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.
Two main political issues today are the economy and the environment, a recent topic that involves these issues is the decision or lack thereof to go through with the Keystone pipeline XL. The pipeline stretches from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, via Texas and can provide immediate jobs and oil economic stimulation as well as economic stimulation for future generations. The problem is that while this project can mean a brighter future economically, it can also mean a darker future environmentally. Despite the possible environmental risks, the keystone pipeline XL project needs to be approved as it can provide energy security and a major economical stimulation for this generation and the next.
The energy crisis began after OPEC seized oil production because of the, “anger at the United States for aiding Israel.” (Farber, 22) This caused a mass panic amongst Americans and resulted in long waits to get gas and constant fuel outages. Carter was extremely adamant that Americans reduce their consumption of fuel in order to reduce the extent of the energy crisis, at one point suggesting putting heavy penalizing taxes on non-fuel efficient vehicles. Political journalist Nicholas Lemann recalled, “[The energy crisis was] the automotive equivalent to the Depression’s bank runs.”
With rising gas prices and an increasing reliance on nonrenewable resources, finding a reliable source for extracting and transporting oil has become an issue. In 2010, the Keystone Pipeline project was proposed and commissioned by TransCanada. Essentially, this is a pipeline that transports oil sands bitumen across the Canada-US border and into several different reserves in the States. An additional extension to the Keystone Pipeline, the Keystone XL Pipeline, has also been proposed. Several issues arise when considering the consequences of this new proposal, including the potential for oil spills and habitat damage.
For the majority of history, in the United States, crude oil has been the primary source of fuel and energy. Whether it is burning the oil or using it for gas, the product has been used at an excess amount. Even with great success in the search for a new source of energy, America will always be dependent on oil. Upon this realization, the Keystone XL Pipeline was started in 2010. Advancing from southern Canada, through multiple depots in the United States, to its final completion in the southern United States, the pipeline was a lengthy project.
One of the most controversial projects for the United States to decide on was whether or not to build the Keystone pipeline. This topic forces the government to decide if economic development is worth the cost of endangering the environment. Though this pipeline will allow the United States to rely less on foreign oil, the pipeline’s lasting effects prove to be a factor that cannot be easily overlooked. The Keystone pipeline should not be built because it endangers the environment and has the ability to create catastrophic damages through pollution and habitat desecration. Pollution is a major factor that has to be considered when referring to the Keystone pipeline.
Turning the key placed into the car, the machine suddenly grumbles, gasoline pumping throughout the system. It is understandable that the power needed to move from point A to B is generally provided by oil, but have you ever considered the importance of this substance to our country? Oil, is used by almost, if not every American daily. In fact, it is something that we as a nation can not live without. How we get this oil is just as important, and brings up heated debates about the options of transportation, one of which being the Keystone XL pipeline.
The state government's approach on Australia’s energy policy has provoked much debate in recent media. The Australian opinion piece, titled ‘Energy policy has become a racket and the madness must stop’ (November 7, 2016) was written by an Australian economist, Judith Sloan, in response to this debate. Sloan presents a mocking and skeptical tone where she argues that ‘it’s time for the federal government to intervene to stop this madness’. She attacks the Australian state governments by portraying its management techniques which are contrary to her ideals as foolish, uncaring and deceitful. This creates distrust of this section of the government in the audience and further supports her view by using evidence and appeals to hip pocket nerve to gain approval of ‘the Australian taxpayer’.
Boom... Clank... Drill… Boom. The sound of oil being pumped out of the earth is a viscid cycle, slowly draining oil from the ground like a blood bag drains blood from a human. The American people are divided half and half on the topic of oil pipelines.
That’s when they realize they found the problem, but the bigger problem is how to find a way for humans to operate without using the same hydrocarbons. A week into the ban, people start to use electricity again. The attacks start again, but worse than before. The President was
In June 1964, one year after President Kennedy’s proposal, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73 to 27, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.
At the end of the environmental decade, in 1977 President Carter announced a new energy plan, which provided many features such as reducing gas consumption, reduce energy demand, increase coal production, cut oil imports, and increase use of alternate energy such as solar. Another key part of his plan was to increase the use of renewable energy by 20% by 2000. A few months later, the Department of Energy (DOE) was established. Its main focus was to create a comprehensive national energy plan and take on accountability for long-term research, technological development, energy regulation, nuclear weapons, and energy data collection and analysis. In 1978 The Energy Tax Act was created.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spilled three million gallons of toxic mining waste into the Animas River. Journalists and Scholars criticize and praise the EPA for its work with the environment. Journalists writing about the EPA are writing to the public to inform them of current events. They use common language and explain concepts that may not be general knowledge. Scholars that write about the EPA have spent years analyzing the pros and cons of the EPA.
The protection of environment is crucial to the wellbeing of this planet. The job of government is to protect and preserve the land on which its people live. However, there is a bill being considered that completely goes against this, one that calls for the eradication of the Environmental Protection Agency, a government program created to protect human and environmental wellbeing through their regulation of laws. I urge you to oppose bill H.R. 861 - the termination of the Environmental Protection Agency - because of the ways that the EPA protects air, water, and land.
The energy crisis was a period in U.S. history during the 1970’s in which oil prices skyrocketed as a result of inflation, low oil production, and a foreign oil embargo (history.com). All American industries the relied upon some aspect of oil consumption. These uses could vary from shipping to manufacturing of goods. In the 1970s, inflation led to increased consumer prices. Additionally, low oil production increased these already steep costs.
