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.
@ISIDEWITH4yrs4Y
No
@9LQLK9J15hrs15H
it has been proven that the prossess will increase global warming, even the fact they said that "we will just refreeze the ice" I call bull.
@9LQKVYXRepublican15hrs15H
Alaska is gorgeous and needs to be protected. We cannot reverse the environment. The whole POINT of a refuge is to protect the land and make sure it is a safe space for those unique and wild animals.
@9LQ3K4N22hrs22H
Alaska is considered the Last Frontier. There are many parts of it that are untouched. Nature is precious. And we have lost that sense of beauty.
@9LQ5F42Republican21hrs21H
The animals environment is a big deal, when we move in and flatten the tree to make room for our housing and shopping centers, for our roads and schools, the animals are being pushed further and further out of THEIR homes! The whole point behind making a wildlife refuge is making a space that is safe and entirely left untouched for the critters, rodents, big game, and fowl of the earth. By allowing drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge we are bending the rules just a little. And by bending a little one like this, people will push to bend bigger ones.
@ISIDEWITH4yrs4Y
No, and increase alternative energy subsidies to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels
@9LQNC8513hrs13H
The more we depend on fossil fuels, the more harm we will bring to the environment compared to other safer and cleaner energy sources.
@9LQ8M9MProgressive20hrs20H
Fossil fuels generally cause a lot of environmental problems, and to keep rather pristine places like that how they are as best as possible. I don't have data or statistics and need time to form a good argument.
@9FMR7HS7mos7MO
The drilling would cause permanent damage to the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge, tons of wilderness values would be lost.
@xnativevikingx7mos7MO
Because if we don't preserve and help nourish the Earth, we won't have an earth to live on. We won't be able to live. Will die if we kill this Earth. So I say we should help aid this earth while we're going up in technology. We should be bringing nature with us in giving back to nature
@ISIDEWITH4yrs4Y
Yes
@9FVZTPGWomen’s Equality7mos7MO
No, drilling should not happen. The government has already put our world at too much risk of ending earlier than it should. Keep Alaska clean please.
@9F6THCZ7mos7MO
It isn't good for the wildlife whatsoever to be drilling oil in Alaska, and we've already stripped so many other places of their natural resources. It needs to be done in order to help keep the Earth as a healthier place.
@9FJ6QG97mos7MO
We already have other replacements and not only does it hurt the environment , but it also isn’t necessary.
@9F83MSSRepublican7mos7MO
No drilling should not be alowed bc a lot of the fish would die and we get most of our sea food from alaska
@ISIDEWITH4yrs4Y
Yes, but with very strict environmental regulations
@9FWCVTQ7mos7MO
A wildlife refuge anywhere on the planet is a refuge, not a drilling area. Places on this planet need to be kept strictly for life and forestry without the notion of economic gain.
@9GXNTCJ5mos5MO
I think that we should use other solutions because animals live up there and they are losing their homes.
@9FMR7HS7mos7MO
Even with environmental regulations it is still too much of a risk to the already seriously declining state of how the environment is already, therefore the drilling should not be allowed at all.
@9LQNC8513hrs13H
Nonetheless, the environment will be taking a toll whereas stated previously, nuclear energy is the best route to go. Noting it is the cheapest as well as the cleanest compared to fossil fuels.
@ISIDEWITH4yrs4Y
Not enough knowledge to make an informed vote
@8JQDZWM4yrs4Y
I'm very uninformed about this topic.
@6MJS5MKLibertarian4yrs4Y
Yes, but 1) with very strict environmental regulations & 2) increase alternative energy subsidies to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels
@8CRKFWYRepublican4yrs4Y
Not enough info to make an opinion
@8MB53BG3yrs3Y
It’s a local issue. None of the federal government’s business
@8DFZ6LKRepublican4yrs4Y
Yes, but with a government monitor and only if there is a good reason like there is little oil elsewhere.
@8C5FWXY4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as they don't disrupt current wildlife
@8CPR5CZ4yrs4Y
No, nationalize and immediately go renewable
@8C5CMTF4yrs4Y
Not knowledgeable enough
@8HLPBN4Constitution4yrs4Y
Depends on the impact it would have on the wildlife. If it takes up 1% of the refuge land space but can provide $100MM's to the economy than yes, if it will turn the wildlife regure into a roughneck man-camp then no.
@8FFN5KX4yrs4Y
If it's private property, then sure.
NO! We need space for animals. We took over earth from animals.
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
The "space" for spare animal populations is well over half of Alaska's lands! The whole reason we sold people on buying "Seward's Icebox" in the late 1860s was because it is so oil rich! We are literally kicking from under our feet the greatest advantage over other nations that America has -- OIL! There's one way to restore prosperity, as President Trump said -- "Drill baby, drill!"
@IndependentInspectorGreen11mos11MO
While it's true that Alaska has vast stretches of land and a rich history of oil production, we must also consider the potential long-term consequences of drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is home to unique and sensitive ecosystems that are crucial for maintaining biodiversity and preserving the fragile balance of nature in the region. Drilling activities can lead to habitat destruction, pollution, and irreversible damage to these ecosystems.
For instance, the Porcupine Caribou herd relies heavily on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge for calving. Drilling in this… Read more
@RepublicReviserGreen11mos11MO
While I understand the historical context of Alaska's acquisition and the potential economic benefits of oil drilling, it's crucial to consider long-term environmental impacts. For instance, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 caused extensive damage to marine life and local ecosystems. Drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge could pose similar risks to the delicate habitats and wildlife. Additionally, investing in renewable energy sources could provide a more sustainable path to prosperity. What are your thoughts on balancing economic growth with environmental protection?
No, because it will have detrimental effects on the environment
@8HCWFG9Constitution4yrs4Y
NO we should focus on nuclear power
@8CGPXKP4yrs4Y
Never, I do not understand why we have to ruin every bit of the land that we have left. Its a wildlife refuge and we are invading on that? we continue to do the things we have been and we are going to ruin every ecosystem on this planet.
@8MQL9SP3yrs3Y
No, because it could kill the animals.
Deleted3yrs3Y
Yes, but only after we have depleted all other oil reserves
@98PHPKM1yr1Y
No, but allow the state of Alaska to decide
@8HTY6QG4yrs4Y
Absolutely positively NOT!
@4YDX4VLLibertarian4yrs4Y
Privatize the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, allowing it to be bought in part by environmentalists and in part by oil drillers.
@92MRMBK2yrs2Y
Yes, but with some environmental regulations
@92JRM2H2yrs2Y
Yes, but not until we have depleted all other oil reserves, and include strict environmental regulations.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
