The United states should permit drilling in ANWR

Overview:An ecosystem can be thought of as an airplane, with each part of the ecosystem being a rivet that holds the plane together. Every time you damage the ecosystem, you remove a rivet from the plane; eventually after enough damage is done the ecosystem falls apart and is destroyed- eventually the rivet you remove will result in the airplane falling apart and everyone inside the plane will die.This analogy is useful because it captures 1) the uncertainty of environmental damage (its hard to say exactly what will be that final rivet), 2) the cumulative nature of environmental damage- the damage lingers for a long time and accumulates, 3) the catastrophic results when the environment breaks.And the environment does break, whether it be the massive chemical dumping at Love Canal that resulted in plummeting human birth rates and skyrocketing cancer rates, or the annual $138 billion economic damage due to invasive species, or the nightmarish conditions of the Niger Delta due to oil spill [13]. In this way oil development of ANWR threatens the local ecosystem and the interconnected arctic ecosystems. Through undermining the Precautionary Principle, it also threatens at risk ecosystems throughout the continental U.S. A)Environment1)Getting out of bed is such a poor analogy Im disappointed I have to refute it. The reason you risk getting out of bed is because staying in bed offers you no benefit- you can only enjoy life if you leave bed; staying in bed gains you nothing. This analogy basically says “look we take risks all the time so we should never let risk deter us from action,” which is of course absurd when you consider whether you want to participate in a rousing game of Russian roulette.2)I have provided many reasons why drilling in ANWR poses a significant risk. Ive cited studies showing lower birth rate and calf survival rate in caribou near oil fields, the greater vulnerability of Porcupine caribou, the vulnerability of the coastal shelf water supply, etc. Ive also shown that simply driving a truck across ANWR caused damage that hasn’t recovered over 20 years- compare this to the invasiveness of oil exploration, drilling and shipping.3)In the past decade there have been 4 major oil spills in Alaska alone. [14] This also shows substantial environmental risk.4)Pro misquotes his volcano source; he claims it emits 6000 tons a day when his source says 2000. Additionally, this is an extreme natural event specific to a single volcano in Hawaii; most volcanoes don’t behave like this and Pro offers no evidence otherwise. My [2] cites 70,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, 7-40 million tons CO2, 24-114 thousand tons of methane released EACH YEAR and detectable 200 miles away due to North Slope drilling.5)I have cited the Valdez as a spill with lasting effects, I also pointed to Deepwater Horizon. You can also look at my caribous studies and the impact of seismic surveying for examples of lasting impact.6)That Pro could say that Valdez was “insignificant” is mind boggling. The spill decimated bird, otter and mussel populations and ecosystems still haven’t recovered after 20 years.7)Almost all of Pro’s arguments only address the environmental risk due to normal drilling operations. He doesn’t do anything to show that a catastrophe like Deepwater or Valdez wouldn’t destroy the coastal plain. Experience shows such an event has huge impacts and the risk of such an event is very real.8)Even if Pro wins that drilling would have zero impact on ANWR (which he absolutely does not), I still win that drilling in ANWR puts other environmental areas at risk. This is a much larger impact, the largest in this round, since there are hundreds of protected areas across the U.S. that would be ruined if they were drilled for oil. Pro has not contested that drilling in ANWR paves the way to drilling in other sensitive areas, meaning I have won that this impact occurs.B)International Relations1)I am winning 100% that drilling in ANWR violates treaties. I have listed 4 relevant treaties, one of which specifically applies to ANWR - Pro didn’t even talk about this issue last round. At this point I have won this issue and since Pro cant bring up new arguments in his final round, I have won this issue overall.2)Violating treaties undermines the war on drugs, the ability to combat terrorism, and ability to collect intelligence and so undermines US security.3)Violating treaties signals to the rest of the world that it is ok to disregard rule of law when convenient, destabilizing at risk countries.4)The timeframe on this is immediate- this is a perception based issue so as soon as we legalize drilling US foreign policy is undermined. This means that we immediately threaten US security with 100% certainty by drilling. No other issue in round compares to this certainty- I win this debate on the Relations issue aloneC)Minimal Economic Benefit1)I want to emphasize that all of Pro’s economic analysis is based on outdated evidence. Despite me pointing this out in my opening round he continues to use bad data throughout the debate (like his bogus 2.8 trillion claim). Only my evidence is recent and based on oil industry experts so you should universally prefer my analysis whenever our claims conflict.2)Pro misrepresents my jobs evidence, saying it ignores jobs generates outside the arctic- it does not. More to the point, Pro offers no evidence to counter mine (beside some sourceless pdf with no explanation of methodology). Pro also hasn’t countered my claims that most of the manufacturing and refinery jobs would go to Asia. My arguments are based on economists and industry experts.3)Pro can say we desperately need any jobs we can get now, but the jobs wont even occur for ten years- by then our recession will exist only in history books. Pro simply claims the impact happens immediately, despite my explanation and evidence that shows that it will not.4)Obviously there will be SOME economic benefit to drilling. My point is that it is so small that it doesn’t really matter. Its like someone saying “Ill give you a dollar to poop in your front yard”- yeah getting 1 dollar is better than 0 dollars but the gain is negligible when you consider you have to defecate in your yard. Of course in this case its more like saying “In 10 years Ill give you 5 cents and some guy in Asia 95 cents…”5)The timeframe on the economy issue means that the U.S. is likely to see any economic benefit ANWR would provide from natural industry growth. It just doesn’t make sense to take a risk on ANWR when new technology is likely to open up safer oil sources before we even see a benefit.D)Right to LandExtend that this whole issue is just a red herring- judges should just ignore this issue. This is an issue of federal vs. state rights, not of individual freedom; there are conflicting opinions among Natives about drilling; the right of the federal government to prohibit land development is well established in our legal tradition. Whether the federal government ought to have this right is an issue much larger than this debate and was simply not covered well enough to control the judge’s ballot.E)Oil Independence1)Pro AGAIN misquotes both me and the EIA for his own benefit – the best case scenario is oil dependence of 48% compared to 54%; but the is generous- oil dependence is more likely to be 51%. Pro’s dishonesty made me waste space correcting him (again) so I want the conduct point.2)A 3-6% drop in dependence does nothing for US security; Pro says we will be “less sensitive” to interruption in foreign oil supply but the bottom line is that both scenarios pose a significant risk to the US and the gain is so marginal its negligible. When an oil consultant says that even with drilling “U.S. will still be at the mercy of unreliable suppliers, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia [6]” it signals that there is no appreciable gain in security.13 tinyurl.com/d8lnxhu 14 tinyurl.com/ct9l9ze 15 tinyurl.com/5br9fn