Analysis Of The Keystone Pipeline
|📌Category:||Business, Environment, Environment problems, Industry|
|📌Published:||31 March 2021|
Critics argue on whether the oil pipeline, Keystone Pipeline, should be allowed to continue or if it should not. The Keystone Pipeline is a system of oil pipes in the United States of America and Canada. It was created in 2010, owned by TC Energy. Although now, it is owned by the Government of Alberta. The pipeline proposed a series of pipes to be constructed, allowing a shorter distance between Alberta and Nebraska. This series of conduits is called the Keystone XL Pipeline. If it is built, it would destroy environments, produce greenhouse gases, and create a larger human dependency on oil, negatively affecting many beings. While some experts claim that it should be continued because of its capability to create jobs, others claim that although it will create more jobs, those jobs would be temporary, and the workers would, like most, be paid the minimum wage. This would in the long term not be beneficial. Overall, the benefits of building the Keystone XL Pipeline does not outweigh the value of not.
The current, standing Keystone Pipeline oil pipeline runs through the Canadian Provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, then splits into US states, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. As well as the US states, Missouri and Illinois. Throughout these US states and Canadian Provinces, natural habitats and environments have been destroyed or damaged. If the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline is built, then the oil pipe will be running through Montana, more inside South Dakota and Nebraska. This will cause more ecosystems destroyed or damaged due to water pollution from leaks or mishaps with the tar sand. Many things may happen, especially considering accidents prompted by the unpredictable tar sand and its precarious transportation. The Alberta forest is an example of environments being destroyed because of the pipeline. The forest, which was once lush with deep green trees, is now under protection. The tar sands that lay beneath the surface are within access for the trees, causing them to be sick. The natural environments are not the only thing this is or will be affected by the Keystone Pipeline: We would be affected by the pipeline, too.
About 63 percent of our generated electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, which release greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere. As a group, we are already dependent on fossil fuels for an energy source. If the Keystone XL Pipeline is built, then we would be more dependent on fossil fuels more than ever. We would be more reliant on this source be because the production of it would increase. An increase in production would lead us to not have the necessity to explore more ideas for a manageable and sustainable origin of energy since we would have a lasting, although not forever, energy source. Dependence on fossil fuels is harmful, not only to ecosystems but also to our own atmosphere, for fossil fuels release greenhouse gasses.
According to the results of 2020, the United States of America (US) has contributed 15 percent of the worlds’ overall greenhouse emissions. Of course, because of the drop in need of transportation earlier that year, the results are lower than in previous years. The greenhouse gasses produced in the United States of America (US) are mostly from burning fossil fuels for transportation, heat, and electricity usage. By using alternative energy, we can prevent the release of greenhouse gasses. Alternative energy sources, however, do not include fossil fuels. Therefore excluding the need for oil pipelines. Over 50 years, if the Keystone XL Pipeline is accomplished then, 1.3 billion more tons of unneeded greenhouse gas emissions will be dispersed into the atmosphere. Although many people agree with forbidding the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, some disagree.
On the other side of the argument, people want to have the Keystone XL Pipeline built because of its ability to create more jobs wherever it is constructed. However, excusing a handful, these jobs would be temporary, and some would be dangerous. Not to include that the workers would, most likely, be paid the minimum wage risking their life working dangerously for little pay. The construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline would, indeed, produce many jobs. Although, only a few would be stable employment. Overall, despite the Keystone XL Pipeline's ability to employ, the jobs are not stable and enduring.
The Keystone XL Pipeline, if built, would destroy natural environments, make us more dependent on fossil fuels, and release unneeded greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Along with other reasons, such as the critical transportation of tar sands and the consequences of an accident. The Keystone XL Pipeline extension should not be built. Even though it creates more jobs, the employment would not be substantial but risky.