Issue 8: Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be Opened to Oil Drilling?

Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be Opened to Oil Drilling?

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?

Issue Ten: Will Hydrogen End Our Fossil Fuel Addiction?

“Will Hydrogen End Our Fossil Fuel Addiction?”

Authors: David L. Bodde and Michael Behar

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. distributed production – the product is produced at the location in which it is distributed.

b. carbon sequestration – the process of removing carbon from the atmosphere.

c. effluent – pollution

d. nascent – coming or having come recently into existence.

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.

The positive argument, by David Bodde, is that a hydrogen-based society is waiting in the wings, and that the only problem will be in the transition. He says that the “present competes against the future” in that the implementation of any new energy technology has always been stagnated by what we are accustomed to. Another significant problem posed for hydrogen fueled vehicles is that the supply-demand chain would have to be immediately developed. This is not very likely in regards to any market. Suppliers need investors, who will only invest if there is large demand. Consumers will not purchase such technology if they cannot fuel up at convenient locations. Therein lies the problem.

To overcome this, the National Academy of Sciences came up with a plan to offer hydrogen fuel through distributed production. The negatives of such production are that the fuel would initially be two to five times the cost of regular gasoline and that, for the beginning of such development, carbon would be released during production.

Of course, everything needs to be paid for. Distributed production of hydrogen could be paid for through subsidizing the cost of the production or by raising the cost of the competition (gasoline, diesel).

He also discussed the problem of leaking fuel. One alternative to this could be by generating the fuel in the vehicle, like Daimler-Chrysler demonstrated with their sodium borohydride system.

The benefits of hydrogen fuel are probably already known to the reader, but here’s a list:

Decreased dependence upon oil leads to increased security for the U.S.

Decreased dependence upon any fossil fuels leads to a better environment state.

Use of hydrogen in place of oil removes the fear of shortages.

Decreased competition with other nations for oil, which implies a lower cost, better foreign relations, as hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

The negative argument, by Michael Behar, states that the transition is not only technological but also political and financial. He also says that the chances of getting there are very slim.

Behar argues that while hydrogen is abundant, it’s not so abundant here on Earth. We would have to use measures to extract it. And these measures are energy-costly. This energy that it takes to extract hydrogen is most likely not going to be environmentally friendly. While the cars and houses will not be emitting greenhouse gases, the power plants will still be.

U.S. water consumption would also increase by 10%, as the water needed for the electrolysis would require 4.2 trillion gallons of water a year. Researchers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory figure that our atmospheric hydrogen would increase four to eight times because of hydrogen leaks. Hydrogen is a gas and can leak through the tiniest of holes. Great efforts will have to be made in order to prevent leaking from consumer products. As we don’t get our cars checked too often, this is something that would have to be very strong in the beginning, with little chance for problems. These results are contested, however, and considered to be too large of an estimate. Behar states that the result of any increase in hydrogen in our atmosphere would result in more cloud cover, which could accelerate global warming.

Behar doesn’t believe that the U.S. is even committed to hydrogen technology, as we’re “only” spending $1.2 billion on it. By comparison, $1.5 billion is being spent on “healthy marriages” and $3.9 billion for a month in Iraq. Also, the massive effort it would take to convert our society to a hydrogen based one, he argues, is not realistic.

Regardless of whether or not we use hydrogen or nuclear power or an unforeseen alternative energy source, we need to make changes now. There is no debate over that. Greenhouse gases are piling up and the planet is warming up. If we do not make changes now to save our climate and our planet, we could be facing huge changes or extinction.

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.

I am amazed that statistics can be twisted to fit agendas. My jaw dropped when I read about how we’re “only” spending $1.2 billion on researching hydrogen fuel. That’s a very significant amount of money. He compared that sum to the cost of the war in Iraq, so of course it’s going to look low.

Hydrogen leaks never occurred to me. But I had heard about how much more fuel mileage we would get on hydrogen than we presently have on gasoline. Behar insists it is not true with hydrogen as a gas, but it would be possible if we used liquid hydrogen. Of course, this requires a temperature of -253 degrees Celsius. That would only be possible for our space missions.

I was aware of hydrolysis, the process in which hydrogen is split from water molecules using water. However, I was not aware of extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels. If we used this method, wouldn’t this just prolong the rape of our planet?

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

I am excited about hydrogen fuel and think it’s going to revolutionize our society. I do not like the idea of the oil giants controlling hydrogen, but in reality, they are the only ones who have the financial capability of researching and implementing such a change. But, wouldn’t it be great if we would never have to fill up? If the process could occur in our cars, we’d only have to get some water every month, instead of every week! How spectacular would that be?

Issue One: Precautionary Principle

“Is the Precautionary Principle a Sound Basis for International Policy?”

Authors: Nancy Myers and John D. Graham

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. precautionary principle – “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of the activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.” p. 12

b. risk management – a concept that covers many disciplines and is basically the process of knowing what the risk is and how to best compensate in case that risk occurs.

c. cost-benefit analysis – a process of analyzing the costs and the benefits of a situation or product and deciding if the benefit is substantial enough to bear the costs.

d. draconian interpretation – a very severe interpretation.

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.

We have, in the past, just been reactionary to environmental problems. In this manner, it is the responsibility of the citizens to find the cause so the effect can be stopped. The precautionary principle was first initiated in Germany in the 1970s. It requires the responsibility of the company to first prove the safety of their chemicals, processes, etc. Internationally, it has been widely accepted. And many countries include it in their legislation.

The precautionary principle is a godsend for environmentalists because it allows communities to block corporations from starting the practice in question even when scientifically, the result is uncertain.

The basic argument comes down to two opposing points:

- If suspicion exists, caution is required; the environment is not to be risked.

- No action is needed until the scientific evidence is convincing. And even then, the value of the service should be weighed against the harm done to the environment.

So is the environment expendable? Would progress stop if we protected the environment? Consenters say yes, that technology innovations have always had some element of risk to them, whether it is risk to the public, the environment, or both. To implement the precautionary principle is to bring our progress to a screeching halt.

Mr. Graham, the author of the opposing side and a government employee through the Office of Management and Budget, argues that the United States government does not believe the Precautionary Principle exists. It is too ambiguous to be considered a law. He uses Reverend Thomas Malthus’s theory as one of his examples.

As you might recall, Rev. Malthus used mathematics to realize that, if the population grew exponentially, the human race would run out of food and living standards would become substandard. Now, that didn’t happen because of technological innovations that allowed us to produce more food and shelter more people.

But Mr. Graham uses it to his advantage as an example of a prediction of doom, based in science that never occurred. He argues that there are many ‘scares’ that are scientifically, though most are incorrect science, based. To prevent the progress of our nation because of a “chance” of something happening based on science that is questionable, or because of a perceived risk, is bad for the economy, nation, and progress.

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.

While reading the affirmative argument, I was reminded of the movie Erin Brockovich, and thinking how if the citizens of that town could have used the Precautionary Principle to prevent the practices of the company, they would have never suffered so many health ailments. It seems like a good idea, but the implementation of the Precautionary Principle seems to be vague. It allows citizens legal rights to stop or delay a business for fear of environmental or health risk. A great part of the Precautionary Principle is that it requires the business in question to defend itself, not as it normally is, where the citizens had to provide the proof. The business is on the defensive instead of the citizens, in other words.

Ms. Meyes, the author of the affirmative, provided several human disease examples that seem to be increasing problems we are facing. But when I read this list, I thought that (1) most of the diseases were unknown years back (ADHD, Alzheimer’s), (2) cancer screenings are more capable now, and (3) our diets have a greater effect on health than the environment but that is not mentioned. Is it not possible that genetic disorders, mental disorders, behavioral disorders, and cancer existed in the same capacity years ago, but doctors were unable to test for such things or were unaware these things existed? She admitted that other factors could have played a role, but seemed to jump to the conclusion that these were more environmentally influenced.

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

I agree that companies and governments have too often turned a blind eye to the environment and the health of the general population when their bottom line is at stake. And a change such as the Precautionary Principle would force them to answer earlier rather than later, for any risk involved.

However, the Precautionary Principle is too loose in its interpretation and implementation. Theoretically everything could be questioned and blocked from occurring. This is bad for progress and business. There has to be a line.

The main question, then, is: where’s the line? The European Commission issued their line, which I agree with, in their February 2000 Communication. Here it is:

1. Precaution is a necessary and useful concept but it is subjective and susceptible to abuse by policymakers for trade purposes.

2. Scientific and procedural safeguards need to be applied to risk management decisions based on precaution.

3. Adoption of precautionary measures should be preceded by objective scientific evaluations, including risk assessment and benefit-cost analysis of alternative measures.

4. There are a board range of precautionary measures, including bans, product restrictions, education, warning labels, and market-based approached. Even targeted research programs to better understand a hazard are a precautionary measure.

5. Opportunities for public participation – to discuss efficiency, fairness and other public values – are critical to sound risk management. (p. 17)