Artic National Wildlife Refuge: Not a Place for Profit A Position Paper

Introduction
In the paper entitled “ANWR: Not a Place for Profit”, various arguments have been forcefully cited to give reason to its protest against the prospect of oil exploration in an area that serves to provide a habitat for wildlife and sea creatures of Artic region. Among others, the collateral destruction of the ecosystem figures as the chief reason why oil drilling within the area must not be permitted. In a way, there are good reasons to agree with and thus support the stand which the paper adopts for its readers to consider. If only to argue, the presentation is able to present well that there is no sound justification for oil exploration to take place in such a habitat still unperturbed by human activities. And there is a need to show why this is so.
Why It Has No Basis

Firstly, it must be considered well that there is no justification whatsoever for a state to significantly alter the natural processes of the ecosystem with economic survival in its mind. Oil exploration – rightly as the paper suggests – shall bring about collateral damages to the natural habitat of the area’s animals; and the eventual alteration their life system, which in turn can translate to the risk of making them extinct, are but one of the many immediate consequences such an activity would bring. The desire to relieve the economy from a state of serious meltdown cannot hope to ever compensate the massive damages resulting from oil exploration. One cannot simply turn a blind eye on the disproportion apparent in this activity, as one only needs to note that the benefit of temporarily bringing the economy out of trouble cannot match the risk of eventually destroying the world.
            Secondly, it must also be remembered that the proposed oil exploration in the area is not the only solution America is left with to address skyrocketing price of oil the world currently experiences. If truth be said, there are a thousand and one alternative solutions to the energy crises which the country can probably adopt. The essay in fact succinctly reminds its readers that the real solution to this problem lies in exploring renewable sources of energy, and finding ways to further cut down the oil consumption of this country. The mere fact that oil drilling in an unlikely place does not constitute to be America’s only hope to fix its economic problems, clearly indicates that there is little reason to take on the risk destroying mother nature in the event an oil drilling takes place in there.
Thirdly, to fight for the conservation of this wildlife habitat can be used as a glaring reminder for the world not to stop thinking of ways to help avert further environmental degradation and global warming. The issue here does not anymore concern the specific American need for oil, as the worldwide need to conceive of long-term solutions to preserve the only habitable place in the solar system. In many ways, ANWR’s preservation can lend an inspiration for all people of the world. At the very least, it can serve to relay a very important message that it is not impossible for man to respect the natural order of the environment given his thirst for industrialization.
Conclusion
            This paper ends with the thought that taking care of mother nature is a task that is second to none. While the world at present can be so much engrossed with the promises of a powerful economy, to have to sustain the benefits it affords human beings still does not constitute a justification for the ecosystem to be neglected in the process. After all, the untimely destruction of Mother Nature can also spell humanity’s obliteration. In order to set a telling example therefore, it is with a great sense of concern that this essay agrees with the arguments and supports the position stood for by the article.