The document argues that the Keystone XL pipeline should be rejected for environmental and economic reasons. It notes that while supporters claim the pipeline will create jobs, studies have found these numbers are inflated and the jobs will only last two years. It also argues that the pipeline would increase greenhouse gas emissions and the risk of oil spills that could contaminate drinking water and farmland. Finally, it states that climate scientists oppose further development of the Alberta tar sands that the pipeline would enable, and rejecting the pipeline would be consistent with the US's pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
John Upton has a great article on Grist.org around his take on the top 2013 environment stories. I thought I'd take the article and convert it into a presentation. He listed out 13 stories. Over the last few days, I converted each one into a few slides.
Here is the full presentation covering all 13 stories:
Nathaniel wurster line 5 midterm project unm crp 275 community change in a gl...Dr. J
When we discuss the erasure of cultures by globalization it is typically how languages, cultural practices, etc. disappear gradually due to the intermingling of people.
Line 5 presents a unique challenge because it could physically be a detriment to historic cultures and the lives of so many Americans due to industrial globalization.
An oil pipeline originally put under scrutiny due to its environmental threat is additionally a threat to the history and livelihood of Indigenous Peoples and other Michigan residents.
Enbridge Inc. is a Canadian energy corporation that operates Line 5 in Michigan and Wisconsin. Rather than pump petroleum (crude oil) from western Canada to eastern Canada along the southern boundary of Ontario the corporation has partnered with the aforementioned U.S. states to allow the pipeline to travel through the United States.
The pipeline is above ground for much of its length but descends beneath the Straits of Mackinac (connection of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron). Here the exposed pipeline runs just atop the lakebed. This exposed nature is what initially brought a great deal of attention to Line 5 and the environmental threat it posed to the Great Lakes. A leak or spill of any kind would be disastrous to Michigan’s natural environment as well as its fishing, shipping, and tourism industries.
John Upton has a great article on Grist.org around his take on the top 2013 environment stories. I thought I'd take the article and convert it into a presentation. He listed out 13 stories. Over the last few days, I converted each one into a few slides.
Here is the full presentation covering all 13 stories:
Nathaniel wurster line 5 midterm project unm crp 275 community change in a gl...Dr. J
When we discuss the erasure of cultures by globalization it is typically how languages, cultural practices, etc. disappear gradually due to the intermingling of people.
Line 5 presents a unique challenge because it could physically be a detriment to historic cultures and the lives of so many Americans due to industrial globalization.
An oil pipeline originally put under scrutiny due to its environmental threat is additionally a threat to the history and livelihood of Indigenous Peoples and other Michigan residents.
Enbridge Inc. is a Canadian energy corporation that operates Line 5 in Michigan and Wisconsin. Rather than pump petroleum (crude oil) from western Canada to eastern Canada along the southern boundary of Ontario the corporation has partnered with the aforementioned U.S. states to allow the pipeline to travel through the United States.
The pipeline is above ground for much of its length but descends beneath the Straits of Mackinac (connection of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron). Here the exposed pipeline runs just atop the lakebed. This exposed nature is what initially brought a great deal of attention to Line 5 and the environmental threat it posed to the Great Lakes. A leak or spill of any kind would be disastrous to Michigan’s natural environment as well as its fishing, shipping, and tourism industries.
A "report" from the anti-drilling group Food & Water Watch. It is a compendium of hackneyed, worn-out, recycled, nonsensical pablum that fracking will fry the earth. It's based on the misconception that using fossil fuels leads to global warming and attempts to equate fracking with so-called "climate change." Essentially, it's fundraising propaganda for FWW.
New York Residents Against Drilling Action Alert that attempts to mobilize those who oppose drilling to contact their state legislative representatives to enlist their support of a pledge against hydraulic fracturing.
From the first of a three-part series about global gas, sponsored by ExxonMobil, DCFR President Jennifer Warren interviewed panelist Mikkal Herberg, research director on Asian energy security at The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR).
A "report" from the anti-drilling group Food & Water Watch. It is a compendium of hackneyed, worn-out, recycled, nonsensical pablum that fracking will fry the earth. It's based on the misconception that using fossil fuels leads to global warming and attempts to equate fracking with so-called "climate change." Essentially, it's fundraising propaganda for FWW.
New York Residents Against Drilling Action Alert that attempts to mobilize those who oppose drilling to contact their state legislative representatives to enlist their support of a pledge against hydraulic fracturing.
From the first of a three-part series about global gas, sponsored by ExxonMobil, DCFR President Jennifer Warren interviewed panelist Mikkal Herberg, research director on Asian energy security at The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR).
Angel Gonzalez, Dow Jones bureau chief, presents "Covering the Green Economy - The Future of Energy" in a Webinar hosted by the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism. For more information, please visit http://businessjournalism.org.
The Keystone XL Environmental Assessment report was released with a 45 day public feedback process. This is what I submitted.
Public comments can be emailed to: keystonecomments@state.gov
Volkmar Guido Hable to meet with Trump advisors on Keystone XL and Dakota Acc...volkmarguidohable
As U.S. President Donald Trump signed orders on Tuesday smoothing the path for the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines in a move to expand energy infrastructure
Last Updated October 31, 2011Hydrofracking Is hydraulic fractu.docxsmile790243
Last Updated: October 31, 2011
Hydrofracking: Is hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, a safe way to extract natural gas?
Pro/Con Article Media Editorials News
Page Tools Highlighting
FULL ARTICLE
Introduction
Background
Supporters Argue
Opponents Argue
Conclusion
Chronology
By the Numbers
Spotlights
Discussion Questions
Bibliography
Further Resources
Introduction
SUPPORTERS ARGUE
There is no proven case of hydrofracking contaminating drinking water, and the process is perfectly safe. Natural gas can revive local economies, reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and provide a cleaner-burning fossil fuel. Further regulation is unnecessary and will only prevent an opportunity for the United States to develop an alternative energy source and create jobs.
OPPONENTS ARGUE
The chemicals used in fracking fluid are toxic and pose a danger to public health if they contaminate drinking water reserves or leak out of wells. Oil and gas companies are not being honest with the public about the dangers of hydrofracking, and the federal government should apply much stricter, nationwide regulations to ensure that hydrofracking does not cause widespread health problems that could plague the public for generations.
Issues and Controversies: Hydrofracking Workers
Workers at a natural gas well site in Burlington, Pennsylvania, in April 2010 prepare a drill to begin the process of hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking.
AP Photo/Ralph Wilson
Many observers have hailed natural gas as a solution to several energy problems facing the U.S. Utilizing the country's ample domestic supply of the resource, many have said, could greatly decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil and possibly drive energy prices down. Furthermore, natural gas produces much less carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels, about half as much as coal, making it the cleanest burning fossil fuel available. Energy experts have also touted natural gas as a cheap alternative to renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar energy, until engineers devise a way to make renewable energy more cost efficient. According to the Department of Energy, natural gas already produces about one-fifth of the nation's electricity, a proportion that may increase as energy firms tap more domestic reserves of natural gas.
The Marcellus Shale, a 95,000-square-mile geologic formation deep underground that stretches from West Virginia through Pennsylvania to upstate New York, is estimated to contain as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In order to access the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale and other shale formations, however, energy companies have to employ a controversial procedure called hydraulic fracturing—also known as "hydrofracking" or simply "fracking." Hydrofracking is a technique that releases natural gas by pumping millions of gallons of water, laced with sand and chemicals, thousands of feet underground to blast open, or fracture, shale formations, freeing the gas. [See Today's Science: Nat ...
Last Updated October 31, 2011Hydrofracking Is hydraulic fractu.docx
Keystone
1. Hira Saleem
IMS 3310 Honors
Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Be Rejected
Proposed by TransCanada and fought over in the United States Congress, the Keystone XL
Pipeline is a controversial proposal that would allow transportation of oil from Alberta, Canada to
Houston, Texas. The $7 billion extension was proposed in 2008, making this the seventh year in the
fight to establish the 1,179-mile pipeline. Because it crosses an international border, it requires the
approval of the US Department of State.1 It has passed in Congress, and if approved by President
Obama, it will transport tar sands at a rate of 700,000 barrels a day.2 The grand debate has copious
dimensions like its political impact within the US and internationally, environmental hazards, and
economic repercussions. Just like any other major issue, it has America polarized. When all issues are
accounted for, it seems that the best decision for the country is a veto by President Obama.
Some call this pipeline a “proxy war” between the two political parties, with jobs as their main
point of dispute. Republicans rally behind the belief that it will create jobs and boost the economy.
However, this argument contains discrepancies in the number of jobs that will really be created by
construction of the pipeline. Supporters claim that it will add 40,000, whereas opponents argue that it
will create only 35 permanent jobs. Even if 40,000 is an accurate number, it should be considered that
they will last only two years.3 The jobs argument falls flat because in either scenario, the jobs would
make little impact on the US economy.4 The “green” industry on the other hand has consistently added
jobs to the market, so maybe the US should focus on renewable energy instead.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the tar sand will emit 150 million metric
tons of carbon to the atmosphere. One facet of this specific argument concerns that amount’s relation to
the total output of carbon emissions by the world. It is estimated that it adds up to just less than 1% of
the US emissions, and much less than that of the world.5 Regardless, even a minor step to inhibit this
emission by blocking the pipeline will echo the chants of the environmentalists.
Those whose states KXL will cross through have also erupted in local opposition. For example,
Nebraskan activists rallied against the pipeline in a demonstration in 2014 and had an attendance of
8,000. It is activists like those who won a battle in this war when their complaints caused TransCanada
to alter the route so that it would not infiltrate the “ecologically delicate Sandhills region.”6
Among these fears by the inhabitants is the risk of an oil spill. The proximity of the pipeline to
the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides 82% of the locals with their drinking water, is a major cause for
concern.2 And if it just so happens that a spill occurs, the operations to clean up the mess will cost more
money and adversely affect the economy, taking down the jobs argument with it. TransCanada has
already gone through twelve spills in the last year, despite their claim that environmental safety is
priority this time.7 A spill now could affect 27% of irrigated land in the US and cause a catastrophe.2
Even the state government of Nebraska, guided by a Republican governor, opposed the initial route.
Landowners in Nebraska have come up before the State Supreme Court to voice frustration against the
pipeline.6
One major advantage for the resistance is the fact that scientists, economists, and Nobel laureates
lead the opposition.8 It is clear that this side has an immense upper hand in credibility. Climate scientists
stand unanimous in the belief that the majority of the world’s fossil fuels must remain subterranean, or
else a climate cataclysm becomes imminent. The tar sands oil resting in Alberta is among the deposits
2. that should stay untouched, beneath the ground. It is not called the “dirtiest fuel on the planet” for no
reason.8 Additionally, this pipeline would increase the development of the Alberta tar sands, where
carbon is concentrated in huge amounts.9 The scientific community agrees that this oil pollutes more
than conventional oil.3 The bottom line is that this oil, and consequently the pipeline proposal, is a threat
to the environment. Some experts have even gone as far as to say that in the grand scheme, healthcare
costs might even increase because of the excessive release of carbon with this pipeline.9
On the international scale, the relations with Canada and the Middle East are of significance.
Canada has been a good ally of the US, and accepting oil from them over the Middle East seems like the
better decision to decrease dependence on oil from there. One study marks that bringing this Canadian
oil here will displace 8% of oil brought from “unfriendly nations” across the world. The overlooked fact
in the matter is that the US does not necessarily need this oil, from either source. The US is actually
producing more oil than it is importing for the first time in decades.2 The reliance on foreign oil is
superfluous at this point. The positive side to maintaining international relations refers back to when
President Obama signed a UN accord to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a huge margin by 20205, and
rejecting this pipeline would undoubtedly be a step in the right direction.
The overall concern lies within the conflicting sources of evidence surrounding the impact of
KXL, which has been claimed to be significant by some, and marginal by others. However, studies by
TransCanada have been found to be “deeply flawed”.4 Ultimately, it comes down to a key decision that
lies in the hands of President Obama. His decision will be an integral part of his administration’s legacy.
Whatever it may be, the consensus is that a judgment is ready to be made after years of suspension.
It really is more than just a pipeline. It has galvanized Americans behind and against an
increasingly important cause. Apart from its political and environmental stance, the impending veto is
above all a symbol of America’s trailblazing personality; the US can seize this opportunity to be a leader
in good, common sense energy policy. The government has a duty to protect the Earth before it has a
duty to consider unsubstantiated claims provided by the proponents of the pipeline.
“The Keystone XL pipeline is a line in the sand that signifies whether our country has the
courage, the commitment, and the capacity to be a global leader in addressing the challenge of
climate change before it’s too late.” -Tom Steyer5
1 Parfomak, Paul W., Robert Pirog, Linda Luther, and Adam Vann. Keystone XL Pipeline: Key Issues. Digital Commons ILR. Cornell
University ILR School, 2 Dec. 2013. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
2 Reuters, Thomson. "Things You Always Wanted to Know about KeystoneXLbut Were Afraid to Ask." Financial Post. National Post, 10
Nov. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
3 Calamur, Krishnadev. "Senate OKs KeystoneXL Pipeline, Setting Up Fight With Obama." NPR. NPR, 29 Jan. 2015. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
4 Skinner, Dr. Lara, and Dr. Sean Sweeney. Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs LostBy The Construction of Keystone XL. Scribd. Cornell
University Global Labor Instituteand TheGoodman Group, LTD, n.d. Web.
5 Davenport, Coral. "KeystonePipeline May BeBig, but This Is Bigger." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Apr. 2014. Web.
22 Feb. 2015.
6 Smith, Mitch. "Nebraskans Raise Their Voices in Fight Against KeystoneXLPipeline." The New York Times. The New York Times, 29
Sept. 2014. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
7 Lacey, Stephen. "After 12 Oil Spills in One Year, TransCanada Says Proposed KeystoneXLPipeline Will Be Safest in U.S." Think
Progress. Climate Progress, 17 Aug. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
8 "Mr. Obama’s Easy Call on KeystoneBill." The New York Times. Ed. The Editorial Board. The New York Times, 12 Feb. 2015. Web. 22
Feb. 2015.
9 Kunzig, Robert. "Canadian Oil Sands — National Geographic Magazine." National Geographic Magazine. National Geographic, Mar.
2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.