For over sixty years, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, a 1.6-million-acre stretch of fragile tundra at the edge of the Arctic Sea, has been protected by federal regulations and owned by the Bureau of Land Management. The land has historically been protected to preserve the animals and resources on the land. 2017 estimates determined 8.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 25 trillion feet of recoverable natural gas on the ANWR.

In 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs act was passed with provisions opening the refuge to oil and gas exploration and development. This act allows the Bureau of Land Management to sell land leases to oil companies for development and subsequent fossil fuel drilling. 

Environmentalists fear opening up the area for development and oil drilling will harm the environment. With the impacts of global warming already visible, environmentalists fear the effects of continuing to mine for fossil fuels instead of using sustainable and renewable energy sources. 

Climate change leads to worsening weather patterns, increased insect population, drought, wildfires, and other huge impacts. Additionally, the lands protect the wildlife and resources critical to the indigenous population, such as caribou, migratory birds, and other natural resources.

However, bringing gas and oil companies to the Alaskan wilderness would bring jobs and infrastructure to Alaska. While selling the land for oil drilling would not only bring revenue to the Alaskan government and jobs for the citizens, it would also provide revenue to the Department of the Treasury. 

Everyone would receive financial benefits from the sales. It will also keep oil production within the United States, and the fuel mined in Alaska would stay in America. Domestic oil sources would reduce the USA’s need to rely on other countries. Keeping oil production within the USA will also keep gas prices down, and the USA can avoid price gouging during inflated global oil prices. 

The question for debate is, should Alaska be selling off land for pipeline use, or should Alaska preserve the Alaskan wilderness?