Authors: Dwight R. Lee and Jeff Bingaman
1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.
a. preservationist – a person who believes that nature should be left alone because its value lies in its existence.
b. conservationist – a person who believes that nature should be developed and that its value lies in what value humans can get from it.
c. NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires any government agency that is planning an action to provide an environmental impact statement.
d. Attwater’s prairie chicken - Tympanuchus cupido; a chicken native to Texas prairie lands, endangered, loss of habitat due to land development.
2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.
Dwight R. Lee argues that while nature should be preserved, one should also weigh the benefits of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He uses an example of the Audubon Society, which argue against drilling in Alaska, when they chose to allow drilling on their own land for a cool $25 million. He points out that the society weighed the hefty benefit with the risk and concluded the benefit outweighed the risk. Similarly, he is arguing we consider the benefits to drilling in Alaska and weigh them ourselves in the risks. Everyone will have a different opinion, because the risk, in this case, is purely subjective. What it comes down to is how much value you place on the environment and whether or not you will own the benefits.
Lee discusses the precautions the oil company would take; having learned a lot from the environmentally and public image disaster of Prudhoe Bay.
He then performs an analogous cost-benefit analysis of the lives of American soldiers versus the lives of wildlife animals. There is no mistaking that the American presence in the Middle East has always been and is now, oil motivated. Most of our energy comes from that area, and we are going to protect it. Some have died. So, we have lost American lives because of protecting our oil interests; is it not better to instead lose animal life for that same oil instead? This is assuming, of course, that the drilling company makes a mistake and does end up killing some animals. The risk to them is not evident.
The opposing viewpoint, by Senator Bingaman, makes claims that even if we were to drill in Alaska, it would benefit us little. He states that nothing will come of the preserve for ten years, and then would peak in production in twenty-four years, producing a 4% of our need. He argues instead that we should look to alternative energy resources.
He believes that if drilling must ultimately occur, then the stipulations must be: (1) development must be accordance with the existing laws, (2) 50% of the profit would go to the Treasury, and (3) the oil is used in the United States.
3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.
How convenient it is, that an environmental society could lease out its own land to drilling companies for some cash with which they can save other pieces of land from the same state!
Lee’s argument completely convinced me. If you don’t own the benefit, what good is it to you? But I also noticed how he skipped over the environmental impact quite quickly. His opinion is that our need is greater than the value of that land and its inhabitants. So, to him, if something dies as a result of the drilling, the cost was and is worth it.
4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.
I’m not very convinced that the drilling company would be perfect. But I am thinking about his analogy to our troop’s deaths because of the need for oil. I would rather a caribou die than a human. But isn’t there a better way? Why oil? Why not a different type of energy? Where is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment