Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Argument Against Keystone XL

TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 7:27:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Introduction

"The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed 1,179 mile, 36 inch in diameter crude oil pipeline, beginning in Alaska, and ending in Steele City, Nebraska." (1) The proposed pipeline is supposed to make access easier to the crude oil reserves in the midwest and U.S. gulf coast. It is said by the approving parties that it is "a way to significantly boost the American Economy." While this may seem like a good idea in some heads (more oil = bigger economy = more $$ "merica), when you look at the hard facts and statistics, the harms to our environment and world outweigh the benefits.

Environmental Impact

Utilizing common sense, one can already infer that the increased flow of oil across our nation can only result in one thing, and one thing only, increased C02 emission into the atmosphere.

One of the big reasons oil companies want this deal to go through, is because of the exploitation of tar sands in Canada, which contains oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. Dr. James Hansen (Lead Climate Scientist for NASA), states in an interview with insideclimatenews.org, "If released all at once, the known tar sands resource is equivalent to 150 parts per million." (2) To put this into perspective, insideclimatenews (ICN) told us that, "Before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air measured about 280 parts per million (ppm), according to researchers. Today, it measures about 390 ppm. That means, for example, that every million pints of air contained 390 pints of carbon dioxide. To keep climate disruption to a minimum, many scientists say ppm shouldn't rise above 350." If the tar sands are exploited and turned into oil, then used, the total ppm of C02 emitted would be 150 ppm. This is a lot, compared to the 350 that scientists say we need to be at or below. How can this idea be supported, when the refining of this oil will inevitably result in extreme climate damage? This is one of the reasons why the plan shouldn"t, and can"t go through.

Faulty Claims

One of the main arguments for those supporting the pipeline that it is a "job creator." While this may be true for the short term, anyone with proper reasoning can come to the conclusion that this is a misguided notion. John Hoeven of North Dakota says that, "Well, the environmental impact statement prepared by the Obama administration says 42,000 jobs are supported by this project, $3.4 billion in GDP increase, $8 billion project, and tell the families that would be getting those paychecks that those aren"t good jobs. Construction jobs are good jobs." (3) This might seem like a promising deal to those who are not considering all of the facts, but the illegitimate reasoning is hiding in plain sight. Yes this will create jobs, but this is a construction project, and construction projects don"t provide a life career. The building of the pipeline will only last for about 1-2 years, plus, there are only about 16,100 jobs directly being created. That being said, in 1-2 years, 16,000 people will be out of jobs again, looking for their next paycheck. What the Senator means by 42,000 jobs, are the jobs indirectly created, such as; companies that the construction companies purchased goods from, and transportation. Therefore, all jobs created will be rendered void after the construction of the pipeline.

Another argument that people use to defend the pipeline is, "There is so much oil in the tar sands, and it needs to be unlocked, so that the American Economy can grow." Yes this is true, but we don"t need a pipeline for this to effectively happen. (3) States that, "Canada exported about 182,000 barrels per day (bpd) by rail in the third quarter of 2014, up from nearly 124,000 bpd in the third quarter of 2013 and about 57,000 bpd in the third quarter of 2012, according to Canada"s National Energy Board." This evidence shows that oil from the tar sands is already being sent to America, without the use of a pipeline. Also, there has been an increased investment in rail companies transporting oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basins. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers predicts that, by the end of 2015, the barrels of oil being exported by day will exceed 1 million. All things considered, the pipeline will not significantly effect the speed that oil is being exported. This only furthers my claim that a pipeline is not needed, and that there are other alternatives.

Conclusion

I stand with my claim that the pipeline is not needed, it will harm our environment, and the deal is filled with false promises and better alternatives. Thank you for reading this article, and I hope that I either reinforced your current opinion, or changed it for the better! Please feel free to criticize, I would love it!!


Sources:

http://keystone-xl.com...
http://insideclimatenews.org...
http://www.factcheck.org...
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 9:17:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 9:15:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
The same reasoning could be used to put a 1000 percent car tax on people and get them to start riding bikes.

Please, shed some light on your magical solution!
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
58539672
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 2:50:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 7:27:58 PM, TheProphett wrote:
Introduction

Regardless if the pipeline gets build or not, the oil is still going to be drilled, processed, and sent south to be refined. If not by a pipeline, then by ship. Canada is already expecting the Keystone XL debate to fail, so they are beginning building their own pipeline from the tar sands to the coast where they will transport the crude oil by boat to refineries in areas like Texas. The oil is coming here regardless of what the environmental or economic costs may be.

Now, since it is coming anyway we have a decision to make. Build the pipeline and reduce the cost of transporting the crude oil (and thus the cost of oil) and create some jobs (even if they are temporary ones), or don't do anything and gain nothing from the whole experience while still having the same ultimate outcome.