To Drill Or Not To Drill
The debate over the oil crisis has opposing views. The first view states that the oil crisis needs to decrease its dependence on oil and find alternative sources of energy. The second opposing view states to solve the oil energy crisis is to drill Alaska and other countries. To accomplish this debate and individual needs to state their position in this matter. They can accomplish this by using the six stages of critical thinking, which include the unreflective thinker, the challenged thinker, the beginner thinker, the practicing thinker, the advanced thinker, and the master thinker. Opposing views can block an individual’s decision in defending his or her views, by using the thought process you can overcome blocks and the thought process can manipulate perception. (Bellis, 2012) Stating The Issue
The debate over the oil crisis is to increase drilling Alaska, the Gulf Coast, and other explored parts of the U.S. The advantages of drilling in Alaska would increase jobs and revenues and provide adequate relief to the economy and a response to alternative sources. The disadvantages would still cause the demand to increase and prices rise to the consumer. Therefore, drilling is important to the industry but not for lowering prices and energy security. (Stewart, 2012) The high fuel prices, home disclosures, unemployment, food prices, and wars favors oil drilling. In 2008 57% favored offshore drilling with less environment concern and more safety measures in place, and computer controlled data for oil companies to prevent disasters. Consequently, the U.S. is the 3rd largest oil producer and oil imports connected to the trade deficit. Political decisions affect the U.S. because the U.S. needs other countries oil. As a result, drilling in Alaska have impact on speculation on the oil investment in needing more oil for the U.S. . (Baird, 2012)...