Impact Of Global Warming On Our Local And National Media Broadcasters

In his essay titled “Climate of Denial”, Al Gore, a well known environmental advocate and former vice president, verifies the reality of climate change and global warming. The piece is an attack on corrupt companies and news outlets that attempt to persuade the public that global warming is not a critical issue. Gore also earnestly conveys our environment’s current state and offers possible solutions that would increase awareness about global warming and begin to revert the planet back to a healthier, more sustainable state. The overarching purpose of Gore’s work is to call attention to the widespread climate change that is occurring. However, he also focuses on the corruption and bias within the media, and their attempts to conceal the truth about global warming. Writing to those who are conflicted about who to believe, he makes a valid argument that defends the beliefs of he and his fellow activists and encourages others to become more active in the climate change issue.

Pollution is already a huge ongoing battle in the United States and if constructed the pipeline would send about 800,000 barrels of hazardous oil a day along with tons of greenhouse gases. The US Department of Environmental Protection estimates the greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian oil will be more than 80% greater than oil refined in the US. That is roughly equivalent to the same amount of emissions released by 5.7 million passenger vehicles. Unfortunately, when emissions are passed into the air, the air cannot be cleaned, and since oxygen is a vital component in keeping humans alive, adding an oil pipeline that would put that much emissions into the air is far too dangerous for the public’s health what it’s

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

The problem that the pro- global warming theorists have created is that of social standing and little else. While there may be scientific backing to support some of the theory, the media presents the problem with great sensationalism. Global warming and energy conservation has thus become a trend and losses some of its validity through this. The scare tactics used by the media to “promote awareness” are just that, a linguistic ploy to gain favor. “Awareness of this global threat reinforced public concern and environmental problems and thereby provided environmental activists, scientists, and policy makers with new momentum in their efforts to promote environmental protection.” (McCright, 2000) This statement draws line to the potential benefits that would be received if the pro-global warming theorists were to draw enough attention to the issue. Driven by social empowerment and conviction to environmental protection, these activists misrepresent the actual threat and paint it as being much more

The Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project has brought forth many conflicting arguments, thus resulting in some parties being for it and some against it. I believe however, the risks are far greater than the rewards. The controversies surrounding the oil pipeline have brought up significant reports regarding environmental safety and concern with also safety and concern of the public. Due to the fact that presently, there is one operational pipeline running from Alberta to the Pacific Coast, I believe the introduction of a new pipeline would have disastrous consequences if something were to happen whether being an oil spill or a fire. The NEB (National Energy Board) failed to mention significant situations in which this pipeline could significantly

“In a few decades, the relationship between the environment, resources, and conflict may seem almost as obvious as the connection we see today between human rights, democracy, and peace (Nobel Peace Prize Medalist Maathai 2004).” A Canadian oil company that goes by TransCanada hopes to build an oil pipeline that would extend an enormous 1,200 miles onto an already gargantuan 2,600 mile long pipeline. Keystone XL represents just under a third of the entire Keystone project, and every other piece of pipe has been built and laid out. In fact, TransCanada 's pipeline system is already shipping hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil from the Canadian oil sands across the U.S. border -- and into Illinois (Diamond). The current proposal would take the pipeline on a journey all the way through to Texas. Extracting crude oil from oil sands would be enormously problematic for the environment as it causes the pumping of about 17% more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than standard crude oil extraction. Tar sand oil has levels of carbon dioxide emissions that are three to four times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive removal and refining processes (Friends of the Earth). The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would stimulate employment, the effects would be temporary and the whole scheme would produce a negative long term outcome. The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline has caused

Climate change has been a subject of discussion in the media for many years, supported with the use of arguments against oil polluting the environment and extreme scare tactics of Polar ice caps flooding civilians backyards. The issue has been ignored by the majority of lay people as seeming too complicated, and with all the conflicting information in the media in the past, who can blame them? However, scientifically, climate change and what perpetrates it is fairly simple to understand and society as a whole is beginning to come to a clear consensus on climate change. Thanks in part to more readily available forms of media and information, people have become cognizant of the fact that climate change is a legitimate problem which requires immediate amelioration. While this may seem melodramatic, society is realizing that climate change is an issue which can no longer be denied if the human race wishes to continue.

Some stakeholders in the Northern Gateway Project would counter with defending the Enbridge as they plan on using thicker pipe and horizontal drilling to bore beneath 30 rivers, instead of passing through them. Though they are changing their pipe sizes and thickness, this new material is being used for the first time and could potentially become a disaster if the pipe breaks and leaves over the ocean, rivers and/or environments. (5)

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.

“If completed and once processed, transported, burned, it would release 101.4 million metric tons of CO2 each year. Equivalent to the emissions from 29.5 coal plants or 21.4 million cars per year” (Dakota Access Pipeline: Top 3 Pros and Cons). Adding more greenhouse gasses is definitely something we shouldn’t do. This pipeline would worsen our climate once it begins to pump oil. The use of alternative energies could benefit our country through being energy efficient, cost effective, and people friendly. Furthermore, the use of trails to transport crude oil is another concern because explosions can occur, killing people and damaging habitats nearby. “Pipeline supporters cite the 2013 disaster in Quebec, Canada, where a train carrying crude oil derailed and destroyed downtown Lac-Mégantic” (Yan). Many support the use of alternative energy sources that would allow people to keep their lands as well as save the Earth. Help the

The environmental risks that come with such a massive pipeline to transport “tar sands” pose a threat on many levels. As a matter of fact the tar sands they are trying to transport are required to

Oil has been an important resource of energy in America “since the discovery of the Spindletop geyser in 1901. It drove huge growth in the oil industry in America. Within a year, more than 1,500 oil companies had been chartered, and oil became the dominant fuel of the 20th century and an integral part of the American economy” (History.com Staff). This had developed the construction of pipelines to move the oil within the country and offshore in coastal waters. Recently, the federal government approved the construction of a new pipeline that would be transporting crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois.

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

The Keystone XL Pipeline is an oil pipeline system that runs in parts of Canada and the United States. The pipeline runs from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Illinois and Texas with a distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma. The pipeline has provided several jobs throughout the two countries. Many people have concerns about spills, emission, and the amount of oil left. This paper explains the location of the pipeline, the problems and concerns that surround it, and the positive outcomes it has created.

The environment is a very important thing to take care of and can be very fragile. In the recent years humanity hasn’t been doing much to take care of the earth, and instead is destroying it in the name of progress. One of the harmful things that could really impact the environment is the North Dakota Pipeline. Some facts about the pipeline is that it is owned by Energy Transfer Partners who are the owners of Sunoco. Sunoco has had multiple onshore pipeline leaks and disasters that have devastated many environments. The planned pipeline is going to be 1,134 miles long and will cut through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois, by doing that it crosses fifty counties in total. Pipelines in general aren’t really the most reliable things