The first stakeholder in the Keystone XL Pipeline controversy are environmental groups. Environmentalists strongly oppose the Keystone Pipeline for many different reasons. Among these groups trying to oppose the pipeline are the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation and Friends of the Earth. These environmental groups have been the most outspoken against the construction of the pipeline. These groups are not the only group of environmentally conscientious groups to oppose the pipelines but they are the most representative of the needs and wants of environmentalists. These people can be accessed easily through the internet but also have group meetings of representatives of the organization. Many environmental groups have groups of people who meet online to discuss ideas and also have leadership groups that organize rallies and produce statements on behalf of the group. All of these groups have professional websites that have links to information about the pipeline as well as links to other climate change articles or animal welfare sites. The site is formal and well kept and often features some sort of call to action for its members, usually in the form of donations. Some of these articles directly attack the TransCanada company that would be responsible for building and maintaining the pipeline. These environmental groups are unified in their defense against the construction of the pipeline and the TransCanada corporation. All of these groups claim that the pipeline would endanger the ecosystems of North America through the potential of tar sand oil, a naturally dirty oil, getting spilled outside of the pipeline and causing a stinky and deadly situation. However these groups also believe that the pipeline will enable even more climate change problems.
One specific claim that environmental groups make about the Keystone XL Pipeline is that it will damage the environment through the potential of an on land oil spill. A land oil spill is highly damaging and dangerous but is known to be more expensive than an oil spill in water. One argumentative statement by the environmental groups is that the pipelines are not safe to transport the oil "Studies show that tar sands pipelines are more vulnerable to leaks than those carrying traditional crude because of the oil's corrosive nature and the chemicals necessary to make it run through the pipes." Another claim by the environmental groups is that it will use excess water and chemicals that will alter the local ecosystems in Alberta, Canada "Ninety-five percent of the water used to extract the oil, which is about 2.4 million barrels per day, is so polluted that the water must be stored in large human-made pools, known as tailing ponds. As the heavy bitumen sinks to the bottom of these ponds, the toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, works its way into neighboring clean water supplies." Meanwhile another claim that environmental groups make is that the pipeline will destroy natural habitats of animals in the US and Canada as seen by this quote from the National Wildlife Federation, "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will traverse rivers and carve across prairies, will flow on top of vital aquifers, and threaten farmers, ranchers and wildlife when it leaks or breaks, as it unquestionably will."
All of these claims are valid claims and all of the issues these organizations raised do pose a large threat if this pipeline was built. However they may have overblown the severity of these issues. There is a potential for tar oil to corrode steel however there are certain civil engineers who are tasked with maintaining and monitoring corrosion in all infrastructure. Thus any type of oil spill is highly unlikely, the mining part of the oil extraction for the oil that will flow through the pipeline is a major problem though. Mining can be a very messy and dangerous business however there are people who are studying ways of mining more efficiently and with the environment in mind. Lastly the destruction of natural habitats for animals is also a serious issue but one that can be minimized with proper design and construction. Nevertheless there can never be absolute guarantees that these issues can be eliminated. There will always be a risk that problems could arise in any construction process and fear mongering should not deter advancements of technology, construction, and lifestyles. That being said, there is no absolute guarantee that the construction of this pipeline would have been safe and would have produced a viable, usable, and worthwhile means of transporting oil. Most of these groups are trying to appeal to emotion using some small facts and larger issues that have arisen in the past. Nevertheless the truth behind their emotional appeals makes them still credible as sources.
These environmentalists are perhaps most closely like those stakeholders involved in politics or those from the local towns. Although environmentalists are united in their opposition of the pipeline, they are not the only people to oppose the pipeline. Many stakeholders from the local towns oppose the pipeline because it will affect their towns, although many other local towns support the pipeline for the same reason. Some politicians are also stakeholders because their reelection depends on how they vote in regards to the bill. Many politicians reject the bill for the pipeline because they have people in their districts who have strong feelings against the pipeline. Again though, many of these politicians support the pipeline because their district supports the pipeline. Perhaps the most different from the environmentalists are the big oil companies and specifically the TransCanada corporation who stand to gain a lot of money from the construction of the pipeline.
 |
| dynamosquito, "Fire Altar" via Flikr CCO Licence |
No comments:
Post a Comment