No. There really isn't that much oil there to make a difference anyway. The Yes answer looses all credibility because he repeats the myth of the pipeline being "warm" and animals loving it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Bottom line the negative environmental impact is not worth the small amount of oil that is there to begin with. Allowing drilling there would only be a huge corporate give away of Natural Resources owned by Americans. Americans own that oil, it belongs to us the citizens. Not a greedy corporation.
YES
------
Our current high oil prices are a gigantic, blinking sign telling us we need more oil. Yes, it will take ten years to develop the project and really get it moving, but we have been debating ANWR since the 1990's, when the same Democrats objected to drilling there because it would not help us out immediately. If we had started then, we would have access to that oil now. Build it, and we will have fewer problems in the future.
The area that would be drilled is a tiny chunk of a glacial wasteland. ANWR is a HUGE place. All of the environmentalist videos focus on the small, temperate chunks of the park during the warm season. Most of it is ice and rock. You could drench most of this area in oil, and you would only inconvenience a few birds, who would move to another section of barren wasteland in a few minutes.
The caribou population will likely boom as a result the heated pipeline. It turns out that even animals that spend most of their lives in the Arctic hate the cold, and they like to get frisky in the warmth of the pipelines that are already in the region. ANWR's caribou and other animal populations might see a similar increase. This might be dangerous for a few plants, but it will not destroy the park.
Terrorism against the pipeline is a risk, but since the pipeline will travel through a mostly-barren wilderness, an attack on it would not do much good. Of course, if there is no drilling in ANWR, we will have to buy oil from places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, who fund terrorism.
Original Answer was just this:
NO
The respondent gave no justification for the answer.
its a by
ANWR means Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. basically it is a wildlife park
It stands for The ''Arctic National Wildlife Refuge'' It is a national wildlife refuge in northeastern Alaska , United States.
It is very good....
caribou
The worlds biggest 'National park' is the 'North east Greenland national park' Although in terms of an animal refuge, the Amazon rain forest is the largest supporter of wildlife. And the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is the World's largest wildlife refuge.
Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge was created in 2000.
Travels to the Edge with Art Wolfe - 2007 Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1-6 is rated/received certificates of: Australia:G
I think it's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Not sure, though.
Would despoil the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and pollute our oceans and coastlines for a tiny percentage of our energy needs -- with almost zero impact on gas prices Would despoil the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and pollute our oceans and coastlines for a tiny percentage of our energy needs -- with almost zero impact on gas prices Would despoil the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and pollute our oceans and coastlines for a tiny percentage of our energy needs -- with almost zero impact on gas prices
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is what the acronym stands for. The acronym has been in use for years and not a lot of people know about it. This may be because wildlife has been forgotten about for so many and overlooked.
Alaska's Arctic Wildlife - 1997 TV was released on: USA: 15 April 1997