Jobs or the Environment?

Discussion
Jan 18, 2012

The proposed 1,700-mile pipeline that would carry crude oil from the Canada oil sands to the U.S Gulf Coast has spurred new arguments in today's presidential campaigns and among the general public.

Many environmentalists have protested that if any leaks occur, the U. S is the one that will pay the price. Another argument is that the crude oil isn's staying close to home. It most likely is going to Europe or Asia. However, supporters of the pipeline are gunning for the jobs that the pipeline's construction and maintenance will create. The current state of the proposal has driven many supporters to question how high employment is on the priority list.

The article doesn't give any specific numbers as to how many jobs this pipeline would create. If that had been given I would have a more concrete position on this, but for now I cannot see any benefit that this pipeline would give to the U.S. However if the job positions number in the hundreds of thousands, I would say that's a fair proposal.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/18/news/economy/keystone_pipeline/index.htm...

Comments

Jobs

paulallison's picture
Submitted by paulallison on Thu, 2012-01-19 10:18.

Did you see this article?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/13/news/economy/keystone_pipeline_jobs/inde...

What's going to be tricky is to judge whether this project would bring in more jobs than another safer, greener project might. And in the end is "jobs" the bottom line? Aren't there ethical considerations here?

The question is still at large

Submitted by miguelc on Mon, 2012-10-01 11:06.

Dear Kelsey :

I am concerned with your post, "Jobs or the Enviornment?" because I am also wondering if the pipeline would do good to the United States economy.

One sentence you wrote that stands out for me is: "The article doesn't give any specific numbers as to how many jobs this pipeline would create." I think this is interesting because your post was written around January and it is now October, yet President Obama has blocked the project application, citing the need for further review. TransCanada intends to reapply, but unfortunately a decision won’t be made until after the U.S. presidential election.

Another sentence that I liked was: "The current state of the proposal has driven many supporters to question how high employment is on the priority list." This stood out for me because the pipeline faces fierce opposition from conservationists who are worried about what the project will mean for the ecosystems on the Pacific coast. It faces an even stiffer test in convincing members of the First Nations that a new pipeline is in their best interests. The pipe will cut across lands that are traditionally claimed by First Nations groups, and these unresolved land claims are a potential quagmire that could derail the project. That said, oil is Canada’s No. 1 export. At current prices, pipeline economics make for a powerful political force. Northern Gateway would increase the revenues of Canadian oil companies by billions of dollars. More cash flow means more profits, which means more money in government coffers.

Thanks for your writing. I look forward to seeing what you write next because I'm currently working on a project concerning the U.S economy.