The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a 19-million-acre national wildlife refuge in northern Alaska. The refuge includes a large variety of species of plants and animals, such as polar bears, grizzly bears, black bears, moose, caribou, wolves, eagles, lynx, wolverine, marten, beaver and migratory birds, which rely on the refuge. In August 2020 the Trump administration approved program to auction oil leases that would enable oil companies to drill for oil within the refuge. Environmentalists argue that oil development threatens wildlife and is likely to worsen climate change. Proponents argue that drilling would be limited to the coastal ranges and would make the U.S. more energy independent.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
@8TR785RIndependent4yrs4Y
Let the people of Alaska decide.
@9W6T4LVIndependent7mos7MO
This should be a state's rights issue and be determined by the voters of Alaska per the 10th amendment.
@9VWFHXLIndependent7mos7MO
If absolutely necessary, should we add more energy on it, but should start to invest in smart and actual safe renewable sources
@9TVQX2WIndependent8mos8MO
No, its a temporary solution. Once the oil runs out of Alaska, how will we maintain energy independence then? If Energy independence is a good goal, we need to strive for a long-term, permanent plan.
@9RB9Q4XIndependent10mos10MO
No, not until we have depleted all oil reserves. And increase alternative energy subsidies to minimize our dependence on fossil fuels
@9PYK2HHIndependent11mos11MO
Yes, as long as nature reintroduction is done. Replace what’s missing and leave it better than it was when done.
@9KJRV9FIndependent 1yr1Y
Yes, but more money needs to be allocated by oil companies towards safer practices and technologies that are less environmentally disruptive.
@7YNGP9TIndependent 1yr1Y
Yes, but with very strict environmental regulations and after we have depleted all other oil reserves
@9GRCVCTIndependent2yrs2Y
No, I feel like we will find a suitable alternative before this is needed and the last thing is ruin the environment there from fracking unless it's our VERY last reserve but even then with strict regulations.
@9FHGG8GIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes, but slowly intergrate into other forms of energy.
@BustyEagle27Independent 2yrs2Y
Let the state of Alaska decide
@9D8BJFQIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes. But only after exhausting all other alternative options and reducing our dependency on fossil fuels as much as possible.
@9D5NMNWIndependent 2yrs2Y
No, we need to switch to nuclear power. It's cheaper cleaner and safe, while also being independent from reliance on other nations goods.
@9D4XGQJIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes, and research other energy sources to meet our energy needs.
@8RZ9YSKIndependent4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if all Americans receive a dividend from the profits
@8PFVRGJIndependent4yrs4Y
Yes but done with extreme amounts of care
@9CRZVKLIndependent2yrs2Y
No, we should focus on alternative energies like nuclear, hydroelectric, and natural gas
@9BQ4W5YIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes, but only with strict environmental regulations and the consent of local residents
@9BP2MKTIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes because the people who live there are okay with it and use the money to live
@9BNBR48Independent2yrs2Y
No, we need nuclear energy.
@9BMN2BTIndependent2yrs2Y
Not very informed on this topic
@943NNLQIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes and no hood oil but not good for the wildlife
@93S4NDQIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes, but with strict environmental regulations and increase tax incentives for alternative energy development
@93P8PTCIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes. But only if there are extremely strict fines and cleanup procedures agreed on by all parties beforehand. This should not be a long term solution either.
@93K7TKKIndependent3yrs3Y
Let the people vote on to, or not, it's their place of home.
@92NRBCKIndependent3yrs3Y
Don’t know enough about this.
@92MCTH7Independent3yrs3Y
We ought to continue providing oil for the people of the USA, and develop alternative energy sources to lower the need of oil as a primary energy source.
@92J5TNRIndependent3yrs3Y
Most definitely not because that puts the wildlife in huge danger.
@925FNWQIndependent3yrs3Y
Not informed enough to build an opinion
@925DZXKIndependent3yrs3Y
No, we should increase our development of nuclear power.
@9238CN6Independent3yrs3Y
Yes, but incentivize increasing independence on fossil fuels
@922295VIndependent3yrs3Y
I really do not care about this.
@8ZW3CP5Independent3yrs3Y
I do not now enough about the issue.
@8ZSGJHDIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes as long as you find a way to keep the animals safe
@8ZR7D7NIndependent3yrs3Y
only if the owner of the land allows
@8ZM7Z8RIndependent3yrs3Y
No, not in the Wildlife Refuge
@8YS438JIndependent3yrs3Y
yes, but if you are very careful and choose one spot
@8YRYRD4Independent3yrs3Y
Yes, but only until there are cheaper and safer alternative energy subsidies.
@8YQ46LYIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes but they should be carful and only operate where is safe and not harmful to the environment
@8YNXMLYIndependent3yrs3Y
No, and tax carbon emissions
@8Y247N4Independent3yrs3Y
Only if Alaska is fine with it without input on a national level, and whatever resources are gained by America should only be sold at the current standard pricing. All tax on the surplus should go to Alaska
@8XZN98LIndependent3yrs3Y
As I have previously said, nuclear should be the primary source of energy throughout the world, meaning that the drilling for such oil should be unnecessary. As I love nature, I believe that no the land should not be drilled on, rather we should protect out lands, which is why nuclear should be so heavily present instead of oil or natural gas.
@8WZ5BT8Independent4yrs4Y
Yes, while it is very bad it would benefit the american people
@8WTL2DPIndependent4yrs4Y
Allow the Alaskan natives living in ANWR to decide for themselves via a referendum and respect the vote. I personally lean toward allowing drilling with very strict environmental rules
@8WSZTR4Independent4yrs4Y
Do not know this topic, no stance.
@8WRX5KJIndependent4yrs4Y
Yes as long as the wildlife isn't harmed
@8WC27BRIndependent4yrs4Y
No, The people of Alaska and natives should decide that
@8WC27BRIndependent4yrs4Y
The people of Alaska and natives should decide that
@8VDGYSYIndependent4yrs4Y
Yes, but only in certain areas
@8TCKYSBIndependent4yrs4Y
The people of Alaska should decide this.
@8T86S7NIndependent4yrs4Y
yes but as minimal as possible and with little harm to the animal
@ghostrdrIndependent4yrs4Y
Don’t know enough about issue
@8QSH679Independent4yrs4Y
If Alaska finds it to be beneficial, then sure, but if Alaskan residents vote against it, absolutely not.
@8LKWBZ8Independent5yrs5Y
I don't really know how to answer this due to not having enough knowledge.
@8KXYCMLIndependent5yrs5Y
Yes, but with increased oversight, protection for existing ecosystems, and heavy fines in case of accidents resulting in damage or severe disruption of wildlife habitats.
@8K57WP7Independent5yrs5Y
I am unaware of this issue.
@9CW9G8JIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes, but with strong regulation & increase of alternative energy subsidies
@9CGPZB3Independent2yrs2Y
Let the state declare if it is protected or not. If the state decides it does not warrant protection, then drilling should be allowed. If the state declares it is protected land, then drilling should not be allowed.
@@96Z7TKBIndependent2yrs2Y
No, use nuclear energy instead
@99X6PRVIndependent2yrs2Y
There should be no drilling allowed there ever for any reason
@98TGFLCIndependent2yrs2Y
It should be allowed to a certain extent
@98QK2MTIndependent2yrs2Y
not in forests but otherwise go for it
@98N6RX9Independent2yrs2Y
No personally,but it should be Alaska's own descision
@98LR8K2Independent2yrs2Y
Only if all involved agree to do so
@98LKPG7Independent2yrs2Y
Yes, with strict environmental guidelines, oversight and regulations; also funding research and development of alternative energy technologies.
@986ZQYFIndependent2yrs2Y
As long as drilling is proceeded with caution then yes.
@983QX64Independent2yrs2Y
Yes, but have restrictions on how much we drill out per year
@983BLCYIndependent2yrs2Y
no because the animals there need the ice
@9836HZ9Independent2yrs2Y
Yes but only if measures are taken to protect as much of the wildlife including the animals as possible and when done drilling, the company that installed them is responsible for removing them. There should also be a limited number of areas that could be destroyed for it.
@7YS3KJPIndependent2yrs2Y
No, not until we have depleted all other oil reserves and we should increase alternative energy subsidies to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels.
@97TJM4HIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes, temporarily with strict environmental regulations and increase alternative energy subsidies.
@94KJBVQIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes, but with strict regulations and a timeframe to revisit the authorization.
@8ZVPWY9Independent3yrs3Y
No, but a national vote can change it.
@8QV3VN2Independent4yrs4Y
The Alaska Wildlife Refuge should be given to and controlled by the state of Alaska.
@8MZKN6JIndependent5yrs5Y
Is any place safe from the business world?
@9F2NKFVIndependent2yrs2Y
no, not at all, our wildlife should be one of the most important responsabilities in our world. if we don't have wildlife or nature we would be able to survive in this world. also the animals did nothing to for us to go and mess with their life.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
