The United states should permit drilling in ANWR

Overview: The problematic nature of opening ANWR to drilling is captured perfectly by Pro’s closing words in R2: “I challenge Con to quantify his claims of harm.” Pro’s positions demands that in order to stop economic progress I must show the environment will be harmed with certainty. He places the burden on me to demonstrate specifically how the environment will be harmed. Yet complex environmental systems are hard to predict and is compounded by the complex nature of oil development. Prima facie it is impossible to say “X will have Y impact on the environment” with certainty. But we know that in almost every case, oil operations have an impact. Disasters like the Gulf Spill show the huge harms we must risk. For this reason we must embrace the Precautionary Principle and realize that the appropriate stance to take is “before you drill, you must prove the environment will NOT be harmed.”Drilling in ANWR reverses the question so that economic expediency takes precedence. It undermines the Precautionary Principle and sets a troubling precedent; the environmental impact of ANWR is therefore not limited to the delicate ecosystem of the arctic, but to every U.S. ecosystem under threat of destruction for the sake of economic expediency.Note three sources of risk: i)environmental impact with 100% certainty from normal drilling operations ii)major disasters like the Valdez, Gulf Spill, or any of a number unpredictable events. iii)the precedent that ripples into other at risk areas.A)Environment1)Extend my unrefuted argument that ANWR sets a dangerous precedent, meaning the drilling threatens ecosystems throughout the U.S. 2)Extend my arguments that the ANWR ecosystem is crucial to the arctic ecosystem as a whole and is more sensitive than surrounding areas, including a vulnerable water supply3)Seismic testing in ANWR shows how sensitive the area is to activity as simple as driving machinery across it- oil development will be much more invasive:“18 years after the disturbance...some of the trails have become troughs visible form the air. Others show changes in the amount and type of tundra plants…permafrost melted and the trails remain wetter than they were previously… impacts are expected to persist for decades.”[12]4)Pro doubts my birthrate study because he found a picture of caribou near drilling sites. This is the definition of a non-sequitur.5)Pro offers no response to my [9] and [10], which show that the at risk caribou are different and more vulnerable than caribou in other regions and that the coastal plains is more vulnerable than the North Slope region. All my evidence is specific to the Coastal Plain area while none of Pro’s is.6)There is no way that the 1.9 million gallons spilled at the North Short site was totally cleaned up. It is very difficult to clean up material once it enters the soil or the water supply, which is why there are Superfund sites that are still toxic after being out of use for decades. Pro also offers no evidence that the spills were adequately recovered.7)The claim that environmental impact is local is just wrong. Contaminants can spread through water sources and my [2] cites 200 miles plumes of toxic gas. Additionally, the transportation of oil off site spreads the geographic risk.8)Pro’s claim that Valdez effects are negligible has no evidential support and is contradicted by my R2 A.2; moreover single-hull tankers like the Valdez are still in use.9) Pollution in ANWR threatens the ecosystem as a whole, not just caribou.B)International Relations1) Drilling violates the Agreement Between the United States and Canada on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, which specifically pertains to ANWR. Also: Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, Migratory Bird Convention with Russia (88 of the birds listed are found in ANWR). Just some of the treaties violated. [3]2) Pro offers no refutation that respecting international agreements is crucial to the security of the U.S. The process of visibly obeying international norms builds U.S. softpower, enhances its moral authority, and strengthens U.S. capacity for global leadership. Violating treaties undermines cooperation on issues like terrorism, war on drugs, military intelligence etc.3) I am winning this argument 100% - drilling ANWR does violate treaties and puts U.S. security at risk4) Cross apply treaty violation to my argument that drilling in ANWR sets a ruinous precedent of disregarding environmental protection when convenient.C)Minimal Economic Benefit1) Pro hasn’t provided any evidence that ANWR will have significant impact on job creation. My [7] shows job creation would be on the order expected during a single week- an insignificant amount.2) Economic timeframe is at best 10 years. Once restrictions are removed, oil companies still have to purchase land, decide where to explore, start exploration, and plan the projects before and drilling or manufacturing begins. This is all part of the normal exploration process that oil companies conduct so wont result in any jobs.3) Timeframe is very important. Pro likes to talk about how fast oil tech changes- oil tech ten years from now could have the ability to extract oil from sands and shales in the continental U.S. that aren’t economic now. Offshore development could be more reliable and efficient. All trends indicate our capacity to drill will improve with time, so theres no reason to take a risk on easy oil that wont even be available for 10 years.4) Early job creation comes from the manufacturing of drilling equipment. Multinational companies like Exxon frequently build equipment overseas- I have personally seen presentations by Exxon about how offshore platforms are manufactured in Korean shipyards and towed to U.S. waters.5) My [6] shows that oil will be shipped to Asia for refinement. It absolutely matters where the oil is shipped, as that’s where refinery jobs and the benefits of having a reliable supply go. This evidence is unrefuted.6) Pro’s claim of $2.8 trillion is based on flawed analysis as I pointed out in R1. Pro for some reason stands by his personal opinion rather than the professional analysis of the EIA (a source he himself relies on elsewhere). Additionally, the raw value of the oil is irrelevant- what matters is the impact the oil has on the economy, which I have shown is negligible.7) The EIA analysis accounts for uncertainty in reserve size. At any rate, the EIA analysis is much more reliable that Pro’s personal interpretation of oil development trends, especially given that he thinks oil exploration is comparable to looking for spiders.D) Right To Land1) Pro ignores my [8] that nearby Native Peoples oppose drilling. He offers no reason why they have less a right to the land than Alaskans living hundred miles away. If anything, the rights of Native peoples shows we should not drill.2) This isn’t an issue of personal freedom to make decisions- its an issue of the federal government prohibiting a state from developing protected land. There is a long legal tradition supporting this practice; this whole issue is a red herring.E) Oil Independence1) Extend my R1 arguments that studies show even in the best case scenario foreign oil will be 46% of our supply AND that because ANWR oil will be shipped overseas, the U.S. will still have to rely on oil from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. This is what consultants in the oil industry are saying and Pro has offered zero evidence to the contrary.2) This is another issue I am winning 100%, the benefit drilling in ANWR could offer is so marginal it is irrelevant. Decreasing our dependence by a few percentage points does nothing for U.S. security.I meet Pro’s source requirement so no need to vote conduct:[1] tinyurl.com/d79w3gx[2] tinyurl.com/cstl4qo[3] tinyurl.com/cvhrrr3[5] tinyurl.com/c5z2c4r[6] tinyurl.com/clua7lb[7] tinyurl.com/ckp2939[8] tinyurl.com/czjerrr[9] tinyurl.com/7rualop[10] tinyurl.com/79j36jh[11] tinyurl.com/cnfwpw5[12] tinyurl.com/7cm42t4