When it comes to the Keystone XL project, to whom do you listen? The politicians who stand to lose millions or the scientists who put their reputations on the line.
?The House of Representatives is not allowing the President to do his job. For the fifth time this political body is attempting to usurp the President's decision to reject the Keystone expansion. This gives the impression that they want people to believe their authority supersedes that of the Presidency. The strategy is to threaten the President with taking away necessary funding for items like national transportation, which has nothing to do with the expansion project as all the product that would pump through the nation is set for China, not America.
The House leadership seems to be under the impression that there was a singular issue with the Keystone project running through Nebraska's aquifer. Speaker of the House, John Boehner, stated, "With this new route submitted and the state of Nebraska acting to move forward, the president is running out of excuses for blocking the Keystone pipeline any longer." Mr. Boehner is clearly experiencing confusion. While the aquifer certainly was an issue, it was not the only one.
The Keystone Pipeline plan is estimated to cost taxpayers 8 billion dollars, just to lay the pipe. This cost is a direct expense to the American people, not Canada and not China. Yet, citizens will not profit from their investment. Besides seeing no gains on their investment, every piece of land from the Canadian border to the Gulf Coast in the pipeline's path is being taken away from American landowners. The United States is allowing Canada to steal land under the guise of eminent domain, even though the rules of eminent domain do not apply to this scheme. Without this unlawful use of eminent domain, TransCanada would have to reach a fair market value with every landowner making the project nothing more than a pipe dream.
United States politicians in favor of the scheme state that the Keystone XL is a shovel ready opportunity for the job market. It's interesting that they would make this claim as TransCanada has gone on record stating the opposite. From a political standpoint, more jobs are created for Canada in oil extraction, refinery, construction, and general labor fields. India would also benefit, as the country has been given the contract for producing metal supplies necessary to get the job done. However, the pipeline does not create permanent jobs for Americans. This further stagnates the economy while upping the ante to include contaminating water, air, plant, and animal resources, placing Americans and the country in an increasingly vulnerable position.
This legislation is actively violating the United States Pelly Amendment, the Endangered Species Act, the International Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act with this pipeline proposal. Congress has even expressly stated to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that the National Environmental Policy Act is irrelevant and need not be considered for the expansion's permit approval.
Government scientists, NASA scientists, Nobel Laureates, and countless research institutes have provided congress with endless results demonstrating how the continued use of Tar Sands negatively affects North America. Within the first year of the existing Keystone Pipeline, there were 14 logged leaks. At the present rate of Tar Sands extraction, water resources like the Athabasca River are experiencing contamination seepage rates of 17.7 gallons per second from tailing ponds and spreading. The river is a popular swimming area for children and family recreation. Anglers who traditionally enjoyed the bounty of the river are now catching and consuming carcinogenic fish. In 2009, medical researchers attributed Tar Sands extraction as responsible for generating new forms of untreatable cancer.
These problems will continue to escalate as congress is allowing Canada to contravene minimal governmental safety regulations. This waiver allows for piping that is thinner than minimum regulatory standards and authorizes pressures higher than maximum allowable limits. It is hard to fathom how the government perceives this action in the best interest of its constituency when these pipelines are set to run through the agricultural heart of the country.
Tar sands oil is made up of bitumen. This thick toxic sludge is 20 times more acidic than standard crude and eats through metal. To move this byproduct it is mixed with other petroleum-based chemicals and has to retain a constant temperature of 158° F throughout transport. Because of the distance involved, this chemical mixture becomes unstable causing gaseous pressure buildups that are prone to explosions.
Politicians are not authoritative bodies on matters of planetary sciences. Unless taxpayers speak out, they are putting the care of their loved ones into the hands of politicians who view the world as nothing more than an industrial conglomeration. What congress presents to the American people is far from an unbiased perspective and is based entirely on securing their monetary contributions from big oil companies over impartial scientific data that clearly defines the needs for survival. The United States political body is obligated to listen to empirical evidence and act in accordance to lawful responsibilities, which includes providing a stable planetary environment over their personal financial and political gains.
For those interested, sign the Keystone Pipeline "No Means No" Initiative.
by
Deb Duxbury
Member since:
February 24, 2012 Congress Bullies Nation For Keystone XL Profits
April 23, 2012 02:00 AM UTC
2 people recommend this
|
comments: 18
Find more about:
politics,
keystone xl,
pollution,
tar sands,
dirty fuel,
fossil fuel,
political corruption,
oil industry,
transcanada,
congress
Find Gather groups:
Gather Politics News Channel
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
|
||||
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Version 18247, "Zach"; Copyright © 2013 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.






Comments: 18
Take a free journalism lesson by reading this article in it's entireity. In doing so, you will find that it is of interest, has creditable information included in it's context and the author actually is a journalist with a relible degree of journalistic talent and skills. Further, take note that she provides additional sites of documentation sources to that which she writes.
It's called real honest journalism, you should try it sometime. Oh, I almost forgot, you only write non debatable factious articles having no reliability in nor of your stated but undocumented facts.
"The Keystone Pipeline plan is estimated to cost taxpayers 8 billion dollars, just to lay the pipe." - No support for claim!
"Yet, citizens will not profit from their investment." - No support for claim!
"The United States is allowing Canada to steal land under the guise of eminent domain, even though the rules of eminent domain do not apply to this scheme." - No support for claim
"However, the pipeline does not create permanent jobs for Americans." - No support for claim!
The article represents ideological drivel far better than it does journalism.
I wonder what they'd say if oil was discovered under the Statue of Liberty and a foreign company wanted to drill under it. I bet they'd say the Statue could be moved.
Do you have a source for this?
If you google wikipedia and scroll down to the section which is subtitled "Ecomonic Issues" you will find that according to a 2011 lawsuit filed in Texas Federal Court by the American Refineries against the Canadian oil firm "Trans Canada" which is the pipeline builder, that the cost to the United States is already running 92% over 2007 budget estimates which were $2.8 billion at that time , but in reality are now at $5.2 billion over budget.
Jane Brown, the above is called additional information from reliable sources to back up a debaters point of view. I realize that your new kind of journalism does not accept such documentation nor believe that it should be included in an article nor in debaters comments, but nevertheless it's available for those who seek the whole truth and are not willing to accept an articles complete context on face value..
My apologies, you need to google "Keystone Pipeline" and then scroll down to the subtitle.
Those are NOT taxpayer costs. Again is there anything to support the claim that "The Keystone Pipeline plan is estimated to cost taxpayers 8 billion dollars, just to lay the pipe."
How about any support for this claim?
Watch what they do, not what they say.