Human Rights, Democracy, And Peace

Thesis Statement: In the U.S, the Keystone XL Pipeline is doing more harm than good.

Canada ranks among the leading energy producers in the world, through oil production. These oil deposits rank oil sands of Canada as the largest oil deposits in the world after the Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The only challenge with the oil sand deposits is that oil deposits are seen as unconventional. In effect, tar sands are recognized as one of the dirtiest energy sources in the world (Bailey & Droitsch, 2015). This fact is founded on the production factor; in producing one barrel of tar sands oil, the hazardous emissions are three to five times that of producing the equivalent of conventional oil. The Alberta oil sands are viewed as the single largest economic project in human history. The Canadian government and oil

The Keystone XL is a controversial oil pipeline extension that would travel from Alberta, Canada, to the United States Gulf Coast. The Keystone XL should not be built because of the damage it would cause to the environment. The oil would be found within tar sands that contain bitumen. The process of extracting the crude oil uses a lot of energy and causes a large amount of greenhouse gases. Many citizens, in Canada and the United States, are outraged because it can be detrimental to the surrounding land and wildlife. TransCanada, the company building the oil pipeline, has to receive permission from the United States government to begin construction. If the United States does not have the pipeline built and chooses to not use Canada’s oil, then TransCanada will have the pipeline built elsewhere and exported to other countries. There has been a divide between those in favor of the Keystone XL and those who are not. The Keystone XL would be able to provide the United States with a reliable source of oil, but it would also take the risk of faults in the oil pipeline and ruining parts of America’s resourceful soil. The Keystone XL will cause a negative effect on the environment and damage resourceful land; therefore, the oil pipeline should not be constructed.

One of the most controversial issues faced nowadays is the way we deal with the transport of oil. One of the proposed methods is The Keystone XL Pipeline. Although there are some pros associated with building the pipeline, the risk outweighs the benefits by far. Building the Keystone XL pipeline would negatively affect the environment, jeopardize the public health and is to no benefit to the American people.

The extraction of the bitumen rich tar sands usually entails heating the oil while in the ground so that it may be pumped up to the surface which can be dangerous and cause harm to the surrounding area. The refining of the oil can be even more dangerous to the environment because the tar sands requires a special process of refining that would create copious amounts of greenhouse gases. Many opposing the pipeline also believe that the pipeline would not be as safe as supporters say it would be. Looking at the Keystone 1 Pipeline, the “previous pipeline was said to be safe but leaked much more than anyone anticipated. ‘In its first year, the pipeline leaked 14 times, with the largest spill exceeding 21,000 gallons’” (Swift). TransCanada claimed that the first pipeline would be safe and that it would not leak for many years, yet the pipe still leaked and caused major damage to the surrounding area. This left those affected, as well as other concerned Americans, to wonder why they should trust the company with building another pipeline and why the company’s promises should be trusted again. Environmentalists and those against the Keystone XL Pipeline “also object

Have you ever imagined a world without oil because almost everything around you is made with it like plastic, food, gas etc. For example plastic is absolutely everywhere about 4-5% of the total us petroleum consumption is dedicated to the manufacture of plastic products. If we do not build the keystone pipeline how will we get our oil? Even though rails are slightly faster at transporting oil does not mean they are safer. Transporting oil by rails is more likely to explode or spill and if we continue to do so we will be wasting a ton of oil that could be used for our community. This brings me to my last

The next major environmental issue of the pipeline is the indigenous populations. “Northern Alberta’s, where the tar sands oil comes from, people are coming under attack because of their operation of the tar sands in their livelihoods and cultural traditions.”5 Other people affected by this project are the people who live in communities downstream from the tailing ponds, “they have seen spikes in rates of rare cancers, renal failure, lupus, and hyperthyroidism.” “In the lakeside village of Fort Chipewyan, for example, one hundred of the town’s one thousand-two hundred residents have died from cancer.”5 So not only will this pipeline affect the people living around it but it will also affect the people working on it and living around the tailing ponds, wherever those may be located. With it traversing six U.S. states that means a lot of people could get sick and even die from a project that has so many issues with it before it’s even began to be used for its intended purpose.

With an increasing global population and ever industrializing society 's, environmental concern is rarely given priority over economic incentive. But what people fail to realize is that our environmental failures, and relative apathy about it set up a plethora of problems for future generations to deal with. One of the most important decisions president Obama will face in the next year will be whether or not to approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, a massively sized, and massively controversial oil pipeline that would stretch all the way from Alberta Canada, to American oil refineries along the Gulf Of Mexico. Despite the economic incentive present, the building of the Keystone XL pipeline should not happen because of the

In February 9, 2005, the TransCanada proposed a pipeline system that would be able to transport crude oil from Canada into the United States. The pipeline was given the name the Keystone Pipeline System. Originally, the pipeline was to run from Alberta, Canada to refineries in Illinois. However, in 2008 another proposition was raised in order to extend the pipeline even further to down to Texas. The proposition is known as the Keystone XL. The possible construction of the pipeline is a controversial topic. Entrepreneurs believe that such a pipeline will stimulate the nation's economy and lead to an increase in the amount of jobs. On the other side, environmentalists believe that the pipeline will be detrimental for the environment as the

To begin, the Keystone XL Pipeline, is a crude oil pipeline that has a 36 inch, diameter. It is owned by the Transcanada Corporation. Transcanada claims that it will fuel the everyday lives of Americans. They also claim that, the pipeline is to be safe, clean, etcetera. Overall beneficial to America taking fossil fuels

Oil is a significant essential in this society because it runs automobiles such as cars, buses, truck etc. Without oil, transportation, business and economic trade wouldn’t be possible. “The Dakota Access Pipeline Project is a $3.78 billion conduit being built from the oil-rich Bakken fields in North Dakota. .transport up to 570,000 barrels a day of crude to refineries and markets in the Gulf and on the East Coast” (Ablow). The Dakota Access Pipeline is funded by Energy Transfer Partners. They believe that will have a huge impact on the economic state of the United States because it will “bring an estimated $156 million in sales and income taxes to state and local governments as well as add 8,000 to 12,000 construction jobs”(Park). With over 10,000 of jobs and $150 million dollars that would bring into this country, The Dakota Access Pipeline is a project that is beneficial to the local and national economy of the country. “In addition, the Dakota Access Pipeline will improve overall safety to the public and environment. It will reduce crude oil shipped by truck and by rail and increase the amount shipped by pipeline” (Energy Transfers). Minimizing the trucks in delivering oil will help to prevent global warming and climate change. After the pipeline was approved by the government, The members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe protested near the construction of The Dakota Access Pipeline. The tribe members are deeply against the project because it would damage their

Environmental welfare has become one of our most important priorities since the widely-spread awareness of climate change. Recently, there has been a controversial subject arousing from the midwest that is allegedly threatening our environment - the construction of Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). This $3.8 billion, 1,172-mile pipeline project will be crossing four states from North Dakota through Illinois to supply crude oil coming from the oil-rich Bakken area (Yan). DAPL will supposedly create new jobs like construction and maintenance, lower gas prices as we do not have to rely exporting oil from overseas, and boost energy production in our country as we continue to consume more energy resources. However, induced with negative feelings from

David Morris, a writer specializing in transportation and logistics, gives various examples of past instances in which oil being carried by train has proved harmful to the environment and even fatal to many people involved in the accident. There are also numerous statistical pieces of research included, supporting the concept that railway transport is less safe than using an underground pipeline for the oil. In the Fortune article “Pipelines: The Worst Way to Move Oil, Except For All the Rest”, Morris Presents a short review of the recent events in relation to the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) before suggesting another factor that could pose a threat to the area. The dangers of transporting the oil via railway are addressed, giving another perspective on how the situation could be made far worse for the Industries supporting the project and the environmentalists protesting against its

There has been much controversy over whether or not to build the Keystone XL pipeline that would connect Canadian Alberta oil fields to refineries in Texas. The proposed pipeline, which would be built by TransCanada, would connect two existing pipes, consisting total of around 1,700 miles of pipeline. The two sides of this argument can be roughly boiled down to two words: environment and economy. In such turbulent times can Americans afford to pass up a so-called shovel ready project that would create jobs and cut dependence on foreign oil from unfriendly places, or, as some would claim, is the risk of environmental mayhem too great? There is much dispute between both sides on the actual facts of the project, and a surprising amount of

For instance, Rufe, who is a scientist, states that we have not developed an approach that can clean more than 3 to 5 percent of the spilled oil” (Mufson, 2012). Furthermore, In the Gulf of Mexico, although 205.8 million gallons of oil have been spilled, just 51.8 million gallons have been collected, which equals approximately 25 percent. Moreover, in order to clean the Gulf from the oil spills almost 2 million gallons of toxic dispersants were used. Unfortunately, the toxic dispersants did not truly purify the spilled oil, but fractured them into tinier particles. As a consequence, that may make the oil more harmful for some ocean animals and plants ( A Center for Biological Diversity Report, 2008). However, with the increasing of offshore oil drilling accidents, and with no solution to solve the problem efficiently. The hazardous impact is not going to affect only on animals and plants. It might affect people who depend on the polluted area for food, ecological enrichment, and entertainment ( A Center for Biological Diversity Report,