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 the conversation to these participants:
Political party:
@Waterworks1234yrs4Y
No, increase alternative energy subsidies and put some regulations on drilling for now
@929L4VX3yrs3Y
Not for the government to regulate
Deleted3yrs3Y
Yes, but with very strict environmental regulations, and if the local tribes that consider the area sacred ground are ok with it.
@3SXNRFF5yrs5Y
Yes, in areas where it would not significantly impact local wildlife
@4YFX34T4yrs4Y
Only for wartime or similar national emergency.
@897TFQ95yrs5Y
Drilling should not be allowed in any national parks or on any wildlife reserves.
@5643HNN4yrs4Y
No, we should be more focused on renewable energy instead
@3WGX9435yrs5Y
Yes, but with oversight from independent organization
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
@6W67VX45yrs5Y
Privatize the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.
@599JCD95yrs5Y
No, and convert all public lands into conservation trusts.
@4YQYQPN4yrs4Y
Leave it up to Alaska to decide since it’s their land.
@8HDMV9J5yrs5Y
Yes, but have limits on how much drilling can be done at any given time
@8R2RMP34yrs4Y
No, unless Alaska approves of it.
@8R2RMP34yrs4Y
No, this should be decided by Alaska.
@8PK69PX4yrs4Y
Companies should be able to decide what path is best for them and the government should not be involved at all.
@84JHJXZ4yrs4Y
Yes, unless there is heavy opposition from the citizens.
@63MBBW25yrs5Y
Yes, but only on land sold by the federal government to the drillers
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would threaten the continued existence of the wildlife species that rely on the refuge for survival.
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would threaten the ongoing existence of the wildlife species that rely on the refuge for continued survival
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would threaten the continual existence of the wildlife species that rely on the refuge for survival
@89CY6475yrs5Y
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would threaten the ongoing existence of the wildlife species who rely on the refuge for survival
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would threaten the continuing existence of the wildlife species who rely on the refuge for survival
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would threaten the existence of the wildlife species who rely on the refuge for survival
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would threaten the continued survival of the wildlife species who rely on the refuge, and the oil development will worsen climate change
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
No, this would both threaten extinction of the wildlife who rely on the refuge and worsen climate change
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
No, this would threaten extinction of the wildlife who rely on the refuge and worsen climate change
@RickStewart3yrs3Y
The government should not own land, as across the globe government has always been the biggest polluter. Were the Alaska Wildlife Refuge privately owned, perhaps by a non-profit organization its owners/members could decide for themselves whether drilling is to be allowed.
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would threaten extinction of the wildlife who rely on the refuge and climate change would be worsened
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would threaten extinction of the wildlife who rely on the refuge and the oil development will worsen climate change
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
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
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would threaten the survival of the wildlife who rely on the refuge and the oil development would worsen climate change
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would threaten the continued survival of the wildlife species who rely on the refuge
@8QKJ7R94yrs4Y
No, if they can do that with a Wildlife Refuge, what can they not do it in? There needs to be some places of safety.
@8L2DQDJ4yrs4Y
no because its supposed to be as clean as possible for the animals
@8M94PFW4yrs4Y
I do not support the drilling for oil and instead support nuclear energy and other forms of energy but I prefer no government intervention in it.
@TogetherinSoli14yrs4Y
No, the importance of fossil fuels in today's society should be recognised, but we should move towards more sustainable energy
@Mobdawwg3yrs3Y
Yes, but increase alternative energy subsidies to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels
@8TWB9FX4yrs4Y
Yes, but include very strict environmental regulations. They also need to increase alternative energy subsidies so we can wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.
@8V29GDP4yrs4Y
No stop drilling, stop oil usage fix the god damn planet
@8W9C4WK4yrs4Y
Yes, but with a license issued by the right agency or local sheriff / government official
@8WMXBZM4yrs4Y
unless we have too and the people who own that land are okay with that
@8XSXMM63yrs3Y
No, and TEMPORARILY give subsidies to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels to get people invested and further increase restrictions on the burning of fossil fuels.
@8Y2PZNR3yrs3Y
No, at least while it is a reserve which I think should apply to all reserves and national parks
@8YWPFSD3yrs3Y
you think i know the answer t this
@8YW4MHH3yrs3Y
It should be decided by the state of Alaska, still with strict environmental regulations.
Deleted3yrs3Y
@92MNDFW3yrs3Y
yes only if it does not affect the wildlife in a terrible way.
Join in on more popular conversations.
