These green house emissions would result in global warming and other related risks. Not only air pollution but also the waters, nearby lands and wildlife will be largely affected by the installation of this pipeline. The process also requires huge amounts of water each day for the separation of extorted products, which are also polluted and dumped in tailing ponds after they have been consumed. These tailing ponds consist of extremely toxic substances that slowly make their way to nearby clean waters.However, the argument put forward in contrast to this by the Canadian government is that the emissions are no more hazardous as compared to the conventional oil on a lifecycle emissions basis and also that Alberta has planned procedures to reduce these emissions in due course. According to the Canadian government, the pipeline plan has met and even gone beyond all the permitting conditions that should make it more acceptable for both the countries and their people (Canada, 2007).There’s a lot more environmental damage that would be caused because of the construction of the keystone pipeline. Where the greenhouse gases are being expected to increase, forests are also under a greater peril to annihilation. According to sources, more than 4 million hectares of Canada’s Boreal Forest are at a clear threat of extinction. These forests would be purposely cut down to gain admittance to the underground tar.Even after the Canadian government’s assurances about the appropriate measures and safety regulations being in place, the environmental risks of the keystone pipeline are extremely hazardous shall they materialize.On the other side of the coin, this pipeline not only ensures a proper supply of oil for both the nations but it also involves the creation of thousands and thousands of jobs across the border which are going to be a definite boost to the economies of Canada and the United States. The keystone pipeline is expected to create over 20,000 direct jobs and 118,000 indirect jobs throughout its construction. It is also anticipated to contribute $5.2 billion in property taxes once the pipeline commences its operations and have other considerable effects on the country’s wealth (Canada, 2007).On the contrary, thesejobs are only temporary and would last till the construction period is over, and most of these jobs would go to existing employees and constructors of TransCanada. These jobs are not going to be high paying and
Canada. (2007). Reasons for decision in the matter of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline
GP Ltd: Section 52 application dated 12 December 2006 for the Keystone Pipeline Project. Calgary, AB: The Board.
Canada. (2007). NEB approves Keystone pipeline project. Calgary: National Energy
Dakota. (2009). Crude oil pipe pipeline feasibility study: Bakken to Keystone pipeline
system. Bismarck, N.D: North Dakota Industrial Commission.
Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson., Rooney Engineering, Inc., & Industrial Commission of
North Dakota Public Service Commission. (2007). [TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LLC]. Bismarck, N.D.: Public Service Commission.
Parformak, P. W., & Library of Congress. (2011). Keystone XL pipeline project: Key
issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Pipeline Safety Trust., & Natural Resources Defense Council. (2011). Tar sands
pipelines safety risks. New York, N.Y: Natural Resources Defense Council.
Stansbury, J. (2011). Analysis of frequency, magnitude and consequence of worst-case
spills from the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Lincoln, Neb: University of Nebraska Water Center.
Swift, A., Shope, E., Casey-Lefkowitz, S., Sierra Club., National Wildlife Federation.,
United States. (2011). Keystone XL pipeline project final environmental impact
statement. Washington: U.S. Dept. of State.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples