The United states should permit drilling in ANWR

A) Environmental Devestation 1) ANWR critical to Arctic ecosystem The compactness and proximity of a number of arctic and subarctic ecological zones in the Arctic Refuge provides for greater plant and animal diversity than in any other similar sized land area on Alaska's North Slope. The Refuge is also an important part of a larger international network of protected arctic and subarctic areas.[1] 2) Current Drilling on Alaska North Slope proves environmental harm is 100% certain and occurs over huge geographic areas: “every day there is on average at least one spill either in the oil fields or the Pipeline. 1996 to 2004, there were some 4,530 spills of more than 1.9 million gallons of diesel fuel, oil, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol…Each year, oil operations emit more than 70,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain. (three times more than D.C.'s annual NOx emissions, according to the EPA.) Plumes of pollution from Prudhoe Bay have been detected nearly 200 miles away.”[2] 2) Environmental destruction can have potentially massive and unfixable consequences- the Exxon-Valdez shows the long term effects: “Exxon Valdez oil persists in the environment and, in places, is nearly as toxic as it was the first few weeks after the spill…two decades have passed, as much as 16,000 gallons of oil persists in the Sound's intertidal zones, continuing to poison wildlife.” Pro offers zero evidence that a similar accident is less likely now. The ruined Louisiana coastline and multibillion economic losses due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill demonstrate we are just as vulnerable as ever. 3) For this reason, environmental policy should follow the Precautionary Principle: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. 4) The drawn out and high profile nature of the ANWR case means that a reversal of the standing policy of preservation will set a precedent. Overturning drilling restrictions uniquely sets a precedent of ignoring the Precautionary Principle whenever economically expedient. This means the environmental impact extends beyond the immediate effects of ANWR and into all ecosystems at risk due to economic factors. 5) The caribou in the 1002 Area (Porcupine Herd) are different from the caribou impacted by North Slope (Central Arctic Herd). Procupine Caribou: birth calves almost exclusively in the 1002 Area, have lower calf production rates, lower survival rates. These rates are especially bad outside of the 1002 area. [9] North Slope development shows drilling DOES hurt caribou populations: “Central Arctic caribou…near oilfields gained less weight during the summer and had lower pregnancy rates and calf survival that other members of the herd ” [9] 7) Comparing ANWR with the North Slope is apples to oranges. Unlike existing areas of oil development on the North Slope, ANWR supports a relatively large number of maternal polar bear dens , a substantial population of migratory snow geese, and higher numbers of muskoxen. The Coastal Plain has much fewer fresh water sources making the water supply more vulnerable to pollution from mining[10]. B)International Relations Turn: 1) ANWR uniquely an international Issue – drilling violates multiple environmental treaties “International law applies to this case for several reasons. The Refuge borders international waters to the north and Canada to the east. Many of its species migrate to places ranging from North America to distant continents. ANWR is one of the last true wildernesses on the planet and thus has symbolic as well as scientific value for people around the world. … there is a strong likelihood of marine pollution that would adversely impact migratory birds and thus violate the treaty with Japan.[3]” 2)Abiding by international law is crucial to maintaining U.S. influence in the world. Violating international law encourages hostile countries to do the same, with disastrous consequences: “The United States would be safer if more countries had open, accountable governments that respect the rule of law. Current international institutions are inadequate to the challenges of globalization… The United States has a unique capacity to foster peace and stability in the world, but ... If the United States wants others to live by the rules and be “responsible global stakeholders,” it must accept the need to do the same…the United States must take seriously the need to reform international institutions rather than disparage or ignore them.[4]” C) Minimal Economic Benefit PREFER MY EVIDENCE: I CITE THE EXACT SAME SOURCE – THE EIA – BUT MY EVIDENCE IS IN ALL CASES RECENT (2008) WHEREAS PRO’S IS OUTDATED BY AS MUCH AS 13 YEARS. All Pro’s evidence is outdated with conclusions based on his own convoluted projections; universally prefer my recent evidence. 1) ANWR will not drop oil prices. OPEC could easily neutralize any price advantage. “ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices…Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.”[5] 2) Even in the best “High Resource Oil Case” the EIA finds that we will still dependent on foreign oil for 46% of our supply in 2030. This is compared to a 54% dependence if we do not drill. A few percentage points does not give us a secure oil supply. And again, we are still dependent on OPEC to the extent that they can efficiently control the price of oil. Additionally, we wont see any decreased dependence until 2022. [5] 3) Pro drastically overprojects the probable oil reserves. The EIA puts it at 10.4 billion barrels, only 1/3 of Pro's claim. 4) …and it doesn’t mean a lot. Turns out most of the oil will go to foreign countries and the U.S. doesn’t even have the capacity to ship ANWR oil to anywhere beside the West Coast, or so says oil analyst Philip Verleger “Oil in Alaska cannot easily or efficiently be shipped to our GulfCoast refineries. The logical markets are on the West Coast of the United States and in Asia. Consumers in China and Japan, not the U.S., will be the real beneficiaries of any big Alaska find. With a big find, China and Japan will be able to increase imports from a dependable supplier - the U.S. - while consumers in the U.S. will still be at the mercy of unreliable suppliers, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. It is simple geography.”[6] 5) There are no dates and no explanation on the jobs claim - so no way to evaluate how accurate it is. Pro essentially pulled this number out of thin air. 6) Heres some actual evidence about job creation from 2001, Pro overstates the job impact by about 4000%: “When these adjustments are taken together (these reductions are multiplicative, not additive), the projection of jobs resulting from oil produced in the Arctic Refuge falls to less than 50,000. This number of jobs is fewer than what the economy generated in an average week over the years 1997 through 2000 [7]” 7) None of the economic benefit will be seen for at least 10 years. During that time we could find less risky reserves or undergo an unpredictable energy tech revolution, making ANWR unnecessary. D) Land Rights Alaskans dont have a “right” to drill in ANWR anymore than Californians have a “right” to log the redwoods. These are federally protected lands. Additionally, the source that says native Inupiats support drilling is just a website that lists reasons to drill ANWR saying they do. Turn: An elected official of the Gwich’in people testified before Congress: “For the Gwich’in, this is a simple issue: Oil development in the birthplace and nursery grounds of the Porcupine (River) Caribou Herd would hurt the caribou and threaten the culture and way of life of my people and the viability of our communities.[8]”