The recent controversial decision to construct a 1700-mile pipeline between Alberta, Canada, and Texas has been passed by the State Department on claims that it could be built without significant damage to the environment. Known as Keystone XL, the project has been met by fierce criticism from environmentalists who stress the pipeline would force America to rely on a dirty, raw form of oil in addition to endangering the territories it passes through with the possibility of oil leaks and lethal spills. The pipeline would carry oil siphoned from sand deposits primarily in Alberta through several states to Texas. These city states would include Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. So far 370 activists protesting the passing of the pipeline proposal have been arrested with another estimated 2000 individuals to be arrested before the end of the scheduled demonstrations. There have been approximately 50 arrests made daily with more to follow considering the 90-day review and public hearing the proposal now has to clear. On one hand, according to the spokesman for the Rainforest Action Network, “It really does not make a lick of sense. There is no excuse for not doing the right thing on this.” On the other hand, TransCanada, the company hoping for the pipeline’s creation, acknowledges “the fundamental issue as energy security”, where Canada and America share similar interests with concerns to human rights and environmental protection, if would be otherwise irrational to propose that the United States continue importation from nations with dissimilar values. The environmentalists and ecologists would shed light on social security as well as imminent danger towards environmental safety. As previously stated by TransCanada, companies in support of the pipeline argue in affirmation of the economic benefits and multitude of job openings it would provide.
The issue draws on the Reason and Logic behind each perspective. The environmentalists rely heavily upon Logic by providing many potential dangers and past tragedies, inferring that the pipeline may endanger many lives as well as the ecosystems which it would run through. On the contrary, the companies encouraging the proposal of the pipeline, who would reap profits from its creation, assert with Reason that the pipeline should not be too harmful towards the environment and would offer job opportunities which would null the argument of ecological hazards. This perspective also stems from the rising debt crisis which plays into the presence of Emotion in many of the arguments as well. Passionately defending what ought to be conserved, ecologists and activists fight for what is considered essential for human prosperity (the maintenance of the natural world) and recognize the attention which this proposal would bring to their cause. Unlike these conservatives, the wealthy companies can see the major potential profits they could acquire from such an eager oil prospect. Such Ways of Knowing provide important insights into the uncertainties which each perspective holds. Similarly, their Areas of Knowledge are applicable to three subjects. The Natural Sciences would lean towards the argument made by the activists who would see the pipeline proposal denied due to the probable potential hazards the pipeline may present. Human Sciences works in favour of either perspective as social security will be important from a protestor’s standpoint (light will be shed on this issue later) whereas the job opportunities sustains the supporter’s take on the issue. Lastly, the question of Ethics arises which should now be lucid in the mélange of arguments. The endangerment of social security (which should encompass environmental health) would have to be upheld if the nation hopes to achieve economic benefits with the pipeline’s construction.
The Logic displayed by the activists’ adamant opinion of the pipeline’s imminent detriment to society is upheld by plenty of catastrophes concerning crude oil and oil spills. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the war in the Middle East already offers situations which should give rise to sufficient worries concerning oil. Would there be terrorist attacks due to the large quantities of oil: a totaled “830,000 barrels of oil per day”? Similarly, questions concerning fuel consumption and a decrease in necessity for innovations in the creation of enviro-friendly vehicles would rise. The existing major Reasoning for companies in favour of the pipeline is primarily the amount of jobs it would provide. However, there are additional benefits which detail the replacement of Venezuelan and Middle Eastern imports with efficient Canadian crude.
However, once the topical nature of Ethics arises, the playing ground transforms into a world very much torn in two. Activists, environmentalists and ecologists could note the infringement of social security the pipeline could present. The potential of major explosions hurting large swaths of population (being the third most populous country, America could receive major casualties) as well as the contamination of local ecology along the pipeline through the states into Texas are strong arguments concerning the Ethical dilemmas of the proposal. Now consider the Ethical benefits the large companies could offer. The current economic crisis is a primary motivator for the jobs which would be created. Many of the unemployed youth in America would be satisfied with the result as well. However, much of the satisfaction is a result of their unwariness of the dangers (similar to many real-world situations). The argument presented by the activists is much more appealing because it does keep in mind that the current system for oil in America works. Additionally, the pipeline would be costly, requiring $7 billion dollars to create. Ultimately, considering Reasoning and Logic with respect to Ethics, the argument made by protestors encompasses much more efficiently the safety of the populace as well as wilderness.
When considering historical events, it is also important to keep in mind events which will go down in history. Just reported earlier today on CNN was the Kenyan Pipeline Explosion which “flattened homes and killed scores of people”. A totaled 76 individuals were killed, some reduced to dust and others dying from severe burns. It is important to note that the “fuel pipeline exploded in a densely populated Nairobi” in the presence of many potential witnesses, however, the most shocking piece of news extends from the analysis of the cause of the explosion: “The precise cause of the accident remained unclear.” Many of the claims of activists and environmentalists against the pipeline from Alberta to Texas relate to this danger especially from the observed densely populated area. With so many people who could have served as witnesses, the massive destruction resulted in charred bodies strewn throughout the wreckage. Some bodies were still bobbing in a stream that passes through the settlement Monday afternoon. Similarly, the argument of environmental impacts relates to the business venture taking place in Mongolia. Turquoise Hill, the biggest business venture in Mongolia is in the development phase for a mine which will provide 450,000 tons of copper and more than 300,000 ounces of gold. However, this comes at the cost of placing stress on an ancient nomadic way of life. Many locals cannot bring their animals 20 or 30 kilometers near the mine because of the traffic and dust which both frightens the animals and restricts visibility. The construction of the Alberta-Texas pipeline will impact the environment in a similar way economists claim. Especially extending through Montana and South Dakota, if placed in open areas away from populated cities, this could frighten animals and disturb a long system that their ecology already offered. Like detailed bear attacks, the consideration for the cancellation of the pipeline, although extremely dangerous and destructive to the surroundings during developmental stage, comes down to the basic nature and necessity that humans require. Bear attacks often stem from protection of young or natural hunger, and in the case of the pipeline proposal, humans view oil as a necessity. We require it for transport and efficiency (although not efficient for the environment). However, in this case, there is already a current mode of importation and on top of that, stopping trade with other countries while paying $7 billion in order to maintain the pipeline construction does not seem very cost effective considering the debt crisis. The Ethics in question prove to be extremely persuasive reasons, and by revealing other examples such as the explosion of the Kenyan pipeline, the slumbering danger should now be apparent.
Terry, the operative word for you on future blog posts is "focus." You need Step 1 and Step 2 to be much more focused. First, explain the issue as simply and directly as possible. Then, determine what is the THE KEY issue, not every possible link to TOK that you can find.
ReplyDeleteYou do seem to finally settle on ethics, which I agree is the key issue at work here. But nearly every ethics issue simply comes down to competing claims to know what is "The Good" and how we should evaluate each claim.
In this case, environmentalists claim "The Good" is protection of the peoples and environment alongside the Keystone XL. For the others, "The Good" is defined as economic and geopolitical. So the question then becomes, which is "The GREATER Good", the environment or the economy and geopolitical standing of the US. And how can each side claim to know they represent "The GREATER Good". That is where the TOK issue lies and that is where you should be focusing the majority of your time and energy.
Again, don't worry, though. This is a learning process and it takes time. Try to see if you can find another instance of a controversy and see what it all boils down to, then focus on that one issue and really tear into it.