Congress should allow oil drilling in the arctic.
This statement establishes a disagreement between two parties; those who believe oil should be sought in the arctic and those who do not. One party asserts that there is an abundance of oil in the arctic that is to be drilled for. The other party argues that the value of the environment outweighs the value of oil.
Nicholas D. Kristoph writes in The New York Times that, "Both the oil industry and environmentalists exaggerate their cases." I assumed earlier that there was a large amount of oil to be drilled, and I'm sure that there is, but one issue that many people have is the size of the great abundance of oil. Oil companies say that there is a potential for more than 20 years of oil to be drilled in the arctic while environmentalists speak of a smaller six-month supply. Both of these numbers are clearly biased estimates. The US runs mostly on oil and it would lower gas prices and be overall beneficial to our economy. The drilling would take place in less than 10 percent of the entire refuge. Of the entire refuge the drilling scene is the least likeable and scenic made up mostly of patchy marsh areas. Many people consider the coastline area of the tundra to be a wasteland to begin with. Although it is still going to potentially ruin a part of nature it is not pillaging the purple mountains majesty or discoloring the amber waves of grain. The oil drilling would probably also create many jobs for locals who are suffering from poverty. .
On the other hand, the arctic is a sanctuary of animal and natural activity. To begin drilling would mean transporting equipment there and setting up stations and in the end it would be a small town that would take away from the natural beauty of the area. Also in our modern age we are starting to slowly move away from using only oil as a means of energy. Some people think that getting, as much oil as we can is not necessary.