"TransCanada (TRP), the company that wants to build the pipeline, says Keystone would create 20,000 'direct' jobs. That includes 13,000 construction jobs and 7,000 jobs making stuff like pump houses and the pipe itself.
It also projects nearly 120,000 'indirect' jobs -- think restaurant workers and hotel employees to support the construction."
While this project does have the potential to create more jobs, there is a downside as well. Firstly, TransCanada reports that only around 100 permanent jobs will be created by this project. Furthermore, there are environmental issues that could arise with this new pipeline.
"jobs could also be lost due to crop failures or other events associated with higher pollution levels the oil sands would bring. And it said more oil would mean a decline in green jobs."
Furthermore, "one study from Cornell University said the pipeline could actually lead to a decline in jobs in the long run. One reason is that the pipeline would lead to higher fuel prices in the Midwest, the study said, and that would slow consumer spending and cost jobs."
So do you think this project will actually help? Or will it simply cost more jobs than it will create? Is this project worth it?
5 comments:
I think that the Keystone Pipeline project is not worth it. First of all the oil might not even stay in the United States. Although it might also be unlikely, Canada's oil sands industry could hypothetically, just be using the deep water ports in the US as a means to carry the oil to China or Europe. In addition, the oil from the oil sands is actually more polluted than it is from conventional forms of crude. So in order to get out a usable form of the oil tons of water and energy are required to separate the sand from the oil. As a result there is a cumulative greenhouse gas footprint of 5% to 30% greater than conventional oil, further damaging our environment.
I agree with Kimi that the project will not be worth its cost, both monetarily and environmentally. The article stated that the Republicans wanted to bring it back to the table "as a sweetener," as if it were just being used to get something that the Republicans approve of on the table rather than actually pushing for it individually.
Also, after looking through the Cornell journal's findings, it is evident that the costs of its production far out-weigh the benefits. They are promoting the project based on the idea that it will "create jobs," but as the Cornell article points out, clean-up operations and spill control will be much more costly and "divert public funds" away from the economy. On top of that, the pipeline will likely raise oil prices and contribute to pollution. It is definitely not worth it.
I agree with the above. Although this does create jobs, I think that US should be focusing more on re-useable resources and creating jobs through that rather than this iffy-project that may bring more harm than benefits.
I agree that the project is not worth it because of the pollution and ephemeral jobs. However, to play devil's advocate, the project does have the short term effect of creating jobs and stimulating the economy. While this would be a small boost, it is a boost nonetheless that can trickle down the creating more money. Overall, I still do not think that the project benefits outweigh do not outweigh the cons.
I also agree that the project, if passed, is going to be a lot more harmful than helpful mainly because of its negative environmental impacts. In addition, the keystone pipeline is already causing a lot of political tension. Republicans are now trying to use the payroll tax cut as leverage for getting the project passed. Obama has threatened that he would veto the tax cut if it included those provisions. The Republicans' strategy may postpone the much needed payroll tax cut which is necessary to keep the tax from increasing from 4.2% of income to 6.2% in the next couple of months.
Post a Comment