David Hillier
0719575
Blog Assignment 3
An environmental debate has been going on for decades concerning oil reserves. In particular, should the reserves beneath the surface of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) be exploited or not? In This Drill Won’t Cause a Spill: Oil Drilling in The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge author Kathryn Johnson makes arguments in favour of drilling that I will analyze and evaluate.
The most major concern I have with Johnson’s arguments is her inability to see the “big picture” perspective. Johnson (2010) makes numerous statements about the lack of environmental impact, “…drilling will not negatively affect the environment because the land will be protected… and it will leave a small environmental footprint.” Regardless of how the oil is attained, besides how stringent the reclamation laws are, oil is still being acquired to be burned. Perhaps, unbeknownst to Johnson, environmentalists don’t actually care about the Alaskan wilderness and are only concerned with reducing the World’s dependency on oil. This would make her argument rather irrelevant. Of course, this is a hypothetical scenario as environmentalists are concerned with both, but she ignores the underlying principle that the environmental footprint created as the oil is attained will be gigantic. We must consider that one of the most major ‘big picture’ environmental concerns is to reduce dependency on petroleum products; Johnson’s arguments ignore and violate this goal. She simply does not address this aspect.
This form of ignorance is furthered with lack of knowledge. “There is also a vision of ANWR being a rugged, mountainous, pristine area. The (prospective area in question) doesn’t fit that description at all. It is miles and miles of tundra, barren, no trees, and most of the year covered with snow,” (Johnson, 2010). Clearly this is a very uninformed statement. Johnson passes off the tundra as unimportant and feels it can therefore be plundered for its resources. It is arrogance of this kind that perpetuates environmental issues. Johnson provides no evidence or proof as to why the tundra is so disposable. The tundra is a vital biome of our planet that needs to be protected and is certainly not devoid of life. For example, its importance in the carbon balance is invaluable, “The rain forest is often called the earth's lungs because (it) is responsible for converting a lot of the world's carbon dioxide into oxygen. A similar claim can be made about the tundra: It is the Earth's carbon sink. Because a lot of otherwise fertile land is permafrost, it contains a lot of carbon that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere,” (Pot, 2009). Now, this is simply one importance of the tundra. An entire separate volume could be written describing its significance, but given Johnson’s comments on the necessity of trees to indicate value, I deemed this excerpt appropriate. Johnson’s comment shows a very weak point in her piece. In order to create a solid argument, it is important to thoroughly understand the topic you are addressing.
Another way of producing a solid argument is to consider the counter arguments of the opposition. Johnson actually did a good job of this in some areas, but some other areas were sadly lacking. Throughout the piece, Johnson discusses how drilling and the oil industry in ANWR could create jobs, benefit the economy, and how all of this would not negatively impact taxpayers. Even if these facts are accurate, Johnson fails to mention the alternatives to drilling. By alternatives I of course mean solar, wind or even nuclear energy. Obviously, Johnson would not support these as reasonable alternatives, but she could at least say why they aren’t viable choices. One must evaluate the objections and counter-arguments and say why they are unacceptable; she needs to clearly state why her opinion is the only reasonable one. In order to convince the reader, show them exactly what the opposition would counter with and then say why it is unrealistic. Johnson still has questions to answer. There should be no room to say ‘what if…?’ or ‘what about…?’.
That being said, strong arguments were made in the instances where Johnson did consider the opinions of the opposition. Environmentalists have shown concerns about the presence of caribou in ANWR and they feel the oil industry could be detrimental to them. Johnson handles this very well, “… (the) herd migrates up North in March, in May the pregnant females can be seen on the slope, in late May is calving season in the North, and in late July the herd has moved off the slope and into other areas. Since the Caribou are only in the Refuge during the winter, drilling can be done only in the winter to limit the affect on the caribou during the summer,” (Johnson, 2010). Johnson makes a strong argument here as she points out the flaws in the opposition’s argument, she then proceeds to make a compromise to appease their concerns. She says the caribou are actually not in ANWR all year-round, so with that, drilling will only occur during times which limit the impact on them. This is a strong strategy to utilize.
I don’t personally agree with this view point, as with most of Johnson’s opinions, but analyzing the viewpoints of those you contend with is the best way to strengthen, test and affirm your own opinions.
Pot, Justin H. (23 August, 2009). Why is the tundra so important?
http://www.ehow.com/about_5329435_tundra-important.html#ixzz152TMqO9v
(retrieved November 9, 2010).
Johnson, Kathryn. (4 November, 2010). Research Draft 1: This drill won’t cause a spill; oil
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
(retrieved November 9, 2010).
No comments:
Post a Comment