We Should Allow Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)

Over the last thirty years the join States has been faced with the problem of dependence on foreign countries for anoint and the wet control that these exercise on the energy policies and economics of America. Many of these instances embarrass the oil embargos of the 1970s, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. Since the 1970s, one solution offered to compact our grounds dependence on foreign countries for oil has been opening up oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Proponents say that drilling in ANWR would make the united States more self-sufficient in the area of energy, firearm at the same time not doing excessive damage to the surround of the area. Opponents of drilling in ANWR cite the environmental problems of off-shore drilling and maintain that this region should be left alone and allowed to stand as an environmental wonder. presumption that some environmental groups do not mind allowing technology to intrude on the environment when it profits them and given the threats of global terror and the ever-increasing dependence our nation has on foreign oil, I believe it is in the best interests of the United States to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. in the first place stating both sides of the argument, I would like to make two observations that I implant interesting while researching from the book, Taking Sides. The first thing that I erect interesting was that in an environmental science class and in an environmental science textbook, the two articles used to present the pros and cons of opening up oil drilling in ANWR were not written by environmentalists or scientists or even oil technology experts, but rather by an economist, a physicist and a lawyer. The second thing that ran through my head as I was reading both articles was the time at which both were written. ?To Drill or Not to Drill Let the Environmentalist Decide,? wri tten by Dwight R. Lee, a professor of economics, and ?Fools Gold in Alaska,? written by physicist Amory B. Lovins and lawyer L. huntsman Lovins, were both written in the months prior to the September eleventh terrorist attacks in the United States and the subsequent United States invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq. As I read both articles, especially that of the Lovins, which opposes oil drilling in ANWR, I could not help but wonder if ... ... we may see a serious act in the near future to start the bidding of drilling. With a solid combination and profitability factor the U.S. could prevent the acclivity gasoline prices. We need to however, continue our search for other alternatives do to our bound resource of oil. For this reason, I am in favor of opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and also the exploration of alternative fuel sources, as well as ways to continue fuel. This combination should provide the United States with an energy policy that is both financially stable and environmentally sound. Works CitedCunningham, William P. Cunningham, Mary Ann and Saigo, Barbara. Environmental Science, A world(prenominal) Concern. McGraw-Hill. New York, NY. 2005.Easton, Thomas A. and Goldfarb, Theordore D. Taking Sides. McGraw-Hill/Dushkin. Guilford, Connecticut. 2004.Hayek, F.A. Individualism and Economic Order. The University of moolah Press. Chicago and London. 1948.Lee, Dwight R. ?To Drill or Not to Drill Let the Environmentalists Decide.? The Independent Review. rowlock 2001.Lovins, Amory B and Lovins, L. Hunter. ?Fools Gold in Alaska.? Foreign Affairs. July/August 2001.