Imagine a forest with unnatural beauty: trees with thick, green leaves, healthy wildlife, and clear water from streams. Now imagine that same exact forest with the Keystone XL Pipeline running through it: wilted and discolored leaves, sick wildlife, and streams smothered in black oil. There was an article published, arguing that the pipeline should be built because it is the safest way to move tar sands oil, does not affect the environment and climate, and creates effective jobs. However, the Keystone XL Pipeline is actually a dangerous way to move oil, affects the environment negatively, and does not create effective jobs. In the article, one of the reasons the author wants the pipeline to be built is because it is the safest way to move
…show more content…
However, tar sands is dirtier than most conventional oils in the US. For example, extracting the tar sands oil “releases 17 percent more greenhouse-gas than standard methods (Harvard Crimson, 1).” According to a Congressional Research Service report by Richard K. Lattanzio, “Canadian oil-sands crudes range from eight to sixteen percent more emission intensive compared to some of the dirtiest crudes in the world . . . Alberta tar sands accounts for 7.8 percent of total national emissions in 2011, an increase from 6.5 percent in 2009 (McElroy, 3-4).” These statistics suggests that although other emissions are still considered unsafe for the environment, tar sands is known to have more greenhouse gas emissions compared to other oils. Another environmental consequence caused by the pipeline is by opening North America and Europe to tar sands, carbon dioxide emissions would increase by 81 percent greater than that of regular oil. According to former NASA climate scientist James Hansen, using this CO2 with our continued use of fossil fuels would put the carbon concentration well over the 500 parts per million threshold, which is also known as the point of no return. “That would be game over for the environment (Holmes, 3).” The extraction of tar sands harms the environment directly because mining companies have also been tearing up and polluting land in the forests of northern Alberta searching for the crude oil trapped in a sand and clay mixture. Because of the extracting and other methods, the Keystone would inevitably cause
However, tar sands is dirtier than most conventional oils in the US. For example, extracting the tar sands oil “releases 17 percent more greenhouse-gas than standard methods (Harvard Crimson, 1).” According to a Congressional Research Service report by Richard K. Lattanzio, “Canadian oil-sands crudes range from eight to sixteen percent more emission intensive compared to some of the dirtiest crudes in the world . . . Alberta tar sands accounts for 7.8 percent of total national emissions in 2011, an increase from 6.5 percent in 2009 (McElroy, 3-4).” These statistics suggests that although other emissions are still considered unsafe for the environment, tar sands is known to have more greenhouse gas emissions compared to other oils. Another environmental consequence caused by the pipeline is by opening North America and Europe to tar sands, carbon dioxide emissions would increase by 81 percent greater than that of regular oil. According to former NASA climate scientist James Hansen, using this CO2 with our continued use of fossil fuels would put the carbon concentration well over the 500 parts per million threshold, which is also known as the point of no return. “That would be game over for the environment (Holmes, 3).” The extraction of tar sands harms the environment directly because mining companies have also been tearing up and polluting land in the forests of northern Alberta searching for the crude oil trapped in a sand and clay mixture. Because of the extracting and other methods, the Keystone would inevitably cause