ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) is the northeast region of Alaska, one of the most remote and undisturbed areas on the continent. The oil that is being extracted is not the "low-hanging fruit" that we have in the gulf or other areas. It is similar to shale oil in that it requires much more energy input for extraction and refinement into a form that can be readily used as a fuel source. Like hydraulic fracturing (fracking), the potential environmental damage is more significant as well. I was lucky enough to travel through NW Canada and Alaska last year and see how beautiful and untouched the region south of ANWAR is. I can not imagine a justification to do more damage to the area in an effort to feed the ever-increasing demand for petroleum.
The numerous difficulties in extracting and transporting the crude oil from ANWAR is only the first of many issues in the face of justifying the effort. The fault is not on those willing to drill, but on those willing to consume the resource. If there is reduced demand, production will not need to increase to meet those needs. As long as consumers can avoid thinking of the damage done, creating a disconnect between the process and the end result at the fuel pump simply propagates the problem.
Study: ANWR oil would have little impact - US news - Environment ...
Or maybe we should just buy into the hype and fear? Is the damage to the environment, even one that most people will never see, worth reducing the price of fuel, just so that we don't have to kick the habit quite yet? What happens when there is no oil reserve left, but we're still addicted to the crude?
It is up to consumers to make a change, not the legislature. By allowing our representatives to continue to work for big business agendas instead of the needs of the People. As long as our government is bought and paid for by Big Oil, we can expect our natural preserved lands to be violated and sacrificed to the almighty dollar.
No comments:
Post a Comment