Happy Snow Day!
When I first heard about this pipeline I thought what a strange way to deliver beer. Now I get it. Read the article and think.
1) How do you feel about the decision by the state of Nebraska?
2) How do you feel about the pipeline in general?
3) Why is Canada so bent on getting this built?
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/02/20/nebraska_delivers_a_glacial_setback_for_keystone_xl_pipeline_project.html
This is my post for the week:
ReplyDeleteReally this article seems very pro-american and only mentions Canadian government and how we feel about the whole thing at the very end. As the article says, there is much confusion going on in Nebraska right now concerning the pipelines future and approval in a recent court hearing. I think this shows the disorganization of the Nebraskan state courts. They cant seem to figure out who has the authorization to pass that sort of bill.
Taking a step back and looking at the issue from Canada's perspective there are some pros to the pipeline like: increased jobs, international trade, and increased economic activity. But the Cons most certainly out weigh the pros in my opinion. As we continue to pollute our earth we are slowly killing the environment and inevitably, ourselves. The main oil grounds for the keystone pipeline would be the Tars sands located in Alberta which we talked about in class as one of the single most detrimental projects to our environment ever. If the Pipeline is built in the future, the USA will get all the money, jobs, and economic support while Canada is left with a huge mess and environmental damage from extracting the precious oil. This pipeline will have a very negative impact on Canada's environment and I believe the money being used for this project could be easily funnelled into making a more efficient and powerful electric engine to fix the world oil crisis.
Here is a link that shows you some good pros and cons of the Keystone Pipeline:
http://www.cep.ca/en/news/in-the-news/pros-and-cons-keystone-xl-pipeline-project
I thought your article was pretty interesting Adrian. The fact that although many people believe that if the pipeline is approved that there would be a large amount of new jobs created for Canada, it is not the case. The article mentions that the jobs created would be far less than those in the US, but yet we would be left with the clean up, and that they are temporary, rather than secure. They explained that there would only be about a dozen secure jobs created in Canada. That's crazy! I definitely think that the writer should be more careful to explain both sides.
DeleteI agree Ruth! The writer was pretty clear that he was pro-pipeline. It's really a shame because these types of articles that withhold the information from the public don't allow the public to be properly informed about the issues.
Deletecool past Archie, i totally agree with what you said about the environment and that you thought the aritcle was very one sided. I agree Anne as well that it's a shame writers only protray a certain image of the issue that they feel should be seen rather than supplying the public with ALL the important facts so that they are properly informed. Just because a lot of people just accpet what they read and move on, so i agree they should be given any info despite if it goes againt the writers opinion
DeleteThis is my post for the week:
ReplyDeleteThis article is written in a pro-pipeline perspective. The entire article focused on how the pipeline could be beneficial for the oil industries and how the decisions made in Nebraska is an inconvenience. It is unfortunate that the article did not mention the reasons negative side of the pipeline and why the judge made this decision. This makes it very difficult for the reader to have an opinion on the subject.
Personally, just by reading this article, I was not able to decide whether the pipeline is a good thing or a bad thing. As I did more research, I realized both the pros and cons of this project. The Keystone pipeline can help boost the economy by providing more jobs in the industry and aid the oil lobbyists which will in turn help the country’s economy. On the other hand, the tar sands used to obtain the oil increase greenhouse gases excessively, pollute the air, destroy wildlife habitats and can pollute the water ways around it (Take note the tar sands are in Canada). Also, the construction of the pipeline itself will destroy the ecosystems increase the chance of oil spills in its path. The construction of the pipeline will prominently benefit the American economy (since most of the new available jobs will be in the oil refineries in Texas) while leaving Canada to deal with the majority of the environmental aspects (i.e the tar sands). I understand that Canada is bent on this decision because of the possible financial benefit as well as the pressure put on by the oil lobbyists to build the pipeline, but I do not agree with its construction. I do not think the financial benefits are worth the amount of destruction the construction of the pipeline will cause. It seems like the Americans are benefiting from this pipeline far more and the Canadians are left with most of the mess. The money spent to build this pipeline could be used to find more efficient ways to extract oil than using the tar sands. Therefore, I am definitely happy with Nebraska’s decision and I hope this inconvenience can show our leaders that the pipeline might not be such a good idea.
Here are my sources:
http://www.cep.ca/en/news/in-the-news/pros-and-cons-keystone-xl-pipeline-project
http://moneymorning.com/tag/keystone-pipeline-pros-and-cons/
This is my post for the week
ReplyDeleteI agree that the pipeline is a hard decision to make because there are many good reasons to use it such as more jobs which will make the economy better but there is a lot of controversy because it is so bad for the environment. It also does make sense that the Nebraska government seems unorganized and lost because they don't really know the answer and are just saying that it will take time. My opinion on the pipeline is that because of the negative effects on the environment, it should not be built since they out way the positive effects. If we don't have an environment or an Earth then jobs and things like that are irrelevant. The pipeline effects the atmosphere because it pollutes the air quality because of dust and construction. It also effects the soil which can be eroded or contaminated which can lead to acid rain. Pipelines being built can also damage the vegetation and wildlife surrounding the area because of contamination of habitat due to the construction. In my opinion the negative environmental aspects of the pipeline totally outweigh the positive affects. Canada is probably so bent on getting this built because of the positive economy affects but the economy is obviously not as important as the environment and a solution would be to figure out another way to improve the economy that doesn't effect the environment.
This is an article on the harmful environmental effects of pipelines http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2012-37-e.htm
I agree that the economic motives of the project should not be the deciding factors if the environmental effects are so numerous! The fact is Canada- compared to other countries- is not in a financial crisis, therefore in my opinion, if we would be knowingly damaging our environment we should not continue with the idea. We have been told time and time again that global warming is happening, so i think that we should definitely be careful in what we are choosing to do.
DeleteI agree with the both of you! In my personal opinion, I believe that environment trumps economy on every playing field. Also, the environmental repercussions of this pipeline could force us to pay even more to fix the enviromental damage that this will create. So basically, the positive effects that this pipeline could create for our economy are not worth the environmental damage and cost to try to fix the damage in the future.
DeleteGabrielle makes a valid point. The short-term benefits that Canada's economy might have with the production of this pipeline will almost certainly be overshadowed by the immense costs we'll face in the future trying to repair the environmental damage. By trashing the plans for this pipeline, we'd be trashing the mess it would make in our backyard and in our pockets. No need for a solution if we don't create a problem!
DeleteThis is my week 3 post:
ReplyDeleteI think that the decision from the state of Nebraska was a poor choice on their part. There are huge economic benefits to the pipeline. For example, the state has the right to charge property taxes for the oil to pass through their property. This form of income could have amazing benefits for their people, helping to fund schools, parks, emergency services and other state services. Also, a pipeline is the cleanest way to move oil, and by not approving the pipeline they could be causing more environmental harm when this oil will be moved by rail instead.
In general I feel like the pipeline is a good idea. Ultimately this oil will be taken from the canadian oil sands, and the pipeline proves to be the cleanest and cheapest way to move oil. Their are huge economical benefits to the pipeline as well, including the tens of thousands of jobs that are created to build it. I do take into consideration the environmental effects fossil fuels have, but as Barack Obama has said, he wishes to push for cleaner energy sources. This doesnt mean he has to cancel the pipeline, it means he also needs to work on projects to build solar energy farms, harnessing nuclear power, ect. I think the pipeline has great benefits to both nations and I like the idea of the pipeline.
I think Canada is so bent on building the pipeline because it secures us a great oil partnership with an ally nation. Should the americans go ahead and say no to the pipeline, canada will have to turn the pipeline to the coast where our oil will be sold to china. This will cause a waste of time and money, and need a lot more planning. I think Canada already has is plans for the oil, and just wishes to follow through with them.
I agree completely. The pipeline is a method of transporting oil not a method of creating more. It is more environmentally friendly than train or boat transport. If Canada wants to sell the oil it will be sold, and its a lot more efficient to send it down a pipeline than to ship it halfway around the world.
DeleteI agree with you two fellas, the pipeline is the safest and cleanest way to transport this oil because it will happen with or without the pipeline anyways so we might as well do it right. During construction the eco systems destroyed will be horrifying and sad, but in the end it's better than the amount of green house gases we save using a pipeline rather than boats and trains. It's easier and more beneficial if we establish a good relationship with the US, rather than having to deal with foreign oil companies that have violent/problematic histories.
DeleteThis is my weekly post..
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the state of Nebraska is quite unclear in what their decision is with Keystone pipeline. The government is very pro-pipeline. This situation is being forced to go ahead much faster by the government which is resulting in an unclear, and confusing situation for both Nebraska and Canada.I believe that Nebraska should take the time in sorting out the project and see if it truly has an overall beneficial outcome.
Overall I can see the benefits and the consequences of the results forming from this pipeline. Having more jobs, it would better the economy and having more energy. Although the benefits are good benefits but the consequences seem to be much greater, maybe not at first but over time. It would greatly affect the environment and since Canada and the states are already concerned with this type of issue in our future adding another giant reason to further more influence on our environment is not something they should allow.
I feel sometimes Canada is so influenced by the Americans that they sway their decisions. This will benefit Canada by financial benefits that is why they are so bent for it but overall America is going to benefit greatly from the pipeline, more so than Canada. In the the long run Canada will have to deal with the environmental damages. While America receives the better outcomes of this project.
Sources:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/k/keystone_pipeline/
I agree with your points. There are both pros and cons to the pipeline and it is hard to decide if the pros outweigh the cons. I agree that the Candians are influenced by the Americas often. The U.S. will most likely benefit greater than us, but Canada will still benefit greatly and I think thats why we are so bent on it.
DeleteI agree with you Maddie. The environmental damages is definitely something that needs to be taken into consideration since in the long run, it can potentially trump the economical benefits they predict the pipe will offer. It's vital that all these factors are discussed before coming to a definite decision.
DeleteThis is my weekly post,
ReplyDeleteI just recently wrote a position paper on the Keystone XL Pipeline, and found a lot of interesting information on it. Canada is all for this pipeline because it greatly benefits us and the only thing stopping it is Barrack Obama. People have been constantly debating that the pipeline is going to be good for the United States economy and if Obama was serious about his country then he would approve it but the economic benefits are outweighed by the amount of negative impacts the pipeline will have on the environment. States such as Nebraska have a right to be unsure of what they want because there are so many arguments both for and against the pipeline.
I personally don't think the pipeline should be built because there is no guarantee it will benefit the economy, it's bad for the environment and has a negative impact on the indigenous people near the tar sands. I think that Canada is so bent on having it built because it lowers the independence for middle eastern oil and would bring a large revenue for oil to Canada. In my opinion, if the pipeline really was a good idea, there wouldn't be so many roadblocks and both Canada and the United States would have approved it right away.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1169454/u-s-governors-break-into-on-camera-partisan-feud-after-meeting-with-obama/
This is my weekly post;
ReplyDeleteIn politics last week I had to write a position paper on the Keystone XL Pipeline, and in doing so was able to read many articles both for and against the project. Learning about all of the consequences and benefits of the pipeline was very eye opening for me because i dont usually get the chance, or rather try, to educate myself so deeply on current world issues. But it turned out to be pretty interesting.
I also found that this aritcle was pretty one sided when it comes to the US, and the pipeline being built in general. While reading i got the impression that Nebraska is just confused right now, whether it be just the over all approval and building of the pipeline or that they dont know who has the power/authority to pass such a bill, so that made their legal system appear all over the place. This worries me due to the fact that it appears as though they dont fully comprehend the seriousness of their decisions when it involved the pipeline's future.
After reading several articles written from the Canadian AND Americal point of view regarding the KXL, I have still not come to a conclusion. Yes it will produce more green house gases, and potentially further destroy our environment (habitats, water/air pollution), but it will also provide more than 100,000 jobs in the US and Canada, which, not going to lie, we could all use. Our economies have been struggling for so many years, more so in the States, and the pipeline could help decrease a lot of poverty nation wide. Not to mention that the crude oil from Alberta will be shipped down to Texas with or without the KXL, and which is worse, a pressured pipeline, or thousands of trains and trucks? America wants our oil and theyre going to get it one way or another, it's sad and devestating, but it will happen. Building the pipeline will also allow America to lessen their relationship with sketchy over seas oil companies, and allow them to become more energy independant.
The pros are definitely higher for America and lower for Canada because it's our precious land that is going to torn apart and poisined, it's our animals that will get run out of their homes (America's will as well during construction but less so), and it's our people that are dying from rare cancers. It's a very difficult choice to be made by Obama and everyone else involded, and i hope for everyone's sake that they think long and hard before choosing a side. Because if they only consider the economical benefits, and the money and the energy security/safety, then there may be a very sad future for our environment and our people.
All in all i am just as confused as everyone else when it comes to choosing if the Keystone XL Pipeline should be built.
http://keystone-xl.com/about/jobs-and-economic-benefits/
heres a link explaining the benefits of the pipeline - TransCanada :)
This is my week 3 post. This article seems very slanted in several ways. Firstly is it speaks mostly about the American side of the situations, and secondly it only speaks about the political trouble and non of the environmental impacts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that a pipeline is a very effective way to transport crude oil, and if maintained properly the chance of disaster can be reduced. It is excellent for the economy and job growth, but many of the jobs are temporary because you only build a pipeline once. The remaining jobs would mostly be in the states, working at refineries due to increasing productivity, leaving Canada with few long term jobs.
On the other hand there are detrimental environmental side effects, such as habitat loss, possibility of oil leaks and pipeline ruptures, and the result of enabling the burning of more toxic fossil fuels. Habitat loss can lead to more endangers species also the extinction of them. Oil spills can kill many animals directly as well as pollute drinking water and contaminate soils. Building a pipeline that will transport over 830 000 barrels of oil per day on top of the existing 800 000 barrels a day which is exported to the U.S. now, will allow that much more to be refined, then burnt. As we know this causes the burning of fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere resulting less global heat loss which leads to global warming.
In my opinion this pipeline should not be build nor should any other pipeline, we should not be increasing production or use of oil especially tarsands oil but be reducing our dependency.
(source for some of my statistics)
http://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Energy-and-Climate/Drilling-and-Mining/Tar-Sands/Keystone-XL-Pipeline.aspx