The United states should permit drilling in ANWR

1. The United States Needs the Money and the JobsCon's argument is that if (a) the secondary effects of spending money in the US compared to shipping it to the Middle East are ignored, and (b) all the jobs generated outside the Arctic (which is the bulk of the jobs) are also ignored, then the oil project only amounts to week of job creation at the peak of the dot com boom. 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.It isn't plausible that keeping up to $2.8 trillion here rather than sending it overseas will have no effect. I provided evidence that most of the jobs were not in the Arctic. The equipment, transport, refining, and reinvestment of revenue are mostly in the other states.If ways are found to drill for oil outside of ANWR in the next ten years, that makes the ANWR production cheaper relative to the market. If that happens there would be more benefit to American companies, workers, and investors.Con worries that a magical new energy source may appear in the next ten years that eliminates the need for oil. Betting on magic is foolish, but let's suppose it happened. All of the automobiles built upon petroleum technology would take decades to replace, so there would still be profitable markets for ANWR oil. The investments in ANWR are strictly private, so even if the investment proved unprofitable, tax payers would not be paying for it.A decade is a very short time in terms of changing basic infrastructure. The argument that a decade is unacceptably long was made in 2000 and for decades before that. It's an argument for getting started now.Approving ANWR drilling would have a positive economic effect the next day. It would put America on the road to energy independence and crack the fanatical resistance to anything that improves the economy. counting all forms of fossil fuels, the United States has the largest reserves in the world. Showing that we will use our reserves would have an extraordinary positive economic benefit immediately, as everyone started behaving as if the country will not fail into economic decline.2. Alaskans have a right to revenue from their resourcesThe Gwich'in peoples that Con cites don't live in ANWR and have signed deals for drilling rights on their own land outside of ANWR. [26] They depend upon taking only 350 caribou per year. Moreover, "the Gwich'ins are being bankrolled rather handsomely by environmental groups and fat cat foundations, to speak out against ANWR oil activities." [26] The Inupiat actually live in the drilling area, and they support the development. [27] A poll of the Inupiat showed over 8:1 support. [28]3. International relations would be improvedCon admits that foreign dependence on oil could drop from 65% to 46%. Con wronglyargues that if there is any level of foreign dependence on oil, there is no point in improving self-sufficiency. The advantage to increased self-sufficiency is that the US is then less sensitive to interruptions of foreign oil supplies. We could be entirely self-sufficient in oil production if all the unreasonable drilling prohibitions were removed. Energy independence is an extremely important reason to permit drilling in ANWR and elsewhere in the US.4. There is little environmental riskShould we pass a law that prevents you from getting out of bed in the morning? The risks, while unquantifiable, are numerous and deadly. You might slip immediately, break your neck and die. All day there are risks of accidents at every turn, risks of contracting disease, food poisoning, and infections, and risks of muggers and crazed killers appearing unpredictably. There could be floods, lightning, and volcanoes. You may think you are qualified to assess the risks and decide for yourself what risks are worth taking, but the rest of us know that the only truly safe thing is to keep you in bed until there is scientific proof that here are no dangers. Don't even think of motorcycles or skateboards.The arguments against drilling in ANWR are parallel. Is there reason to believe that the caribou herd will be diminished by even one animal? We know that 22,000 caribou are taken by hunters each year, and the herds are thriving nonetheless. We know that at Prudhoe Bay, the herd has increased by a factor of five since drilling started. We know that only 2000 of the 19,000,000 million acres of ANWR will have drilling operations, and the drilling operations are only done in the middle of the winter when there is no wildlife around at all. Pollution being detectable does not mean it is harmful. For example, chlorine is a highly toxic pollutant detectable in minute quantities, However, not only is chlorine detectable in tap water, it's required to be there. [24] Kilauea, the volcano in Hawaii, spews 6000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, more toxic pollution that all the automobiles in the world. Alaska has 42 active volcanoes spewing thousands of times the amount of toxic gases from oil drilling. Each volcano capable of taking out airliners, not merely being detectable. [23] How will pollution from the drilling operations stack up against the natural sources? How many animals are killed by the natural sources which are thousands of times worse? if there is a danger, tell us what the potential actual harm is, and how it compares to natural hazards and hunting. I'm not demanding the exact consequences, only good reasons to suppose the consequences will have a significant impact. If there is a precedent that environmental fantasies of harm are never contradicted and reversed,we should upset that precedent. Claims must be translated to probable harm. Irrational fears put into law should be replaced by rational evaluation, and that applies across the board. Drilling in ANWR does not require any change in existing law, the drilling is being blocked by lawsuits and federal agencies. [25]I did not claim that there was no bad effect from the 44 tonnes of Valdez spill residue. My claim was that it was insignificant. The 160,000 tonnes of natural oil seepage is unquestionably toxic, yet it doesn't destroy the environment.Con claims that traces of human activity will remain detectable for "decades." That means that in decades they will be gone. In the mean time they do no harm. Wildlife have no problem crossing roads. Drilling rigs are expensive and are removed immediately after wells are drilled. The whole drilling operation, which in ANWR amounts to a postage stamp on a football field, is transient. Alaska has all those erupting volcanoes, easily millions of times more harmful by every measure, but the even the effects of those are transient.Con offers no proof that the spills related to drilling operation had lasting effects. We can be sure if even one spill had a lasting effect, that would be trumpeted on every extreme environmental site on the web, but Con has presented nothing. Keep in mind that that the average spill is 420 gallons, and that the total is spread over about 40 years.Cons claims use the fallacy that if a long list of potential hazards can be made, that amounts to a substantial risk in total. I used the parallel to the many dangers of getting out of bed in the morning. Similar arguments can be built against everything from air travel to the invention of the wheel. Despite long lists of potential problems, the total risks amount to nothing compared to the benefits.[22] http://articles.latimes.com...[23] http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...[24] http://www.ehow.com...[25] Video of Sen. Murkowski's testimony http://www.youtube.com...[26] http://www.anwr.org...[27] http://www.anwr.org...[28] http://archive.newsmax.com...