Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Saving Alaskan Coastal Waters

by Laura Van Vliet

The article, “Lessons of the Exxon Valdez” uses the precautionary principle to argue against oil development in coastal waters off Alaska. The example of the Exxon Valdez disaster is used to caution that further drilling in coastal waters could prove catastrophic for the environment, the economy, and the livelihoods of many.

In my opinion, the author has effectively and appropriately used the precautionary principle. The Exxon Valdez was a disaster from which we are still recovering; it has been proven that oil still remains in some areas and the populations of some sea creatures in areas particularly affected never fully recovered (Ricciardi, 2009). The livelihoods of many fishermen were threatened, and over $2 billion was been spent as a result of the spill (Lessons, 2009). The accident of the Exxon Valdez was, however, many years ago. It could be argued that new safety measures and the knowledge acquired in these areas since the disaster since could help us to avoid a similar accident. In addition, though a precautionary argument is the unknown effects of drilling on the aquatic ecosystems, drilling has been done in other aquatic ecosystems with relatively few environmental impacts. However, the small risk of enormous disaster outweighs, in my opinion, the benefits of drilling in Alaskan coastal waters – especially considered with other environmental factors threatening oceans, such as rising temperatures, overfishing, and pollution.

The loss of money and negative effect on economy of a future oil spill is an effective argument in itself against oil development. However, a rebuttal could point out the economic boost which the region would experience. However, we must decide whether this is truly positive. Improving the economy may seem to be positive, but does the region really benefit? When considered environmentally, no gain is apparent, but other factors - such as overall happiness and wealth - must also be considered.

Overall, I believe this is a situation in which the precautionary principle was successfully applied to argue against oil development in coastal waters of Alaska.

References

Lessons of the Exxon Valdez. New York Times. March 22, 2009. Accessed 21 October 2009. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23mon1.html

Ricciardi, Michael. May 1, 2009. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill – 20 Years After: The Analysis. Accessed 21 October 2009. Available at: http://ecoworldly.com/2009/05/01/the-exxon-valdez-oil-spill-20-years-after-the-analysis/

2 comments:

  1. The facts and explanation of the precautionary principle was clearly represented. I like the use of numerical facts, shows some scientific evidence. But what does drilling in aquatic ecosystem mean?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great job. I liked i you even anticipated the comebacks that other people might have for you. I like your persuasiveness and how you point ot all the details in the facts.

    ReplyDelete