Canada should not allow The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline to go through as it poses to many environmental and ecological risks. Pristine areas across central and northern BC, including the Great Bear Rainforest, are under threat if the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline is put into service. In the end, the concerns over the BC pipeline outweigh the possible benefits the pipeline may result in. The Canadian oil and gas company Enbridge, proposed the Northern Gateway project as a solution to transport 525,000 barrels of crude oil per day.
Environmentalists see the movie Avatar as a close depiction of our society's reality with the Alberta oil sands. James Cameron, the director of Avatar, created this blockbuster to bring awareness to a growing issue of Alberta’s oil sands. Undoubtedly, he has achieved this task as this movie shows numerous similarities, but also some differences regarding the current situation with the oil sands. Both show similarities when it comes to cultural and environmental sustainabilities. One environmental sustainabilities that both Avatar and the Alberta oil sands share is that in both situations mining companies decrease biodiversity.
As The Assembly of The First Nations Regional Chief for British Columbia, I say that the Enbridge Pipeline is a risk to the environment, the ecosystems, the health and the safety to the First Nations and the citizens of British Columbia. We First Nations have had 21,000 people sign off on the online petition “hold the wall”. The pipeline route will interfere homes of where six First Nations live and their willing to put their lives on hold to fight against the Enbridge Pipeline.
The toxic chemicals released from extraction were poisoning clean water sources. This lead to increasing cases of cancer, hyperthyroidism, lupus, and renal failure in people located in areas near the present pipeline. These effects clearly show the vast hazard this oil presents for the environment and society. In conclusion, as stated and proven throughout this essay, the Keystone pipeline creates many environmental issues.
The pipeline travels too close to our water supplies. Pipelines are known to create spills, and even the smallest spill could contaminate our water. Close to Ten thousand of my people could be affected if the pipeline is built near our reservation. Not only could the pipeline contaminate our water, but it also travels through a sacred burial
less damage in the pipeline can cause the environment to be clean and to allow the people not to be worried and to think that the pipe can transport the crude oil
Within recent months, the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline has gained enough national attention to divide the country. Many Americans believe it would be a good investment that could bring a galore of oil, money, and jobs for the country, boosting the economy and having lasting positive effects on Americans. However, others argue that the pipeline would bring harm to the Native American culture and the environment. Nevertheless, the surrounding area of the 1,170 mile pipeline would be affected by this pipeline. The Dakota Access Pipeline puts habitats, animals, and hundreds of thousands of lives and the culture of these lives at risk of being tarnished.
David Hughes, a geoscientist, say stopping the pipeline development is a step in the right direction when it comes to weaning dependence on fossil fuels. According to McKibben, the Alberta oil sands are “one of the five or six largest pools of carbon on the planet,” and extracting oil from them would be the equivalent of putting at least six million more cars on the road (“Room for Debate”). Since carbon emissions are the primary culprit in accelerating climate change, opposition to a pipeline that would release such a huge amount of them is prudent. Hughes agrees and argues that protesting the development of Keystone XL is actually not just a symbolic effort, but one that has economic effects. He points to the fact that Canada’s options at transporting tar sand oil with other alternative shipping methods like other pipelines or rail line are limited due to public opposition and slow regulatory processes.
The environmental argument is coming from a clash over the fact they are basically stripping the canadian boreal forest, the path of the pipeline extends across major aquifers, and pipelines tend to leak and destroy surrounding environments. In addition ccording to The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions State, “epartment’s draft SEIS found that oil from the Canadian oil sands is 17 percent more carbon-intensive than the average oil consumed in the United States... It is estimated that the U.S. greenhouse gas footprint would increase by 3 million to 21 million metric tons per year, or around 0.04 percent to 0.3 percent of the 2010 levels, if Keystone is built. Fortunately on November 6, 2015, President Barack Obama’s administration rejected the Keystone Pipeline XL after 7 years of dispute. As mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, Obama stated “the project would not have lowered gas prices, improved energy security or made a meaningful long-term contribution to the economy
Drilling for oil has caused many environmental issues over the years; now the United States wants to drill in ANWR, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. People should not be able to drill in ANWR because of the long term problems of the native people, the Inupiats, and the environment. Drilling for oil disrupts the environment in many major ways and also changes the Inupiats’ lives. Also, some people think that drilling there will help the economy, but the oil there will only last for a short amount of time. These three main reasons, not to drill in Alaska, will be covered.
Many people’s jobs rely on the natural resources of Canada and we all rely in natural resources to live out are everyday life’s, such as water. If we start building around all these resources people would lose jobs. Everyday as humans we are learning new things and coming up with new ideas causing Canada and the world around us to be constantly changing. We have changed are
When you look around the horizon of Texas, you can see incredible cities stretching for miles long. You can see the lofty Reunion Tower looking down upon the great city of Dallas or the even great universities still standing from the original foundations such as the University of Texas. These incredible sights we see and attend can all be thanked by the development of Spindletop in 1901, the first oil rig in Texas to gush with oil. Although, many wives of oil workers would have disagreed to this accusation. The would say that oil has destroyed their relationships by taking their men away.
Mining is one of Canada’s primary industries, it involves extraction, refinery, and the processing of valuable minerals such as gold, copper, iron, nickel and zinc. All of the provinces except Prince Edward Island has had significant mining activities, but the industry is concentrated in provinces like Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Although mining is key to Canada’s economy, the country had been criticized for its methods of extraction of the minerals since it has negative impacts on the environment. This report will first describe how the mineral industry is important to Canada’s economy and will also fully describe one method that the industry employs to extract the minerals, and how it affects the natural environment.
As the years progressed and the ages evolved, the demand for minerals and ores increased. The high demand resulted in a faster process and worse environmental conditions, when mining. These mining strategies posed a threat towards Canada’s environment and created a challenge the country had to face. The strategies created “erosion, sinkholes, loss of biodiversity, contamination of soil, ground and surface water.” (nrcan.gr.ca/mining)
Not only will there be detrimental effects on communities, but closing Alberta’s coal mines will cost the province billions of dollars, even more will be spent after that on developing a more “natural method” of producing electricity. Natural gas will cause just as much if not more harm to the environment than coal. This change will cause more harm than good.
