Before:
The bill to pass the Keystone XL Pipeline has been widely discussed in Congress and Washington DC by both groups as they try to persuade people that their side of the argument is the correct one. Both sides have merit to their argument. The TransCanada Corporation is one of the safest oil companies in North America. They haven’t had a major oil spill in years and are deeply invested in producing safe pipelines and maintaining investment in local communities. TransCanada claims that major renowned scientists have proven that there will be no measurable impact on the world climate if the pipeline is made or if all the world’s oil was harvested. Meanwhile environmental groups use more emotional appeal to try to persuade people that their anti-pipeline argument is the correct one. They portray an image of animals dying, the planet being destroyed, livelihoods being erased. There is some credible information behind these appeals, scientists have proven that there is ongoing climate change which can be linked to human actions in oil production. There are also accusations of this pipeline destroying entire towns livelihoods as seen through a quote from a local farm opinion group “Concerns that pipeline leaks and spills will damage unique and valuable natural resources are not unfounded. The original Keystone pipeline suffered over a dozen leaks in its first year (2010), including a devastating spill that shot a geyser of some 500 barrels of oil 60 feet into the air. Over 20,000 gallons were spilled over precious North Dakota soil in just one hour. Years later, families throughout the Midwest and Plains are still recovering from tar sands spills in their communities, not to mention the persistent health and environmental impacts the people of the First Nations in the Canadian tar sands zone endure.” In essence there is merit to both sides of the argument but in theory both sides of the argument have taken the real truth, the reality that there cannot be a perfectly created structure that is guaranteed to not fail (see Titanic, 1912), and expanded upon it and stretched the truth to make it fit their goals. TransCanada cannot guarantee that their new pipeline will not leak and cause irreparable damage to the environment just as environmental groups cannot say that there will be absolute damage from oil production. In order to have a controversy, both sides need to be opinionated and polarized in order to say that they are absolutely correct in their argument.
The bill to pass the Keystone XL Pipeline has been widely discussed in Congress and Washington DC by both groups as they try to persuade people that their side of the argument is the correct one. Both sides have merit to their argument. The TransCanada Corporation is one of the safest oil companies in North America. They haven’t had a major oil spill in years and are deeply invested in producing safe pipelines and maintaining investment in local communities. TransCanada claims that major renowned scientists have proven that there will be no measurable impact on the world climate if the pipeline is made or if all the world’s oil was harvested. Meanwhile environmental groups use more emotional appeal to try to persuade people that their anti-pipeline argument is the correct one. They portray an image of animals dying, the planet being destroyed, livelihoods being erased. There is some credible information behind these appeals, scientists have proven that there is ongoing climate change which can be linked to human actions in oil production. There are also accusations of this pipeline destroying entire towns livelihoods as seen through a quote from a local farm opinion group “Concerns that pipeline leaks and spills will damage unique and valuable natural resources are not unfounded. The original Keystone pipeline suffered over a dozen leaks in its first year (2010), including a devastating spill that shot a geyser of some 500 barrels of oil 60 feet into the air. Over 20,000 gallons were spilled over precious North Dakota soil in just one hour. Years later, families throughout the Midwest and Plains are still recovering from tar sands spills in their communities, not to mention the persistent health and environmental impacts the people of the First Nations in the Canadian tar sands zone endure.” In essence there is merit to both sides of the argument but in theory both sides of the argument have taken the real truth, the reality that there cannot be a perfectly created structure that is guaranteed to not fail (see Titanic, 1912), and expanded upon it and stretched the truth to make it fit their goals. TransCanada cannot guarantee that their new pipeline will not leak and cause irreparable damage to the environment just as environmental groups cannot say that there will be absolute damage from oil production. In order to have a controversy, both sides need to be opinionated and polarized in order to say that they are absolutely correct in their argument.
After:
The Keystone XL Pipeline has been widely debated in Congress
and Washington DC and both sides have merit to their argument. The TransCanada
Corporation is one of the safest oil companies in North America. They haven’t
had a major oil spill in years and are deeply invested in producing safe
pipelines and maintaining investment in local communities. TransCanada claims
that major renowned scientists have proven no measurable impact on the world
climate will come from the pipeline or the harvesting of all the world’s oil.
Meanwhile environmental groups use more emotional appeal to try to persuade
people that the anti-pipeline argument is the correct one. They use images of
animals dying, the planet being destroyed, livelihoods being erased. There is
credible information behind these appeals, scientists have proven that there is
ongoing climate change possibly linked to human actions including oil
production. There are also accusations of pipelines destroying the livelihoods of
entire towns as seen through a local farm opinion group In theory both sides of the argument have taken the real truth, the reality
that there cannot be a perfectly created structure that is guaranteed to not
fail (see Titanic, 1912), and expanded upon it and stretched that truth to make
it fit their goals. TransCanada cannot guarantee that their new pipeline will
not leak and cause irreparable damage to the environment just as environmental
groups cannot say that there will be absolute damage from oil production.
The rewritten version of this section is noticeably shorter and simplifies the previous version. This version eliminates a lengthy quote that can be placed in a different section. In this way it is better because it is shorter and more direct to the point. In another way this makes it worse because it is losing its main source of contextual evidence, although the hyperlink to the farm group will remain.
 |
| Anonymous, "Top Tips for Writing" via YouTube, Public Domain |
No comments:
Post a Comment