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

Authors Avatar

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. Both arguments, however, have comparable perspectives on this issue. "Both views agree that nature has a value; however, they disagree on the form that value" (118).

Join now!

        Dwight R. Lee’s argument primarily centers on the Audubon Society, which owns the Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary, and focuses into their strategy, which is to help others promote their business, which in turn promote their own business. The Audubon Society ”has serviced to reaffirm and promote those values in a way that helps others, many of whom have different values, achieve their own purposes.” (Lee, 122) The argument also offers sufficient and persuasive claims on the benefits of ANWR drilling, such as its ability to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign resources, how most of the infrastructure needed for transporting oil from ...

This is a preview of the whole essay