Humans cannot exploit the natural pristine beauty and endanger the ecosystems of the Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge. To choose to drill in such a beautiful area and mar the landscape of one of the last places not affected by man is just not responsible. The decision to drill in ANWR will have negative moral, ecological and financial ramifications.

 

As human beings, we have a duty to our planet to protect Earth’s habitats and species. The reason ANWR was established was to do just that: to protect 19 million acres of Alaskan land. Every place in America is already altered by human activities. Forests have been clear-cut, leaving organisms that depend on forest ecosystems to find another place to live; mountain tops have been blasted away to make way for mining; our water resources, our lakes, rivers and oceans have been stripped of their dignity and have been a surrogate sewer for hazardous wastes. It is time to see the full picture; this refuge has a purpose. It is simply meant to preserve, to keep safe the natural landscapes of the Arctic. Too many other places have been disrupted permanently. Humans have been vested with a moral responsibility to do the right thing. Is drilling holes, polluting water and driving species from their homes moral? No, just as throwing radioactive waste into the watershed is morally wrong. In addition, a price cannot be placed on beauty, especially natural beauty. In the words of Lowell Sumner, “[The Refuge] symbolizes freedom ... freedom to continue, unhindered and forever if we are willing, the particular story of Planet Earth unfolding here ... where its native creatures can still have freedom to pursue their future, so distant, mysterious ... ” Choosing to save this habitat is choosing to protect the planet’s future generations.

 

The ecological factors have to be taken into account when looking at the situation in ANWR. Drilling there will disrupt all of the ecosystems within the 19 million acres of the refuge. Permanent roads would upset the migratory paths of various species such as polar bears and musk oxen. There is also the inherent risk of oil spills which have occurred in the past, and which have despoiled the water resources for seals and fish species that live there. If these species cannot live in the contaminated waters, other higher trophic level consumers will suffer if they cannot find their prey. There would be a dangerous domino effect; first the environment would suffer, then the species would die off and finally the whole ecosystem would collapse. In addition to the short term consequences, the long term consequences would be disastrous. By tapping into oil reserves, purifying the oil to be used as petroleum for gasoline, the American addiction to oil would increase. Thus, there would be more pollution, and more greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide would be emitted from vehicles using the petroleum. This would mean an increase in contributions to global climate change, which would have hundreds of ramifications in itself. By not drilling, a fragile ecosystem would be safe from pollution and permanent damage.

 

Finally, drilling in ANWR would not ease financial burdens that the U.S. faces today. First, a recent study shows that there is a mere five percent chance of finding 9.4 billion barrels of oil underneath the refuge. If the Big Oil companies were to drill, the amount of oil that would be extracted would barely last for two years because the demand is too high. In addition, it would take 10 years for the oil to reach a maximum amount in American markets and the oil would only produce three percent of America’s daily consumption. Oil from ANWR would lower gas prices by a mere four cents per gallon in 20 years. There would also be a need for funding for the pipeline that would transport the oil as well as refineries for the crude oil. This pipeline would be 74 miles from the Alaskan pipeline which is damaged because of the melting permafrost in the Arctic. Chances are this new pipeline would succumb to the effects of melting permafrost also, and more funding would be needed to mend the 800-mile long pipeline. Why invest millions of dollars in a poorly planned project when that money can be used to galvanize new technology for green alternative energy such as wind, solar and hydrogen power? The energy that would be invested in this project would cost the U.S. millions of dollars, adding to the already high deficit. Truly, it is not a laughing joke when someone says “Think Green.”

 

A new outlook needs to cross the minds and hearts of Americans as they weigh the option of drilling for oil in ANWR. This refuge has been a safe haven for many species that are already endangered by human activities. This refuge stands for the American commitment to uphold certain values and morals that appear to be vanishing rapidly as economic motives drive Americans each day. Financially, morally and ecologically, drilling in ANWR would have no benefits; rather, the effects of drilling would be harmful. This plan to ruin a pristine ecosystem would jeopardize the future for a healthier economy and a greener Earth.