Offshore oil and gas reserves, primarily along coastlines in Alaska, California, Louisiana, and Texas, account for a large proportion of the oil and gas supply in the United States. In August 2015, President Obama authorized Royal Dutch Shell to expand drilling off Alaska’s northwest coast. His decision brought into sharp relief the different, oftentimes competing views on the expansion of offshore drilling. Many proponents of offshore drilling argue that tapping into the vast amount of oil and gas reserves in the Arctic will help shore up national security interests for the United States, bolster its economy and workforce, and offer Americans a reliable, safe supply of oil. According to Robert Bryce, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, there are “enormous amounts of recoverable energy resources in the Arctic. The Department of Energy estimates them at something on the order of 400 billion barrels of oil equivalent in natural gas and oil. That’s four times the crude oil reserves of Kuwait.” Framed this way, drilling in the Arctic presents a way for Americans to mitigate risks from dependence on foreign oil and build the local and national economies by creating jobs and supplying cheap oil. A competing point of view charges that offshore oil drilling poses immense risk to the environment while reinforcing a reliance on dirty, environmentally unfriendly sources of energy. Critics claim that industrial activity associated with offshore drilling in the Arctic could harm native animals, including polar bears, walruses, seals, and whales already jeopardized by climate warming and declining levels of sea ice. Environmentalists argue that oil companies have not demonstrated the capability to clean up an oil spill in water obstructed by ice. Furthermore, they contend, extracting oil only perpetuates a fossil-fuel economy and will contribute dangerously to rising global temperature thereby exacerbating climate change. “Granting Shell the permit to drill in the Arctic was the wrong decision, and this fight is far from over,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “The people will continue to call on President Obama to protect the Arctic and our environment.”
my questions from the above paragraph are,
• Do you find one framing of the situation more compelling than the other? Why? In what ways do your own beliefs or opinions affect your perspective on this issue?
• If you were in President Obama’s position, how might the different ways of framing this issue affect your decision-making process? Is it possible to make an objective decision in the case of Arctic drilling? How might you come to a decision that is both reasonable and ethically defensible?
• Can you think of other ethical dilemmas that are unexplored or absent in these dominant, competing frames of offshore drilling? How might these additional issues affect the decision to drill in the Arctic?
Answers
A1. Yes, there is no doubt that the issues discussed is definitely compelling each other and is I direct confrontation as the conflict of interest between the environment activists, drilling companies and the government . On one hand where it is about the protection of the flora and fauna in the region along with its direct impact on humankind on the other hand the issue lies behind the humongous profits employment and the strategic reserves and national security. Ethical conflicts engaged in the issue ranges from Compilance, Relaibility, Fairness, Consideration, and implementations on behalf of the government and the companies making them accountable.
A2. As the president of the USA the decision would based upon multifaceted understandings of Environment, National security, Population and economy. there are “enormous amounts of recoverable energy resources in the Arctic tapping into the vast amount of oil and gas reserves in the Arctic will help shore up national security interests for the United States, bolster its economy and workforce, and offer Americans a reliable, safe supply of oil. Resources in the Arctic presents a way for Americans to mitigate risks from dependence on foreign oil and build the local and national economies by creating jobs and supplying cheap oil.
To ensure a reasonable and ethically defensible argument in support of the drilling as a president the system would ensure that the drilling companies have a sound plan if a blowout happens late in the season, when August frosts start to re-freeze the Arctic ice before oil companies have a chance to complete relief wells.
A3. The melting Arctic is fertile ground for businesses. But continued oil exploration poses an ethical dilemma. It is clear that drilling will have an effect on animal populations as well as the human populations that inhabit these Alaskan areas. When looking at the intrinsic value of nature, rights of animals, and the duty the current generation has to its future generations it is clear that drilling would be morally incorrect. The vast size, remote location, and extreme weather conditions—combined with the complete lack of infrastructure for responding to oil spills—make drilling in the Arctic Ocean extremely dangerous. Our ability to respond to emergencies and oil spills is severely limited. Broken ice and other severe weather conditions in the Arctic would make any large oil spill or well blowout catastrophic for the amazing life in the area.
Allowing drilling in the Arctic Ocean would add new environmental stressors – from pollution, to noise and other forms of disturbance – to marine wildlife that are already feeling the brunt of warming sea and air temperatures. While new drilling in U.S. Arctic waters are no longer an immediate risk, without permanent protections, these waters remain vulnerable.
ethical issues involved
1. Compilance
2. Relaibility
3. Fairness
4. Consideration
5. caring
6. Implementation
Violation of professional ethics
1. Integrity and honesty. Companies usually do not tell the truth.
2. Conflict of interest – Ethical dilemma moral responsibility ecological damage and huge profits do not align together .
3. Justice. Massive drilling operations would not be beneficial and justful to the local indigenous population and wildlife.
4. Competence and accountability. Ability of the drilling companies to respond to emergencies and oil spills is severely limited leading to unimaginable circumstances harming the environment and the local population.
Directly affected species
1. Polar Bears: Expansion of oil and gas drilling in their habitat could be extremely damaging. Direct contact with spilled oil would kill polar bears but an invisible threat could persist for years, as toxic substances lingering in ice or water may impact the entire food web of the Arctic ecosystem for years to come.
2. Walrus: Many indigenous people in the Arctic rely on walruses for food security and to maintain cultural practices. An increased risk of oil spills would prove catastrophic for the species.
3. Beluga Whales: oil and gas development, particularly the use of seismic testing underwater in their sensitive environment could prove deeply problematic to their ability to communicate. The rise of the industry would involve an increase in the number of shipping vessels in Arctic waters, and that, in turn, would dramatically heighten noise levels underwater, masking communication among belugas and other species.
4. Seals: Exposure to oil could injure or kill seals, and that would impact the polar bear population that relies on them for survival.