You are on page 1of 6

Josh Wilson ANWR-Neg Page 1 of 6

ANWR-Neg
ANWR-NEG........................................................................................................................................................................................1
ANWR INSIGNIFICANT.........................................................................................................................................................................1
ANWR oil is less than 1 Year of US supply................................................................................................................................1
It would take 10 years for Oil from ANWR to reach the market, and even then it would be puny.............................................1
AT: “JOBS”........................................................................................................................................................................................2
AT: “Creates jobs” The study was flawed, Oil Development Wouldn't Generate a Significant Number of Jobs.....................2
AT: “Creates jobs” Energy efficiency would create even more jobs.........................................................................................2
AT: “ECONOMIC PROSPERITY”...............................................................................................................................................................3
AT: “Awesome for economy” Only about 3.2 billion barrels are recoverable and it won’t be worth much............................3
AT: “Awesome for economy” Energy efficiency would be even awesomer ;)...........................................................................3
AT: “Lower gas prices” Nope, empirics prove: OPEC will neutralize it..................................................................................3
ALTERNATIVE SOLVENCY.......................................................................................................................................................................3
We must reduce reliance on all oil ............................................................................................................................................3
AT: “JUST 2000 CONCENTRATED ACRES”...............................................................................................................................................4
Oil in ANWR is scattered and would require ripping up the whole area...................................................................................4
AT: “Just 2000 acres” The oil is scattered across 1.5 million acres, not 2000.........................................................................4
AT: “Just 2000 acres” The drilling will harm a ton more than that..........................................................................................4
OTHER DA STUFF...............................................................................................................................................................................5
ANWR won’t be able to recover.................................................................................................................................................5
ANWR is one of the world’s last true wildernesses....................................................................................................................5
DA: Oil spills..............................................................................................................................................................................5
DA: Air pollution will spread all over the area..........................................................................................................................5
DA: Companies dump and leave waste that destroys the surrounding wetlands and tundra....................................................6
Attitudinal barrier/Subversion of democracy: Americans don’t want to drill ANWR................................................................6

(Note: All evidence is from NRDC but their credentials can be defended well plus, in almost all evidence
they are quoting awesome, credible surveys/studies etc.)

ANWR insignificant
ANWR oil is less than 1 Year of US supply.
Natural Resources Defense Council, July 16 2008 (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead
by lawyers and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific
expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an
American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs?” http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp [Note the sources
NRDC quote=great]
Although drilling proponents often say there are 16 billion barrels of oil under the refuge's coastal plain, the U.S.
Geological Service's estimate of the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be
profitably extracted and sold -- represents less than a year's U.S. supply.

It would take 10 years for Oil from ANWR to reach the market, and even then it would be puny.
Natural Resources Defense Council, July 16 2008 (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead
by lawyers and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific
expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an
American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs?” http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp [Note the sources
NRDC quote=great]
It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market, and even when production peaks -- in the distant
year of 2027 -- the refuge would produce a paltry 3 percent of Americans' daily consumption. The U.S. government's
own Energy Information Agency recently reported that drilling in the Arctic would save less than 4 cents per gallon in
20 years.
Josh Wilson ANWR-Neg Page 2 of 6
AT: “Jobs”
AT: “Creates jobs” The study was flawed, Oil Development Wouldn't Generate a Significant Number
of Jobs
Natural Resources Defense Council (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead by lawyers
and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific expertise of more
than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) November 2 2001 “Fuelish Claims”
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/artech/farcjobs.asp
Short version:
The Teamsters used a misleading oil industry study to persuade lawmakers that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would
generate more than 700,000 jobs nationwide. The 1990 study, which was produced by Wharton Econometric
Forecasting Associates (WEFA) for the American Petroleum Institute (API), has been discredited by a number of
independent analyses over the last decade. Those analyses found that the number of jobs that could be generated by
oil development in the Arctic Refuge would be significantly less than WEFA's projection, and many of those would
be temporary.
Detailed version:
The WEFA study predicted that Arctic Refuge development and oil production would generate 735,000 jobs.2 How
did WEFA arrive at this conclusion? It assumed that oil from the refuge would lower world oil prices by as much as
$3.60 a barrel, which would have a ripple effect on the U.S. economy, producing jobs in the petroleum, trucking,
steel, shipping and manufacturing industries nationwide.3
How credible is the WEFA job scenario? A number of critiques found it implausible.
• In 1992, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded that WEFA's estimate of employment gains and effects
on GNP were "generous" and were based on "the more, or most, optimistic of underlying scenarios."4 A more recent
CRS report, issued in October, predicted that oil drilling in the refuge would generate 60,000 to 130,000 jobs.5
• In 1994, economist Eban Goodstein, who analyzed the WEFA numbers for the Economic Policy Institute,
argued that a more sensible calculation would have attributed job gains to an increase in demand for labor and
domestic capital goods generated by oil development. Using that yardstick, Goodstein concluded drilling in
the Arctic Refuge would generate only 55,000 jobs nationwide -- less than 8 percent what the WEFA study
predicted -- for a period of five years.6
• In 1996, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union -- which represents hundreds of workers in the Alaska
oil fields -- came out in support of protecting the Arctic Refuge from drilling. In a letter to President Clinton, OCAW
(now the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE)) said the oil industry's
claims that Arctic Refuge development would produce hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country are
"highly dubious." According to the union, the industry's job estimates "derived from an economic model
based on the effects of presumed lower oil prices across the nation and is not a characterization of new, real
oil patch of manufacturing jobs."7
• In September 2001, Dean Baker, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, found that the WEFA study's
conclusions rested on "clearly wrong and improbable assumptions." Basing his calculations on current
estimates for oil prices and Arctic Refuge oil reserves, and the relationship between U.S. employment and
global oil markets, Baker projected that refuge development would create only 46,000 new jobs, many lasting
a decade at most. According to Baker, "This number of jobs is fewer than what the economy generated in an
average week over the years 1997 through 2000."

AT: “Creates jobs” Energy efficiency would create even more jobs.
Natural Resources Defense Council (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead by lawyers
and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific expertise of more
than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) November 2 2001 “Fuelish Claims”
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/artech/farcjobs.asp
Energy-efficient technology and services produce far more new jobs than increased oil production. This is because oil
production is one of the least labor-intensive industries. According to Howard Geller of the American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), energy efficiency increases job opportunities in more labor-intensive economic
sectors -- manufacturing, construction, retail and service industries -- and would create 185 percent more jobs than
domestic oil production. While oil production supports fewer than three direct jobs per million dollars of investment,
energy efficiency supports nine commercial sector jobs and 18 industrial sector jobs per million dollars of investment,
according to Geller's analysis.
Josh Wilson ANWR-Neg Page 3 of 6
AT: “Economic prosperity”
AT: “Awesome for economy” Only about 3.2 billion barrels are recoverable and it won’t be worth
much
Natural Resources Defense Council (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead by lawyers
and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific expertise of more
than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) November 2 2001 “Fuelish Claims”
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/artech/farcjobs.asp
WEFA also overstated the amount of economically recoverable oil in the refuge at 9.2 billion barrels, which it
conceded was a "high case" scenario.12 The most recent USGS analysis projected that the amount of economically
recoverable oil -- the fraction that can be extracted, transported and sold at a profit at various prices -- is 3.2 billion
barrels at $20 a barrel.13 WEFA based its economic projections on a price of nearly $45 per barrel.14 The price of a
barrel of oil, however, has been under $20 for seven of the last 10 years, and is expected to be well below $30 over
the next decade. In fact, earlier this year, Alaska's Department of Revenue forecast a steady price drop to less than $13
per barrel in 2009 to 2010 -- about the earliest date that refuge oil would reach refineries if exploration and
development started now.

AT: “Awesome for economy” Energy efficiency would be even awesomer ;).
Natural Resources Defense Council (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead by lawyers
and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific expertise of more
than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) November 2 2001 “Fuelish Claims”
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/artech/farcjobs.asp
ACEEE estimates that investments in energy efficiency are 150 percent more productive than investments in energy
production.22 Last year, an Energy Department study arrived at similar conclusions. It found that $1 spent on
petroleum production creates only $1.51 in economic value to our economy, while that same dollar, when invested in
energy efficiency programs and incentives, creates $2.23 in economic value.23 Dollars earmarked for energy
efficiency stay within the United States, while petroleum expenditures are typically "lost" to the profits of foreign
energy suppliers

AT: “Lower gas prices” Nope, empirics prove: OPEC will neutralize it
Natural Resources Defense Council (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead by lawyers
and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific expertise of more
than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) November 2 2001 “Fuelish Claims”
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/artech/farcjobs.asp
Finally, WEFA ignored the very real possibility that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
could lower its production in response to a new U.S. supply from the Arctic Refuge. In fact, such a scenario played
out this summer when Iraq re-entered the world oil market. OPEC responded by cutting production by 1 million
barrels per day to shore up world prices. "It would be child's play for the OPEC countries to neutralize any impact of
oil from the Arctic Refuge on world oil prices," Philip Verleger, an economist and oil analyst, commented at the time

Alternative solvency
We must reduce reliance on all oil
Natural Resources Defense Council, July 16 2008 (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead
by lawyers and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific
expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an
American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs?” http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp [Note the sources
NRDC quote=great]
The solution to America's energy problems will be found in American ingenuity, not more oil. Only by reducing our
reliance on oil -- foreign and domestic -- and investing in cleaner, renewable forms of power will our country achieve
true energy security.
Josh Wilson ANWR-Neg Page 4 of 6
AT: “Just 2000 concentrated acres”
Oil in ANWR is scattered and would require ripping up the whole area
Natural Resources Defense Council, July 16 2008 (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead
by lawyers and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific
expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an
American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs?” http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp [Note the sources
NRDC quote=great]
While proponents of drilling insist that the Arctic Refuge could be developed by disturbing as little as 2,000 acres
within the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain, an NRDC analysis reveals this to be pure myth. Why? Because U.S.
Geological Survey studies have found that oil in the refuge isn't concentrated in a single, large reservoir. Rather, it's
spread across the coastal plain in more than 30 small deposits, which would require vast networks of roads and
pipelines that would fragment the habitat, disturbing and displacing wildlife.

AT: “Just 2000 acres” The oil is scattered across 1.5 million acres, not 2000
Natural Resources Defense Council (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead by lawyers
and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific expertise of more
than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) March 15 2005 “Drilling in the Arctic Refuge: The 2,000-Acre Footprint
Myth” http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/artech/farc2000.asp
The relatively little economically recoverable oil in the refuge is not concentrated in one large reservoir within a
2,000-acre area but is spread across its 1.5-million-acre coastal plain in more than 30 small deposits, according to the
U.S. Geological Survey.1 To produce oil from this vast area, supporting infrastructure would have to stretch across the
coastal plain. Networks of pipelines and roads obviously would fragment wildlife habitat.

AT: “Just 2000 acres” The drilling will harm a ton more than that.
Natural Resources Defense Council (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead by lawyers
and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific expertise of more
than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) March 15 2005 “Drilling in the Arctic Refuge: The 2,000-Acre Footprint
Myth” http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/artech/farc2000.asp
The 2,000-acre limitation only addressed "surface acreage covered by production and support facilities." In other
words, it only includes the area where oil facilities actually touch the ground. Using Rep. Sununu's math, the 37 miles of
pipeline at the Alpine oil field west of Prudhoe Bay would take up less than one-quarter of an acre of the Arctic Refuge coastal
plain -- where the pipelines' 12-inch-diameter posts hit the tundra.7 The limitation also would not have covered land
excavated to bury pipelines.
The 2,000-acre limitation would not have included seismic or other exploration activities, which have significantly
degraded the arctic environment west of the coastal plain. The oil industry conducts seismic activities with convoys of
bulldozers and "thumper trucks," which drive over extensive areas of the tundra. Meanwhile, exploratory oil drilling
requires moving heavy equipment, including large rigs, across the tundra. The limitation would not have prohibited
oil companies from drilling exploration and production wells anywhere on the entire 1.5 million-acre coastal plain.
The 2,000-acre limitation also would not have included gravel mines or roads. The House's limitation would have
allowed for 20 oil fields the size of the 100-acre Alpine oilfield west of Prudhoe Bay, which required a 150-acre
gravel mine and 3 miles of roads. And more roads are planned at Alpine.8 Meanwhile, oil companies in the North
Slope oil fields excavated gravel from mines that stretched over 2,000 acres, and then covered 10,000 acres of tundra
with gravel for roads, drilling pads and building foundations
Josh Wilson ANWR-Neg Page 5 of 6

Other DA Stuff
ANWR won’t be able to recover
Natural Resources Defense Council (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead by lawyers
and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific expertise of more
than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) March 10 2005 “The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Oil Development
Damages Air, Water and Wildlife” http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts2.asp
Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold at other times of the year, and nutrient-poor soils and
permafrost, vegetation grows very slowly in the North Slope. Any physical disturbance -- bulldozer tracks, seismic oil
exploration, spills of oil and other toxic substances -- can scar the land for decades. The National Academy of
Sciences concluded it is unlikely that the most disturbed habitat will ever be restored and the damage to more than
9,000 acres by oilfield roads and gravel pads is likely to remain for centuries.

ANWR is one of the world’s last true wildernesses


Natural Resources Defense Council, July 16 2008 (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead
by lawyers and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific
expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an
American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs?” http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp [Note the sources
NRDC quote=great]
Oil produced from the Arctic Refuge would come at an enormous, and irreversible, cost. The refuge is among the
world's last true wildernesses, and it is one of the largest sanctuaries for Arctic animals.

DA: Oil spills


Natural Resources Defense Council (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead by lawyers
and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific expertise of more
than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) March 10 2005 “The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Oil Development
Damages Air, Water and Wildlife” http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts2.asp
Each year, the oil industry spills tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other hazardous materials on the North
Slope. In fact, every day there is on average at least one spill either in the oil fields or at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
From 1996 to 2004, there were some 4,530 spills of more than 1.9 million gallons of diesel fuel, oil, acid, biocide,
ethylene glycol, drilling fluid and other materials. In the Arctic, the environmental damage from oil spills is more
severe and lasts longer than in more temperate climates. Diesel fuel, for instance -- the most frequently spilled
substance on the North Slope -- is acutely toxic to plants. Even after decades have passed, tundra vegetation has been
unable to recover from diesel spills.

DA: Air pollution will spread all over the area


Natural Resources Defense Council (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead by lawyers
and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific expertise of more
than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) March 10 2005 “The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Oil Development
Damages Air, Water and Wildlife” http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts2.asp
Each year, oil operations on Alaska's North Slope emit more than 70,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to
smog and acid rain. (That's three times more than Washington, D.C.'s annual NOx emissions, according to the
Environmental Protection Agency.) Plumes of pollution from Prudhoe Bay have been detected in Barrow, Alaska,
nearly 200 miles away. And pollutants from drilling operations, natural gas facilities and incinerators also have been
detected in snow in the Prudhoe Bay area.
Josh Wilson ANWR-Neg Page 6 of 6

DA: Companies dump and leave waste that destroys the surrounding wetlands and tundra
Natural Resources Defense Council (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead by lawyers
and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific expertise of more
than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) March 10 2005 “The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Oil Development
Damages Air, Water and Wildlife” http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts2.asp
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation still lists more than 100 contaminated sites associated with oil
industry operations on the North Slope. These sites contain a variety of toxic materials, including acids, lead,
pesticides, solvents, diesel fuel, caustics, corrosives and petroleum hydrocarbons. Leakage from some sites has
contaminated the surrounding tundra wetlands and waterways, which likely will be ruined for decades.

Attitudinal barrier/Subversion of democracy: Americans don’t want to drill ANWR


Natural Resources Defense Council, July 16 2008 (The nation's most effective environmental action group, founded and lead
by lawyers and scientists, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members with the courtroom clout and scientific
expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.) “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an
American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs?” http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp [Note the sources
NRDC quote=great]
The controversy over drilling in the Arctic Refuge -- the last piece of America's Arctic coastline not already open to
oil exploration -- isn't new. Big Oil has long sought access to the refuge's coastal plain, a fragile swath of tundra that
teems with staggering numbers of birds and animals. During the Bush administration's first term, repeated attempts were made to
open the refuge. But time after time, the American public rejected the idea. Congress has received hundreds of
thousands of emails, faxes and phone calls from citizens opposed to drilling in the Arctic Refuge, an outpouring that has
helped make the difference. And polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans oppose drilling, even in the
face of high gas prices and misleading claims from oil interests. A June 2008 poll by the research firm Belden
Russonello & Stewart found that 55 percent of the American public supports continued protection for the Arctic
Refuge, and only 35 percent of Americans believe that allowing oil companies to drill in the refuge would result in
lower gas prices for American consumers.

You might also like