• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Be Opened to Oil Drilling?

Extracts from this document...


Issue 7: Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Be Opened to Oil Drilling? The issue within these opposing arguments is focused on whether or not the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be opened to oil drilling. Dwight R. Lee argues that the benefits derived from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil exceeds the costs, so that drilling should be made allowable. Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins claims that ANWR oil should not be used as it is too expensive to utilize in comparison to other oil sources, it is too limited in its amount to compensate our energy needs, and the approach of its use is too susceptible to disorder. From a conservationist's perspective, the value of nature is fundamental in the benefits it offers to humans, while from a preservationist's perspective, nature possesses the right to maintain its value and the has right to be left alone. ...read more.


"Certainly, environmental risks exist, and the society considers them, but if also responsibly weigh the costs of those risks against the benefits as measured by the income derived from drilling." (Lee, 122) However, with this statement he also states that this harm caused is decreasing proportional with the technology. The approach to its argument is assertive, as it highlights both sides to the issue, and asserts that it is difficult to comprehend the issue as the "answer depends on subjective values." (Lee, 120) By providing thought provoking statements about fuel-efficient cars that provides less security, he finalizes his argument with the issue of whether or not human life is less valuable than nature. Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins' argument suggests that there are alternative uses of energy that is more productive in meeting the three goals of energy policy more effectively than drilling in the refuge, and that "the existence of such alternatives makes drilling even more economically risky." ...read more.


(Lovins, 135) This argument also proposes the notion that "cheaper, faster energy alternatives now succeeding the marketplace are safe, clean, climate-friendly, and overwhelmingly supported by the public.... They remain profitable at any oil price, offer economic, security, and environmental benefits rather than costs." (Lovins, 136) The strongly argument states that drilling for refuge oil is a risk the nation should consider taking only if no other choices is possible. While neither argument boasts profound effectiveness in terms of its persuasiveness, the second argument, due to its effective approach in highlighting the issue at hand, made it much more apparent in its views. Above all, exploiting refuge oil takes the focus off the real cause of the oil shortage, our excessive consumption, resulting in a beautiful wildlife refuge would be disturbed by humans once again, with the lives of animal in the environment changed in the process. Furthermore, technological advances energy strategies are more effective than refuge-oil as the drilling may not yield much of anything. Thus the reserve can be saved as a last resort decades from now when we've exhausted other supplies. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Be Opened to OilDrilling?

    More fuel-efficient cars mean one thing lighter cars. Lighter cars mean less security. He is in a way ending his argument with he question: is human life less valuable than the nature? Lovins' argument starts with three imperatives that shape up the natural energy policy: economic vitality, secure supplies, and environmental quality.

  2. What makes a person valuable?

    a person compared to those whose consciousness is high off their own choice, but those who are limited by their struggles, can?t fall into the category of being deemed less human since it is not of their own will and choice.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work