PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Drilling Controversy ap art history homework help: ap art history homework help
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Drilling Controversy
The concern of whether to drill oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been a continuous controversial political debate in the United States of America since 1977. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is among the largest national wildlife refuge situated in the Northeastern part of Alaska, United States. President Theodore Roosevelt established it in 1903, with the primary goal of protecting the boundless regions of wildlife and wetlands in Alaska. The area has extensive coverage totaling 19,286,722 acres in the North Slope area in Alaska (Kotchen & Burger, 2007). The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the habitat for diverse species of animals and plants. Some of them are endangered species. The controversies of whether to drill oil in this region began in 1977 (Kotchen & Burger, 2007). This controversy has been witnessed by the international oiling corporations and certain political campaigners (the republicans) who support the drilling. Contrarily, the inhabitants of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have been seriously opposing the move. By drilling oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the environment will be subjected to further damage such as loss of nature and biodiversity.
The opponents of the drilling project history assignment writing help
The opponents of the drilling project have provided various reasons. The Northeastern area of Alaska is a special environment set aside to protect nature that also helps in research. The region is greatly rich in biodiversity. The indigenous people of this region will also be exposed to more risks due to the drilling. Drilling of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will result in loss of nature, leading to loss of biodiversity, destruction of the environment, and loss of the indigenous people (Kotchen & Burger, 2007). Drilling of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will lead to irreversible damages to this region. It will cause of loss of biodiversity without yielding any significant outcome on U.S. energy security. Besides, the destruction of biodiversity will also destroy the natural habitats for wildlife. This will lead to the death or relocation of the animals (Jorgenson et al., 2018). The drilling will also lead to massive destruction of plants to create space for the oiling drilling corporations.
In addition, the drilling machines will release harmful emissions, which will threaten the life of endangered species of wildlife in the area. Former President Barack Obama opposed the idea to drill oil in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it will only bring forth irreversible destruction. Even if the drilling is conducted, it will not create oil supplies that would have a significance in the global market supplies. Most of the U.S. environmentalists and the congressional democrats opposed the drilling idea because it would destroy the environment to give room for the construction of pipeline roads and other facilities (Jorgenson et al., 2018). The drilling will also bring emission of gases and oil spills, thereby leading to environmental pollution (Potter, 2019). Furthermore, the oil rigs would result in more environmental risks such as the destruction of marine life. The oil spills will destroy the marine animals and their entire habitat (Schlosser, 2006). The greenhouse gases released as a result of the drilling will result in climate change. This would cause the melting of ice that would lead to flooding in the region.
The proponents of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife history essay help: history essay help
The proponents of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge argue that it should not be stopped merely because it will lead to global warming. They rely on the scientific knowledge that the Arctic undergoes warming twice as quickly as other regions of the world. This causes melting of the land and sea life and change of currents, which occurs even in the absence of oil drilling. They also say that the increase in temperature has been brought about by burning fossil fuels but not due to oil drilling. Therefore, oil drilling will not bring impacts on climate change (Schlosser, 2006). Drilling should also be carried out in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it will result in developments such as infrastructural development. This is because oil drilling will result in establishing airports and high-quality roads network in the region to help in easy transportation of the product (Kotchen & Burger, 2007). More facilities will also be established to bring social benefits to the natives of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Drilling oil in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will be useful in boosting the energy security of the United States. Based on the United States Geological Survey, the region contains 4.3 to 11.8 billion barrels of oil that can be recovered. This will improve the country’s energy security. The proponent’s focus is geared towards the economic value of oil drilling. They ignore the many negative impacts associated with the drilling of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
As this issue continues to attract further debates, people should drift away from the focus of drilling or not drill. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been in existence for a very long time now, and it has provided other benefits. I would recommend that the region be conserved for its uses rather than engage in its destruction. The best course of action here would be for the federal government to look deeply into the key issues from both sides of the debate. The reasons for drilling versus not drilling should be weighed to see which ones would benefit the United States. It is better to construct a region than destroy it, yet it may not yield more transformation to the economic sector.
The Belt and Road Initiative in Malaysia help with history assignment
The belt and road initiative, also referred to as the New Silk Road initiative, is just not a historical reference to Marco Polo’s trading thought but also a geopolitical brainchild for the Chinese to implement their order – geographically, geopolitically, commercially, and ultimately, perhaps militarily, “Körber Foundation’s Foreign Relations Forum, Sigmar Gabriel, then German Minister Of foreign affairs, 5 December 2017”. Xi Jinping, president of China and Secretary-General of the Communist Party of China, four years before Gabriel’s speech in 2013 September, announced the preparation of a cooperative ground-based Silk Road Economic belt by the People’s Republic of China. Several months later, he announced a Maritime Silk Road in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta. Both initiatives are designed to boost economic growth and a win-win collaboration and improve communication between participating countries. China’s political leaders avoid using geo-strategic and geopolitical terminologies and instead concentrate on the belt and road initiative’s reciprocal economic advantages.