Improving Economic And Social Status Of A Region

Almost 95 million barrels of oil and fuel are produced each day in order to provide energy and fuel to people the world over. A major component of the oil industry is the transportation of oil through various means including oil pipelines. These pipelines are capable of transporting thousands of barrels of oil thousands of miles per day. In the United States one possible pipeline has caused a lot of controversy and discussion on the impact it will have on the United States. The difficulty in deciding if the Keystone XL Pipeline should be built is in whether the possibility of economic growth outweighs the possibility of environmental destruction. In order to make a decision, one must first look into the history of oil pipelines. It is crucial

“Many current discussions about sustainability focus on the ways in which human activity...can be maintained in the future without exhausting all of our current resources… there has been a close correlation between the growth of human society and environmental degradation - as communities grow, the environment often declines” (603).

The next major environmental issue of the pipeline is the indigenous populations. “Northern Alberta’s, where the tar sands oil comes from, people are coming under attack because of their operation of the tar sands in their livelihoods and cultural traditions.”5 Other people affected by this project are the people who live in communities downstream from the tailing ponds, “they have seen spikes in rates of rare cancers, renal failure, lupus, and hyperthyroidism.” “In the lakeside village of Fort Chipewyan, for example, one hundred of the town’s one thousand-two hundred residents have died from cancer.”5 So not only will this pipeline affect the people living around it but it will also affect the people working on it and living around the tailing ponds, wherever those may be located. With it traversing six U.S. states that means a lot of people could get sick and even die from a project that has so many issues with it before it’s even began to be used for its intended purpose.

Hundreds of activists have rallied all over the country to stop the approval of the pipeline, claiming that it is incredibly damaging to the environment. Most environmentalists argue that the pipeline will cause deforestation, oil spills and runoffs of toxins. Supporters of the pipeline claim that most of this could be managed with the right regulations and maintenance. Other pipelines have been known for success, although this one is quite bigger and has a larger impact on the environment.

The construction of pipelines means that companies would have to dig up ground, which could lead to several issues. The most notable issue of the oil pipelines is the destruction of the life cycle. Deforestation, homeless wildlife, and soil erosion are the main factors that would be greatly affected in the life cycle. (Williams, 2012). Although this issue is of great concern, there is not a more effective, efficient, and safer way to transport oil across the country. All other modes of transportation cause greater emissions of detrimental gases to the environment from the pulling of the heavy amounts of oil. Lastly, pipelines have valves that can block off spillages, while other methods have no possible way of stopping these spillages, causing the same environmental defects as the construction of the

Environmental welfare has become one of our most important priorities since the widely-spread awareness of climate change. Recently, there has been a controversial subject arousing from the midwest that is allegedly threatening our environment - the construction of Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). This $3.8 billion, 1,172-mile pipeline project will be crossing four states from North Dakota through Illinois to supply crude oil coming from the oil-rich Bakken area (Yan). DAPL will supposedly create new jobs like construction and maintenance, lower gas prices as we do not have to rely exporting oil from overseas, and boost energy production in our country as we continue to consume more energy resources. However, induced with negative feelings from

The environmental consequences, of drilling and other related to the activities of this new pipeline not to mention the nature that is being destroyed. Not to mention the protected forests and other sorts of landmarks that this pipeline will damage.

The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline encourages the controversy over boosting the American economy or the safety of the environment. The process of building this major pipeline has millions of people in a heated debate. The issue of this pipeline has several environmental researchers and economists in an altercation that when climate change is already a major issue for the nation is trying to sway the construction of the pipeline to be approved or denied. Based on research about the Keystone XL Pipeline, it can be shown that America will face a net negative impact because of the lack of prominent economic gains, presence of environmental effects, and disadvantages of the oil extraction process.

One of the big issues is farmers in Iowa are concerned about the damage to the land and groundwater if the pipeline had a leak and went into the ground or water. This pipeline is 1170 miles long and it could carry 500,000 barrels of oil a day. The big problem is it has to go through the river and if the pipeline leaked any oil it could contaminate that river and people drinking water. According to the USA, The Bakken oil company sends some of their oil by rail if they build this pipeline they can move corn quicker on rail and not have problems, But if they move corn quicker the price of grain will go down and it will hurt the farmer. Another problem is the farmer put tile in the ground to drain water off their land the company putting in the pipeline does not care about the farmers tile The pipeline would cost 3.8 billion dollars. This concludes that the environment and farm are affected by this big time.

Pipelines play such a big role in our lives which is why we as people rely on them for so many different things. Household products that we use on a daily basis such as aspirin, heart valves and crayons are some of the few items manufactured from crude oil. On the other hand there has been many events that have wrecked havoc on so many people

Opposition against the formation of these pipelines seem clear when taken note of the complications to which it can cause, like environmental risk, inessential expenditures, and the ruination of ancestral lands. “In 2010, an Enbridge Energy pipeline dumped more than 843,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, resulting in a cleanup that lasted years and cost more than a billion dollars,” which incites the thought that these disasters and accidents can disrupt economic stability more than it would assist, given the gamble of safety is lost. The circumstance isn’t worthy of such an insecurity. Oil spills are already an economic destitution and environmental hazard worldwide, there is no need to add on to it with such an uncertain

The environment is a very important thing to take care of and can be very fragile. In the recent years humanity hasn’t been doing much to take care of the earth, and instead is destroying it in the name of progress. One of the harmful things that could really impact the environment is the North Dakota Pipeline. Some facts about the pipeline is that it is owned by Energy Transfer Partners who are the owners of Sunoco. Sunoco has had multiple onshore pipeline leaks and disasters that have devastated many environments. The planned pipeline is going to be 1,134 miles long and will cut through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois, by doing that it crosses fifty counties in total. Pipelines in general aren’t really the most reliable things

The poverty-environmental linkage has several dimensions. From an economic growth perspective; rapid economic growth is often seen as the key foundation for achieving poverty reduction. There is a lot empirical evidence in support of this assertion. Therefore while the linkage between economic growth and poverty reduction is generally obvious, the relationship between economic growth and degradation of the environment or and improvement in the environment remains ambiguous or unclear. One part of the poverty-environment hypothesis suggests that economic growth is needed to break the poverty-environment downward

The concept of ‘sustainable development’ is one that has faced heated debates for decades now. A seemingly harmless concept, it raises a lot of questions as to what it really entails and how exactly it can be achieved. But with more than 1.3 billion people living in abject poverty (less than $1.25 a day), and with a reported 22,000 children dying every day as a result of poverty (UNICEF), the debate for Sustainable Development becomes interesting as it questions the extremity of economic growth policies, in the war against poverty. Many note economic growth and development as the only tool for poverty alleviation. Roemer and Gugerty, for example, report that GDP growth of 10% per year is associated with income growth of 10% for the poorest 40% of the population. However, others question the extent to which economic growth should be put above other socio-economic factors. Lele points out that the focus on economic growth has led to important ecological and social sustainability, taking the backseat. He argues that due to strong emphasis on economic growth, not enough attention is paid to social equity, and economic stability within the development discourse.

Environmental issues have been a cause of a lot of debate in the recent past. Governments and nongovernmental organizations have been in constant consultations on how to help protect the environment. Apparently, as a result of man’s many actions, the natural environment is getting torn apart so quickly that the coming generations will not enjoy this kind of environment, unless a