For my research paper this fall I will be talking about Senator Jon Tester's voting habits on the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline was a bill passed by the Senate by a vote of 62 to 36. This bill would allow the oil to be ship from Alberta to Illinois and then to Texas to be refined and sold. Jon Tester was one of the sixty-two members who supported the Keystone Pipeline because of its benefit on Montana's jobs and economy. However, Jon Tester has also spoken about how Montana and the United States needs to work towards cleaner energy alternatives.
On the other side of the Dakota Access Pipeline conflict is the company building the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners, and to an extent, the Army Corps of Engineers. Seeing as Energy Transfer Partners are constructing the pipeline, they are obviously in full support of the pipeline. On the website that Energy Transfer Partners has created to provide the public with their perspective the pros and cons of constructing the pipeline, they outline many reasons as to why the pipeline should not be opposed (Dakota Access Pipeline Facts, 2017). They begin by displaying a map of the proposed pipeline that shows that the pipeline will not cross Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, and in fact, it is located entirely on privately owned land except for a 1,094 ft portion that is owned by the federal government.
Oil has been running the United States of America since before the 1900s. Now, many believe that the use of crude oil is hurtful to the environment and that it should be put to a stop. In 2014, Energy Transfer Partners began construction of a pipeline that would connect North Dakota to Iowa, called the North Dakota Access Pipeline. Since the beginning of the construction, there have been small protests from the local Native American Sioux tribe, but recently the protests have gotten much larger.
The author of the article Greg Ip, believes that despite Obama’s statement, the President knows very well that even though the pipeline will not go into fruition, fossils fuels will still
Everyone has at least seen or heard of an argument or dispute involving the environment. Whether it was from your teacher, the news or something on the internet that you glanced at then moved on to watch more cat videos, you still noticed it. In today’s time, these feuds are highly controversial. One of the more recent conflicts is the Keystone XL Pipeline. The pipeline is essentially the fourth step of the Keystone Pipeline System.
I’m sitting in my room in my house in Washington and all of a sudden I hear a knock on the door. It’s the government and they said that they will be digging up my backyard for an environmentally friendly piece of equipment. Sounds absurd, right? Well, this is what happening in the Dakotas to Native Americans.
While Hillary Clinton’s proposal would be a huge step forward in modernizing America’s energy infrastructure, her refusal to acknowledge a carbon tax is unsettling if one references her background and affiliations as Secretary of State. One of the most controversial issues posed by Hillary Clinton is the Keystone XL scandal. Keystone XL pipeline project is the extension of TransCanada 's Keystone pipeline, that would have transported 830,000 barrels of dirty oil from Canada to refineries in Texas. The project sparked enormous environmental controversy due to various factors. Citizens who live in the path of the pipeline are experiencing eminent domain lawsuits being brought against them where TransCanada is forcefully confiscating land from homeowner and farmers.
The keystone pipeline has created great debate among the government of the United States and Native American’s living close to where it would be. There have been several attempts by the counter parts to convince the general public what to do. An example of these are the “Reject and Protect” Cowboy and Indian Alliance Anti-Pipeline Ad and the Support Keystone Pro-Pipeline Ad. The Anti-pipeline add starts with images of the Native American’s and Cowboys together. In the background we can hear Native American chants witch could be used to be more sympathetic with the subject.
My perceptions regarding Alaskan drilling have not changed, I believe that the Alaskan Wilderness should not be drilled for oil. My decision rests on the fact that the Alaskan wilderness is an irreplaceable natural resource and the possible oil resources it may or may not yield, are not worthy of its destruction. Viewing this situation as a dispassionate observer, there is no overwhelming motive for the U.S. to drill in Alaska. Scientists have largely stated that the oil reserves in Alaska may not yield the amount or quality of oil once believed, therefore it does not warrant the expenditure of time, money, and resources to disrupt the environment. Advocates argue that drilling would decrease fuel prices, create new jobs, and end our foreign
Political speech is one of the most confusing, vague, and misleading areas of the English language to understand. Politicians use this to their advantage to persuade voters to believe they are the perfect candidates. The campaign for the presidential election of 2016 has just gotten started and, the front runner, Hillary Clinton, definitely fits George Orwell's definition of politician using vague responses and misleading answers. Hillary Clinton, wife of Bill Clinton, served as the sixty-seventh United States Secretary of State under President Barack Obama. Before becoming Secretary of State she was a Senator for New York.
“Benefits of Governmental Compromise Regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline” Nations all have unique governments and differences necessary for demonstrating successful leadership. Every country needs different assistance from their leadership, such as Rio requiring infrastructure or Somalia lacking political power. Some governments concern themselves with their politicians’ well-being more so than the people they lead, which creates a relevant problem in America. The United States Government can easily forget about Native American Reservations, or even ignore the people living on them. Recently, the United States Army Corps of Engineers has worked on the Dakota Access Pipeline project, which would cross over Native American ancestral lands,
Canadian company TransCanada hopes to build Keystone XL a pipeline that carries Canadian tar sand oil from Canadian border to the Golf Coast. According to Derber “the pipeline extracts some of the dirtiest oil on the planet, a process that sends many polluting chemicals into the ground waters and releases methane, the most potent greenhouse gas, into the air, creating one of the greatest climate threat” (p. 115). A leak from a pipeline carrying the tar sand oil could cause environmental damage and pollute our drinking water and agricultural irrigation. The builders of the Keystone XL Pipeline are wilders. According to Derber, “environmental wilding in the natural environment, such as reckless polluting that causes global warming” (p. 11).
With the proposed Keystone XL pipeline there are many environmental and safety standards that would be enforced to ensure that concerns such as oil leaks are detected, fixed and cleaned up properly and quickly. If the US government fails to approve the Keystone XL pipeline then they will have no control over enforcing the environmental safety standards for the transportation of Canada’s oil to the other countries that want to purchase
Have you ever wondered about the Dakota access pipeline and thought is it good or bad. The Dakota access pipeline is an “Oil pipeline that would run diagonally across Iowa, through 18 counties, from northwest Iowa to southeast Iowa” (Tyler Durden, 2016). Even though I do not support the pipeline, because of damaging reasons, it does help our economy become more desirable. First I do not support this pipeline considering it does not help our environment.
Since its construction in 1977, the Trans Alaska Pipeline has transported almost 17 billion barrels of oil, and currently transports about 527,323 barrels a day. It celebrated its 40th Anniversary last year, and, even after all this time, is still facing controversy. The pipeline is highly debated as economically inclined citizens of Alaska are clashing with more environmental types. The Trans Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, signed by President Nixon in 1973, protected the pipeline by banning all legal challenges against the construction of the pipeline. However, this law did not stop the critics of the pipeline from speaking out.
