Probably the most antagonistic debate of President Obama’s secondary term, the Keystone pipeline system controversy has caused a major disturbance in the political regime due to its heavily disputed factual evidence. Ever since construction began in 2008 and it was commissioned in 2010, the Phase I portion of the pipeline has been haunted by talk of the possible expansion causing disorder among environmentalists and preservationists. While Phase II and Phase III have been completed since the current date, Phase IV, commonly referred to as the Keystone XL pipeline, has been put to startling halt due to the President’s veto on February 11, 2015, to a bill passed by the Senate advocating the pipeline. The President’s veto was placed forth due …show more content…
While proponents for not building the pipeline cite past unfortunate events as evidence for their argument, there are many facts that lead to the dismissal of these claims as unrelated or simply irrelevant. A widely used example is the Deepwater Horizon spill, or the BP oil spill, in April of 2010. This spill was highly covered by American media, engraving in the public mind that waters surrounding oil refineries and lines often become damaged or contaminated. This is shown by the opposition’s contention that the original route crossed the Sandhills in Nebraska. The Sandhills are considered wetlands by state and federal governments and are home to a large portion of the Ogallala Aquifer, “the single most important source of water in the High Plains region, providing nearly all the water for residential, industrial, and agricultural use” (Ogallala Aquifer). Comparing the consequences of the Deepwater Horizon incident to pessimistic thoughts of the Keystone XL, advocates of the project’s cancellation claim that if the pipeline were to break or leak at point along the route near the aquifer, it would pollute the area’s usable water, therefore causing significant environmental and economic damage. Rebuttals for this argument are very resolute; pipeline supporters and other experts assert that this should not be as big of an issue as it is advertised to be. James Goeke, professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a hydrologist by trade in
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.
Almost 95 million barrels of oil and fuel are produced each day in order to provide energy and fuel to people the world over. A major component of the oil industry is the transportation of oil through various means including oil pipelines. These pipelines are capable of transporting thousands of barrels of oil thousands of miles per day. In the United States one possible pipeline has caused a lot of controversy and discussion on the impact it will have on the United States. The difficulty in deciding if the Keystone XL Pipeline should be built is in whether the possibility of economic growth outweighs the possibility of environmental destruction. In order to make a decision, one must first look into the history of oil pipelines. It is crucial
Thesis Statement: In the U.S, the Keystone XL Pipeline is doing more harm than good.
“For years, the Keystone pipeline has occupied what I frankly consider an over-inflated role in our political discourse,” said Obama (Article 2, Pg. 2). The Keystone and the Dakota pipeline one of two rejected by government administration. Protest still till this day are being held by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, other Native American tribes, and other supporters, to put a stop to the building of the pipeline which carries crude oil through: North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois.
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 keystone pipeline is a major current topic in politics. President Trump is all for it and other members of congress are strongly against it. Most people oppose the pipeline because the cost. It is estimated to be somewhere around the five point three billion dollars to build the pipeline. Many people also the pipeline could contaminate water which could harm any living thing on this planet. No one wants contaminated water,but there is no proof or any recent accidents that show pipeline will hurt the water in the ground. An explosion could also happen but it is very unlikely, and if an explosion would ever occur. It could possibly affect the air and hurt people with asthma. Not only would this
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 Keystone XL Pipeline Project has many pros and cons just as any project does, but this project has way bigger cons than most projects this country will face today. “The Keystone XL Pipeline is an environmental crime in progress.” “It’s also been called the most destructive project on the planet.” The major issues with the Keystone XL Pipeline are “the dirty tar sands oil, the water waste, indigenous populations, refining tar sands oil and don’t forget the inevitable; pipeline spills.” And these are just some of the environmental issues, not too mention how building this thing from Canada to Texas; 2,100 miles to be exact, is affecting the people and their land, as stated “this isn’t a little tiny pipeline,
The pipeline not only poses a threat to one of only 326 Native American reservations left in this country, but also to the environment as a whole. Regardless of where you stand, the wrongdoing on the part of the United States Government is undeniable. The Dakota Access Pipeline is corrupt at its core and the dangers surrounding its construction have the potential to be catastrophic to the dwindling Native population by threatening their only source of water. A significant saying within the Sioux tribe, especially in times of protest, is a simple one, but one that is clearly not understood by some, and that is “water is
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
This pipeline is designed transport oil from Alberta, Canada down to Steele City, Nebraska, and then south to Texas. The idea of building this pipeline was first brought into light in 2005, and is still a popular topic today. The designated route of this pipeline is to cross the homelands of the Sioux tribe. The essential issue with this pipeline is that it would endanger the Ogallala Aquifer. This aquifer supplies water to many thousands of both native and non-native citizens. Many people are afraid that the pipeline could contaminate the water, and potentially destroy sacred burial grounds. A statement was made by President Kindle of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe saying, “The land, water, tribal sovereignty, and governmental services were not ‘given’ to us in those treaties, they were bargained for with the blood of our ancestors. We will not dishonor our relatives and unnecessarily endanger our health, safety, and wellbeing. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will take any and all necessary steps, up to and including litigation, to protect our people, our land and water, and our cultural and historic resources.” (William Kindle, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, NARF). This quote stated by Kindle provides great evidence about how the tribe feels about their land and sovereignty for their natural resources. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe want to assure that all of their citizens’ welfare and health are protected. All options are to be explored to ensure the safety of not only the citizens, but the resources and the land as well. There was a 210,000-gallon oil leak in the pipeline that scared the citizens. The leak was directly across from the tribal lands and resources. Many fear that any further leak will be on the burial grounds, and the land will be abolished. A
For the past two years, The Dakota Access Pipeline has ignited fierce debate between environmental activists and energy advocates, spurring polarizing and confusing headlines. Cutting through four states from North Dakota to Illinois, the $3.7 billion project is threatening to affect the lives of many, and promising to bring unparalleled energy to the northcentral United States. But all these threats and promises, protests, and incidental reports on social media cloud the science behind each argument and separate the public from a true understanding of the source of contention: fracking.
I would remind the concept ‘Visual rhetoric’, which is defined as “study and the production of the visual representation of space, environment, ecology, and nature in photographs, paintings, television, film, video games, computer media, and other forms of image-based media to construct or challenge “seeing” of nature or what constitutes an environmental problem” (Cox & Pezzullo, p. 74). Laurie Allmann’s Anticipating Rhythm video talks about how the art and popular culture do use in environmental issues, how they are interpreted as visual rhetoric to the public. I was sympathized that tell the small story first and then expand on state and globe with telling authentic and true story be accompanied with visual arts or sounds as complementary truth, because telling general environmental issues cannot make attentions and interests regardless of people who are interested in the nature.
My Role as a Community Service Chair in the National Society of Leadership and Success
There were many things that caused World War 1. First off, World War 1 began in August 1914 and was triggered by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife on June 28th 1914 by a member of The Black Hand society, known as Gavrilo Princip. Gavrilo saw his opportunity and shot the gun into the car and shot Franz Ferdinand and his wife at point-blank range. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife was one of the reasons that caused World War 1. Immediately after Franz’s death, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, setting off the alliances.