Destruction of the Environment or Over-Zealous Conservation?
             With the 2000 Presidential election looming and both candidates in a near deadlock, Al Gore and George W. Bush have been forced to take stands on some very tough issues that affect the lives of everyday Americans. One of these decisions is what to do about the recent escalating crude oil prices. Many people believe that the candidates should promise to open up the strategic crude oil reserve until the prices stabilize. Others believe that the candidates should promise to negotiate with members of the OPEC bloc in an effort to stabilize prices. Many others believe that the candidates should look within the country, and begin oil drilling in untapped regions of the country such as Alaska. There are several benefits to opening additional wells in the Alaskan region, such as new jobs for American workers, cheaper crude oil, and less dependency upon an often unstable Middle Eastern region. These people believe that because there are already wells drilled in Alaskan regions with similar environmental conditions as the region in question, that there will be no harmful affects to begin drilling.
             Obviously there are many dissenters of this opinion who believe that by drilling in regions such as Alaska, we risk environmental disasters such as the Exxon Valdez, regardless if we drill in the ocean, or if we drill on land. These people believe that by drilling on land, we will destroy the permafrost that the oil derricks will be set upon permanently as well as well as risk the overall contamination of the environment. If we decide to drill into the ocean floor, we risk the chance of an oil pipe bursting, and risk an environmental disaster even worse than the Exxon Valdez incident. In addition, there are also several solutions to the increase in crude oil prices that do not involve risking the environmental region of Alaska.
             The area primarily in question regarding oil dr...