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:
No, because animals live here and drilling here would get in their way
Need to learn more to form a stance
No, the drilling would threaten the continued existence of the species of plants and animals who rely on the refuge for survival
Yes, as long as it is regulated AND an equal amount of land is added to the refuge to counter the land that is being used for drilling.
NO we should focus on nuclear power. Increase alternative energy subsidies to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels
Yes, only if the animals are moved to a safer loaction until their done and the land the drilled is refined for those animals to go back and live in
It should not start until every other reserve is depleted, and once that occurs, there should be regulations implemented to protect the wildlife.
No, this would adversely affect the ongoing survival of various species of animals that rely on the refuge
No, this would threaten the ongoing survival of various plants and species of animals that rely on the refuge
I think that would be up to the owner of the property
I don't really know anything about this topic.
No, this would threaten the existence of varied species of wildlife who depend on the refuge for survival
Don’t know enough to have a solid decision
no, è le perforazione per cercare petrolio dovrebbero essere rese illegali
@94C8WFLWorking Family3yrs3Y
No, because it I’ll harm wildlife
Yes, with strict rules and a zero accident policy, while also decreasing dependence on fossil fuels.
I don’t have enough knowledge to vote on this topic.
no because it will have a more economic risk and liabilty that will result in development on sacred lands, people and ect.
Yes, with very strict environmental regulations and we should increase alternative energy subsidies to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels
No, and nationalize the energy sector, removing the profit aspect of it, and transition to cleaner, renewable energy.
No, and nationalize the fossil fuel industry.
No, and nationalize the oil industry while we transition to sustainable energy.
Yes, It is up to the state to decide but with strict environmental regulations
No, and create public works programs for green energy
Try to get more information to make sure if this is the right thing to do.
they should just leave the animals alone
Yes, with minimal disturbance to wildlife.
This question is not that significant to me.
No depending on the damage that can be done.
you need to figure out a way to stop this and keep the economy level
No and ban oil drilling on our side of the globe and take others
No and ban oil drilling on our side of the globe and take others oil
No ban oil drilling on our side of the globe and take others oil
Do not know what this is
i don't even live there what even is it
No, I believe more research should be done on how to make e85 the standard for fuel as it is a renewable source of fuel as well as more research should be done on making carbon neutral fuel as there are ways to create hydrocarbon fuels by using up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
@8W7YJH9Working Family4yrs4Y
No, i understand that overpopulation can be very dangerous for a species but at the same time the reason overpopulation is such a large problem is due to humans taking over the majority of the world thus giving wildlife less room to live, so if we run even more wildlife out of their natural habitat then we severely increase the risk of overpopulation and even the extinction of some species
I think so as long as no innocent wildlife is being harmed.
No, and nationalize the oil industry.
No, we should be more focused on renewable energy instead
No, until oil hits $300 a barrel
No don’t destroy animal habitat
No. Not only is it harmful to wildlife, but it decreases incentive to increase alternative energy subsidies to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.
No, the drilling would threaten the continued existence of the species of plants and animals who rely on the refuge for survival.
Yes, but with very strict environmental regulations and limit drilling to the coastal ranges
No, we should continue to respect Wildlife Refuges.
No, but we need to ensure that we are not relying on oil from overseas
No, this would threaten the continued existence of species of wildlife that depend on the refuge for survival
Yes, but with very strict environmental regulations and increase alternative energy subsidies to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels.
We cannot physically stop someone from drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge. Why make it a opinion of belief when we have no control. It is in your mind, either way if you believe it or not, it will still happen.
i've got no stance on this.
I honestly don’t know much about this, I don’t know what’s right or wrong so I don’t want to make a bad choice or sum like that.
As long as it's safe and the animals aren't in danger.
As long as they get approved for it.
Only with the consent of Alaska natives, locals, and the state government.
No why would we want to ruin are animals wild life.
No, this will threaten the continued survival of the wildlife species who depend on the refuge
Not allow any more drilling
No, this would threaten the continuing existence of the wildlife species who rely on the refuge for survival
No, this would threaten the ongoing existence of the wildlife species who rely on the refuge for survival
No, this would threaten the continued survival of the wildlife species who rely on the refuge
No, this would threaten the ongoing existence of the wildlife species that rely on the refuge for continued survival
No, this would threaten the continued existence of the wildlife species that rely on the refuge for survival.
Yes, we are given resources and we should be able to use them. People think they are so big and important that they can control the Earth but they cant. Nothing we do or do not do is going to change the eventual outcome.
No, this would threaten the continual existence of the wildlife species that rely on the refuge for survival
No, this would threaten the survival of the wildlife who rely on the refuge and the oil development would worsen climate change
No, this would threaten the survival of the wildlife who rely on the refuge and worsen climate change as a result of further oil development
No, this would threaten extinction of the wildlife who rely on the refuge and the oil development will worsen climate change
No, this would threaten extinction of the wildlife who rely on the refuge and climate change would be worsened
No, this would threaten extinction of the wildlife who rely on the refuge and worsen climate change
No, this would both threaten extinction of the wildlife who rely on the refuge and worsen climate change
No, this would threaten the continued survival of the wildlife species who rely on the refuge, and the oil development will worsen climate change
No, this would threaten the existence of the wildlife species who rely on the refuge for survival
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
