Team Proposal
(Click
here for Word document)
Summaries of Main Arguments
(Click
here to see a basic breakdown of each group's views on certain
key topics)
Summaries of Individual Research Topics
(Click on topic to
see all research available)
[Native
Americans] [Alaskan Citizens] [Alaskan
Corporations] [Alaskan Environmentalists]
Native
Americans:
There are two different
groups of Native Alaskans in ANWR, each with its own motives
and concerns.
Gwich’in Perspective:
A pipeline through 1002 area
would disturb calving caribou and deter them from feeding
off the coastal plain, which is their main source of nourishment
and ideal calving ground.
Since the Gwich’in survive off the caribou, they view
any tampering with the north slope “sacred ground”
as a threat to their subsistence.
Inupiat of Kaktovik Perspective:
The Inupiat primarily subsist off marine mammals
and fish, and use land mammals and fowl to supplement their
subsistence. While the Inupiat are concerned with the caribou,
their subsistence strategy will not be annihilated by adverse
affect to the Porcupine Caribou herd as their main form of
subsistence is bowhead whales. Instead, the Inupiat Eskimos
are in dire need of jobs due to the high cost of living and
high unemployment rates. Drilling would be the mechanism to
revitalize their economy, and they embrace it as long as the
drilling is offshore.
Here is a broader scope of my research and
sources:
Native
Alaskan Perspectives
[top]
Alaskan
Citizens:
My role in Team 10 is to find the
average Alaskan citizen's view and opinion on Artic National
Wildlife Refuge drilling.
So far I have found that:
1) Alaskans get money from oil revenues. This can be a large
incentive for them to be pro-drilling because they their economy
currently is not sufficient.
2) Some Alaskans have expressed sentiment that they feel they
should have the right to do what they want to with their land
and not be stopped by environmentalists in the States that
don't even live in Alaska.
I will continue to find:
1) Percentages of Pro and Anti Drilling of Alaskan
Citizens.
2) Which reasons among Alaskan citizens have greater weight.
[top]
Alaskan
Corporations:
I have been looking almost exclusively on
how the corporations and the government view drilling for
oil in this region. They both believe that the potential costs
towards the environment and natural order of life in this
region, is outweighed by the fact that the oil is in demand
currently, and this reserve will be able to alliviate the
need somewhat for at least ten years and even projected to
as much as twenty to thirty years in the future. The potential
risks to the environment have also lessoned, due to new cleaning
techniques and prevention measure.
I believe that the corporations and the government
viewpoints that I have looked at so far, have been sincere
to what they believe, but also contain much of what they want
to listen to. I cannot tell if the numbers that they are giving
me are the ones that are completely accurate to the fact that
I would be able to tell both where both sides of the argument
are coming from. I know that statistics given by a certain
group will have a more positive outlook on the result that
that group wants you to reach. I do not know to what extent
these groups go into to get this end result. This is something
that I am interested in looking into more, but am not sure
if this subject pertains to the group so much. I am looking
more into what other views are out there that pertain to how
the government and the corporations interact with each other
with prospects of oil, and how their relationship changes
or stays the same when drilling begins.
[top]
Alaskan
Environmentalists:
[Summary/Conclusions][Research]
[Goals] [Reflection]
Summary/Conclusions
Two page summary of findings
and conclusions about the impact of oil drilling on Alaskan
environmentalists is now available.
Alaskan
Environmentalists (.doc)
Research
HEART OF ARGUMENT: "You
can't have development and wilderness—it's either one
or the other. No matter how well done, oil development will
industrialize a unique, wild area that is the biological heart
of the Refuge."
The goals of these groups include
continued protection of the natural resources in the refuge,
and none of them advocate allowing any amount of drilling.
The specific actions that they suggest individuals take vary
a little, but most suggest writing letters to representatives
in Washington, DC. There exists a contrast in the support
for dilling between Americans in general and Alaskans specifically,
with the state's citizens being supportive of drilling while
the nation's citizens are generally not. Some green groups
are allying themselves with churches which gives them much
greater clout on Capitol Hill. Since 1992, the environmental
groups have become more radical in nature because of their
new reliance on foundations for monetary support.
-Interesting arguments have
been made about the way environmentalists see places like
refuges and reserves since they are public lands.
-There are many counterpoints
and critiques that the environmentalists have devised to combat
big corporations' positions.
-The most important thing I
have discovered is that any amount of drilling will lead to
immediate litigation by the environmental groups which will
be both costly and time-consuming. This issue will not be
easily dropped.
CLICK
HERE FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION.
Goals
I want to make sure other groups understand
that the Alaskan environmentalists are not willing to compromise
on the issue of drilling in ANWR. The litigation that will
inevitably be a result of such steadfastness must be factored
into the cost-benefit analysis, as both a monetary and time
cost. Also, I want to see what the other groups find as arguments
fro drilling and sort out which reports, the pro-drilling
or pro-environmental reports, are more factual (if either
is).
Reflection
As the research phase of this
project comes to a close, I have come to a better conclusion
about what exactly environmentalists advocate and support.
More importantly, I have determined what their impact will
be if drilling is allowed in ANWR. I hope that I can contribute
this information to our group and Mission so that this position
will be seen in the final presentation.
The topic I chose to research
was slightly narrower than I expected. Still, I have managed
to research, evaluate, and present this information in a concise
and informative way. I feel that I have captured the environmentalists'
position and hope that I can integrate that into the final
Mission presentation, even if it is only a small portion of
the entire proposal.
[top]
|