is viable. For example, Obama set as a goal reducing oil imports by only about 10% in ten years. (3) "Inuits=terrorists" If so, they should be given jobs in the oil fields to get their minds off it. 3. I argued that both Alaska and the Inuits favored drilling. Con argued that caribou were opposed, but provided no evidence of that. The evidence is that they like warm pipelines and pay no attention to drilling. 4. Con provides a list of animals that are somewhere in the vast ANWR for at least some part of some years. I challenge Con to identify which species will be affected by drilling and provide evidence of any claimed effect. Birds are unaffected because drilling does not impact flying over the site. Fish are unaffected because the drilling is inland. species like moose never get within a hundred miles of the site. So which species are affected and how are they affected? "Most of the images of the proposed drilling area that people see on the evening news are misleading precisely because they tend to show the glorious parts of ANWR, even though that's not where the drilling would take place. Even when they position their cameras in the right location, producers tend to point them in the wrong direction. They point them south, toward the Brooks mountain range, rather than north, across the coastal plain where the drilling would be. ...n summer, the coastal plain is mostly mosquito-plagued tundra and bogs. ... In the winter, it reaches 70 degrees below zero (not counting wind chill, which brings it to 120 below) and is in round-the-clock darkness. ... Indeed, before the age of environmental Romanticism ... Both the New York Times and Washington Post editorial boards enthusiastically supported drilling in ANWR in the late 1980s. The Post noted that the area 'is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling would have less impact on surrounding life. ...' http://townhall.com... 4.1 I argued that the Prudhoe Bay drilling site, which is much larger than the planned ANWR site, has brought no significant environmental damage. Con argues that caribou might be affected. The evidence is to the contrary: "In terms of overall health, the Central Arctic herd has prospered (Cronin et al. 1998; Maki 1992; Pollard et al. 1996). In 1972, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the herd numbered 3,000 animals. Since then it has increased to between 25,000 and 27,000 (Maki 1992, 1703). The caribou population fluctuates naturally, reflecting factors such as predation, parasites, habitat condition, hunting, and weather (Cronin et al. 1998, 201)." http://www.perc.org... Since 2000, the herd has grown even larger www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/caribou-facts.pdf 4.2 The proposed area of drilling is about two square miles. Pro argues that many caribou could fit in two square miles. In fact, the caribou have no difficulty walking around the drilling equipment and using the other 25,000 square miles. Environmentalists often imply that wildlife won't cross roads or go under the elevated pipelines. The experience with Prudoe Bay proves this false. animals are designed to walk around trees and other natural obstacles and have no difficulty doing the same thing with man-made constructions. Moreover, horizontal drilling techniques developed since Prudhoe Bay make it possible to cover large area from each drill platform, so there is much less construction required. 4.3 I argued that there is no significant wildlife present in the winter when drilling activity occurs. Drilling had to be in winter when the ground is frozen to permit the importation of supplies. Con rebuts that the caribou are still there. They are not. Con's link to the government site shows that they migrate to winter ranges far to the south. Female polar bears hibernate in the winter, and male polar bears hunt for seals on the coast, not near the drilling areas. There are about 25,000 polar bears in the world, with 60% of them in Canada and only about 2500 in Alaska. http://www.polarbearsinternational.org... Environmentalists sometimes claim that human activity interferes with the winter hibernation ("denning") of female polar bears. However, the ANWR drilling site is near the village of Kaktovik http://science.howstuffworks.com... and environmentalists make no argument that the native population has had any effect on the polar bears. ANWR is between Prudhoe Bay and drilling sites in Canada, and no impact on polar bear populations have been claimed for either drilling area. Churchill, Canada, is rank with polar bars despite the human habitation http://www.chem.ucla.edu... There is no evidence they have been frightened away. There is some evidence that wildlife populations of many kinds have increased near Prudhoe Bay http://www.d.umn.edu... If drilling activities are disastrous to wildlife, environmentalists should be able to point to specific bad effects. They cannot. 4.4 and 4.5 Con argues that there is a danger from tanker spills. that argument was answered by pointing out the alternative is to ship oil from longer distances, which poses even greater dangers. Beyond that, improved technology has minimized the danger of tanker spills. Tankers are required to be double-hulled, and "Two tugs, equipped with spill cleanup gear, now follow laden tankers out from Valdez, the terminus of the Alaska oil pipeline. ... Cleanup capacity has been beefed up to recover a theoretical 12.6 million gallons over 72 hours. While that estimate depends on flat calm and perfect weather - both unlikely in a real spill - it is considerably better than when the Exxon Valdez went aground." http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com... 5) Con proposes nuclear power as an alternative to ANWR. Oil is used almost entirely for automobiles and transportation. Due to the size and weight of nuclear reactors, while practical for ships and submarines, nuclear is not practical for automobiles. Well, maybe for some of the larger SUVs ...