Yes, but with very strict environmental regulations

I think that we should use other solutions because animals live up there and they are losing their homes.

Even with environmental regulations it is still too much of a risk to the already seriously declining state of how the environment is already, therefore the drilling should not be allowed at all.

Federal land set aside for conservation should never be drilled upon. Theodore Roosevelt, while exploring Yellowstone and expanding the national parks system, determined that these lands must never be tainted by human/capitalist greed. Alternative fuel sources can, and must, be expanded upon to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels.

Companies would still find loopholes and we are trying to do everything we can to decrease climate change.

Drilling is a clear violation to anything that could be even defined as a "wildlife refuge" endangering the very place which they swear to protect for animals should also be of protection to the people of earth being effected slowly by such drilling.

There is already too much oil being removed from the earth for burning, without the oil from the wildlife refuges. The oil removed from the wildlife refuges will contribute to the wildlife refuge's demise not only through allowing exploitation in the lands, but also by contributing to global warming, which will damage the ecosystems in the wildlife refuges. These high-density ecosystems are important because they offer local tourism opportunities, and also contribute to the culture and religions of local indigenous peoples.

With or without strict regulations precious wildlife is being disturbed, it's important to leave wild spaces untouched.

I can agree with this as well, but I would prefer that we stay out of wildlife refuges and invest more in alternative energy sources.

I think that all of this oil drilling will lead to climate change, and the end of the world but I'm probably crazy.

With how critical the current climate crisis is, any and all concessions to companies is another nail in the coffin of the environment.

Restrictions are unable to guarantee spills will not occur. Without that guarantee, pipelines should not be built in unmonitored, remote areas. Additionally, the funds used for the pipeline could be better used to jump start renewable energy sources.

they are destroying the environment and wildlife by creating Eletric cars since we digging deep into the earth.

It's hard for me to say without much education on the systems in which companies drill in wildlife refuges. I can assume it would be difficult, in a way that drilling companies are too hurried to care for, to have these "very strict environmental regulations," and maybe even impossible.

Any disturbance, no matter how strict the limitations, on the Wildlife Refuge would cause extreme disturbances. Alaska houses some of the most endangered species in our country, and it is vital to protect them. Carbon emissions from fossil fuels taken from the Refuge would damage our planet anyway, it's not worth risking the injury of animals when there are better alternatives for clean energy out there.

Who's to say they won't take the "yes" and run with it? "Environmental regulations" could mean a multitude of things coming from greedy, corrupt people.

Even with strict environmental regulations, wildlife refuges are very at-risk areas and no drilling of any kind should occur there.

Environmental regulations are already fading with any decision to alter a natural wildlife sanctuary. No drilling shouldnt be happening at all.

With climate change already higher than years prior, and the rapid escalade. It wouldn't be wise to destroy another natural habitat for resources that could be found or produced in more environmentally friendly ways.