Keystone Pipeline Controversy Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- The Keystone XL pipeline would carry oil from Alberta, Canada and through the US down to the Gulf of Mexico. Will President Obama veto a bill approving the pipeline that just passed the Republican controlled Congress? Will the tar sands contribute to climate change?
Subscribe for more videos: / @ajplus
Follow us on Twitter: / ajplus
Like us on Facebook: / ajpluscommunity
Learn more about AJ+: www.ajplus.net/
Could we get sources? Thanks
Wow way to be unbiased
So now we will ship it by a ship using diesel. What could go wrong?
The whole point of pipelining it across the US from Canada is to get it to the ocean too ship it. So yeah don’t matter what it gets shipped with a diesel boat your right👍
@@truthandthelight4041 The whole point of piping it down to the gulf is because that's where the refineries are. The refineries are by the ocean so they can ship a finished product. Now it will be shipped from lake superior all the way to the gulf then out to the destination. That almost doubles the shipping mileage to anywhere in the atlantic.
@@truthandthelight4041 Get ready for more air pollution from diesel boat and truck transportations.
I'm personally against the exploitation of oil sands but still, this was an overtly bias explanation that made very little attempt to be impartial.
Specifically, my gripes were;
a. 0:08 - The whole 4 to 1 "for and against" circles thing. What about Energy security analysts? What about economists? What about all the other groups that might stand to benefit from a reliable source of energy? Don't present a false debate and I don't really care about celebrities.
b. 0:38 - How much forest? Quantify please, pro-oil sands groups argue that it only requires deforesting a small area. If you are going to refute that, provide statistics.
c. 0:48 - How much water relative to the environment? Canada has some of the largest fresh water reserves on Earth. Demonstrate that the use of this water will be harmful to either humans or the environment.
d. 0:58 - Again, explain. 'Toxic pools of chemicals' and 'poisoning' are very unscientific terms and the industry almost certainly legally obligated to mitigate the damage. If they are failing, explain, don't just brush over it,
e. 1:03 - 'Linked to'? Correlation is not causation. #1 Rule of Research. Not denying that there may well be a causal relationship, but you should make that more clear.
f. 1:26 - Okay...buts whats actually the risk of that happening? What do engineers and water-pipe experts say? How common is it that pipe-lines comparable to Keystone leak into aquifers? Saying 'environmentalists worry' without addressing the validity of those worries is pointless.
g. 1:44 - I really would not underestimate the importance of Energy security. You shouldn't just hand-wave it like that. Oil shocks like those in the 70s can have a disastrous effect on an economy and force people into fuel poverty. Plus, the influence of oil concerns on US foreign policy is undeniably negative.
h. 1:57 - How does that compare to other sources? Future oil price predictions maybe good? If it is unfeasible economically, why is such a large business lobby apparently supporting it?
This video had a consistent lack of explanation and evaluation (sticking to one-liner negatives). As it stands, it was little-better than what you might see on Fox for bias. You addressed the controversy from almost exclusively one side.
+Merry Machiavelli I saw a documentary on this monstrosity known as the Keystone XL and it's terrible. First of all it cuts across peoples farm land, so when those brave farmers refuse to let trans canada steal their land, TC will just use imminent domain to get what they want. I find it interesting how republicans are against inheritance tax yet are perfectly fine with imminent domain. Also, this is terrible, TERRIBLE for the environment. If that oil spills it could potentially contaminate the Ogalala aquifer which is a drinking source for millions of people. Also, although iut will create tens of thousands of "Jobs", they will only be temporary (www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/09/3-key-keystone-xl-questions-answered/). AND, the states they will be building the pipeline in, guess what, have some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country.
@@azrielreyes4881 One train full of oil, in the advent of a crash, will cause more damage than any pipeline in history, as shown to us by history. Keystone leaked once, and it leaked 210,000 gallons. Which, is obviously terrible. A train in pennsylvania crashed with oil, and it leaked 230,000. That was one of the smallest leaks on record among locomotives
So we would rather be DEPENDENT on OTHER COUNTRIES than to make our own. DEPENDENT AS THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. Makes sense.
Moron
@@breadfan9 yeah power doesn't really care about where resources are. Unless you're advocating for disrespecting the sovereignty of other nations then invading them for their resources the USA will always be dependent on other nations.
Yay Biden close that mess ASAP boy!
and cancel 11,000 without finding a replacement for those workers.
@KA How are they going to find another job during a pandemic? The pipeline is actually saving the planet because it use renewable energy and a lot cleaner to transport. By shutting it down you are forcing trucks and shipping to used diesel engine to transport oil which cause more air pollution.
@KA So it’s ok instead of using A cleaner mode of transportation (Like the pipeline) we instead use cars. Cutting off the pipeline won’t stop the extraction of these materials or stop this resource from getting out to the world. This is kinda what Germany did with their nuclear power plant. They turned them all of to use 100% renewable energy. But then thanks to that they had little energy and needed to use coal plants to get energy. Which is worse than nuclear.
@KA Chief Perry Bellegarde actually agree to have pipeline build on there indigenous land. None of the pipeline have destroy any of there land. It actually the most greenest pipeline built and the safest. The pipeline actually used renewable energy and kept a lot of air pollution down. I want to say the EPA regulation have a history of doing more harm to the environment. Look what happen to the California forest fire. The EPA would not allow fire control to burn all the dead plant because of co2. Now we have more air pollution and forest fire.
Does anyone know where they got the statistic that tar sand oil produces 17% more greenhouse gas emissions than regular oil?
Yes when they figured out that the competing company could cause them to lose profits. Duh.. come on now. #Science
EPA
You get the science you pay for!
Well that was unbiased
So we would rather be DEPENDENT on OTHER COUNTRIES than to make our own. DEPENDENT AS THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. Makes sense.
Yes we would rather find cleaner energy than to contaminate our land.
@@jeannettelinthicum9654 🤦♂️
We have wind, solar, tidal, Geo thermal, hydroelectric, etc....all that is too expensive yet an 8 billion dollar pipeline to export oil and have 40 people get rich is the solution?
You do realise that wind, solar, and all that need some sort of electricity or something which needs oil to burn. Having us deliver oil by truck and train and boat will add more carbon to the air.
What do I think he (the president) should do? I think he should resign and let someone that actually understands the oath of office be president.
You Americans elected him
Do you think you would do a better job?
He seems to be doing a pretty good job so far.
Will Monahan Yeah..... it doesn't help that half this country is retarded. People voted for him because of the color of his skin and not his political agenda. Thats real racism.
vcostor in what way? please explain. Because i think its the worst presidency of all time.
Time to develop a better technology
Agreeded and if that doesn't happen well say good bye to earth and change it's name to Mars.
TesterLite With the greenhouse gas effect our planet is more likely to look like Venus 2.0 than Mars
We already have better technology like nuclear energy and solar energy along with energy sources that are being researched and developed like Helium-3 and Hydrogen, but big oil companies refuse to let green energy become a viable option, so they pay vast amounts of money to pay scientists (who often times aren't even trained in the field they're doing research in) to falsify research and produce literally bold faced lies in the form of propaganda commercials on TV. Case in point: Wei-Hock Soon, a part-time Smithsonian employee who has a PhD. in aerospace engineering. The guy accepts funding from big oil companies so that he can falsify climatology research and present it to Congress where politicians, whose campaigns were funded by big oil companies, applaud him endlessly.
www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
Sebastien Vachon R. I was just about to mention that and you beat me to it.
WE MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS
A pipeline is better technology. With out it they will transport it on ships the guzzle diesel and leak oil into the ocean.
“Building pipelines equals energy independence from foreign sources and more jobs, but not really.”
“Not really?” Complete bias and illogical rhetoric in this whole video.
it's not biased to assert that 35 permanent jobs is "not really" a significant victory in creating more jobs.
@@almorali9225 you think it takes 35 jobs to build an entire pipeline? Lmao you are in lala land.
@@LiterallyGod No, I think it takes about 42,000 jobs to build a pipeline, and 35 jobs to maintain the pipeline once it's built, and I think this because that's what the state department, not LaLa Land, reported.
@@almorali9225 yea well 42k is a large number of jobs. Temp or not. So my point stands and yours falls.
@@LiterallyGod lol ok
Semi expert-ish guy here, first of all one simple correction they are the "oil sands" not the "tar sands", tar sands is a inaccurate term that is used to make it sound horrible to the average Joe (or Joanne). Second the actual thing that holds the oil is called bitumen not tar sand. Now for my take on the whole thing, I don't know about the specific pipe line but the oil needs to be used. It is not a permanent solution and it is bad for the environment but companies are try as hard as they can on getting newer, greener, more efficient ways. I and almost all energy companies want to stop relying on oil but it is hard, there just isn't enough behind other forms of energy. It is visible that these companies want this because they are no longer oil companies but energy companies, they see that oil is bad and they want off that boat ASAP. But if we stopped oil right now everything would collapse, people would lose jobs, governments would go further into debt, and necessary amenities wouldn't function, eg. hospitals, schools and just general day to day things we need to survive. If we lost the oil industry in Alberta, the primary oil sands location, thousands would die, it is way to freaking cold! Lots of these companies are also funding new tech in other energy sources. (arguably not enough but that isn't the point of this) Now that I have presented some more information I hope people can look at this from a different perspective and see that the motion of the world is moving away from oil but it just takes time. From an Albertan thats entire families income came from the oil industry, I say we should start the transition away from oil as soon as possible.
Nice Propaganda!
They go over their land without even asking? That's illegal. They don't do that. They make deals and ask permission to go over private land prior to construction.
you don't think the gov't won't do what they want? they will find a way to bribe the landowners first, then if they dont accept they will quietly shove them out of the way. guarantee it.
@@brittanyfeagin2191 yea couple bottles of water and packs of tobacco might be enough...
@@brittanyfeagin2191 imminent domain still demands the government to pay just compensation.
Personally, I don't even think there should BE a debate. This runs through Native American land, has the possibility of contaminating water, and produces a whopping 17 PERCENT more carbon dioxide emissions. To hell with the pipeline!
he should not approve its just procrastinating the problem of oil and pollution. Any bill that comes in front of Obama's desk that involves the use of non renewables should be vetoed
And now ?
When we know it won’t be as problematic to the environment as once thought and then there’s the chance of world wars
@@AMYV3 R u american vro?
Well I'm going to mars.
jack duval Are you flying Virgin Galactic?
Nope, I don't want to end up like that pilot!
how are you gonna get there?
By sneaking on to the rocket that Nasa uses to send the next rover.
jack duval good luck sir
Pure proven Propaganda
You want to get rid of dependence on foreign oil. Then invest much more on renewable energy. Solar, wind, etc. not only will that drastically cut down on our carbon output, but it will also get rid of your dependence on foreign oil.
A little work is a lot of energy.
This video aged like milk
Disapprove. It's bad for the environment, likely to have oil spills since its so long and won't achieve oil independence since most of the oil will be shipped out of the USA. Sounds like a bad idea to me.
Oh Canada, what have you done?
I don't understand why its so important for US to extract oil which causes so much pollution, endangers environment and is also expensive ! Ain't the world a global village now? When we can extract oil so efficiently from Saudi etc , then why go through so much just to reduce dependency !!? Moreover, ain't the US the main proponent for climate change ? Is this the example you set for India and China ?
Of course, VETO !
I would like to point that the reason we want energy independence is to lower the chance of horrible economic consequences. All Global Oil prices are interconnected, which means that regardless of where you're importing the oil from, the price will be affected by oil surpluses and deficits throughout the world. The problem is that many of the countries where the oil is coming from are extremely unstable - Syria, Venezuela, and Libya are going through civil wars, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait have all had histories of civil unrest, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Russia might be facing future instability depending on future policies, etc, etc. If these problems become exacerbated enough, they could create serious economic problems for the global oil trade and the US. Additionally, importing oil is a major drain on the US economy & budget and could be improved through the use of domestic oil sources.
Peter Peterson Agreed on all counts. But US wouldn't be the only country that would be hurt, right ? All major economies like Europe, China, India, Japan, Australia etc would be hit. And the possibility of all these all oil producing countries going through instability at the same instance are very slim. Economically speaking, these countries cannot stop producing oil under any circumstances unless they want to go back to stone age.
Case in point, there will be some solution drawn up under such a circumstance. The whole world wouldn't just wait and watch, right? We humans in the last 200 years have polluted the world more than what humans have polluted since their existence. So a rich country like US should refrain from such acts unless there is a dire need. Just my opinion.
Nishit Raj because of OPEC.
Nick w So would that mean US would be drawing out their influence from OPEC and leave its entire list of allies to stare at a blank wall for energy ?
Nishit Raj Yes. Our so called "allies" in the middle east. Why should we get oil from the other side of the world, when we have it in our backyard. At least keeping trillions of dollars in a region that's not ruled by Islamic extremist, who still live in the age of religion.
Thanks for a very shallow explanation targeting the impressionable.
Then you make a video then.
Well... The pipeline is already half built in Canada. It's going to get built regardless; you can't say no your largest trade partner. Plus if you do? Well. it's going to go elsewhere and Canada will profit either in house or shipping it out. Which, when you think about it is probably worse for the environment than having it on land. Remember BP Oil?
Bro you’re not gonna believe what they did 7 years later…..
There are so many reasons XL should not be approved, but the whole "crossing over a HUGE american fresh water supply thing" alone should stop this dead in its tracks. People can try and deny climate change all they want, but there is 2 things you can't deny: 1. Oil companies' track record when it comes to oil spills. 2. The contamination of a fresh water supply like that, would be unimaginably devastating...
Biden's Blunder, what a Bobblehead!!!
And here I thought I was going to get an impartial explanation of the controversy. Thanks for nothing.
It is, pipelines are a disaster and so are tar sands
But let's use trains and trucks to move it instead. That's totally a winning strategy. You think they're going to stop "boiling oil from the ground?" No they won't because we need paved roads. So let's destroy the EnVirOnmEnT that way instead
Veto any law even hinting at supporting the pipe line. We must move forward in green energy. we can greatly increase our energy production without even using wind or solar but with more conventional geothermal and hydroelectric power
Open Oil Pipelines from Canada to USA. You Tube.
Veto!
In my opinion why not just route the pipeline to locations that dont interfere with the trees or to area where tree clearing is a good thing. Taking it down already is raising taxes, gas prices, electric prices.
THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THE WATER
Obama: This will work!
Me: Climate Change.
Obama: Wait, WHAT? IHATECLIMATECHANGESHUTTHISPIPEDOWNFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK
The pipeline is vital to energy independence.
No it's not. can get all we need from solar and wind.
VETO! Take all those Billions of Dollars and invest it in renewables. Otherwise it seems like it is one step forward and two steps back.
Go around the water by x/decided amount. It's a big ask but it's also a compromise
wow this went baack 6 years ago?
Trump has done it lol
And Biden will get rid of it on his first day.
NOV 2017 THEY HAD A BIG LEAK ...THANK YOU ;;;TRUMP ''''
And now Biden is going to stop it!
I wish they would list sources
The oil still has to travel. We are no where near being independent from oil/gas. You can talk all you want about saving the environment yet none of you will give up your luxuries that come with oil and gas. I've never seen a person who is for the climate not use shit that hurts the environment. Remember its rules for thee not for me. #Science
That is so not true.We are in the future now. the mindsets of the people are not.We can create clean energy all over the world now. The technology is already here
@@jeannettelinthicum9654 wrong.
A very biased explanation.. and by the way who won the war? .. sorry to Victor's go the spoils...
They'll sell it no matter what, if not through pipeline then through ship or railroad....Canada has made far more investment to let it sit there.
the tar sands is going to get out regardless. we might as well make it benefit us (the US) as much as possible. sign it Obama.
benefit the us with 40 permanent jobs, taking over ranches and indian land and if it does leak possibly contaminating one of the biggest aquifers in the country. On top of that with it being canadian oil nearly all profit goes right back up the pipeline.
We are not getting one gallon of that shitty oil, it's all going to China, where pollution does seem to be a concern
My car doesn't run on water, build the damn pipeline
lmao
Get in it and drive out to a rig for 3 weeks learn how to work and produce rather than consume.
I like this video. Obama should have let the bill pass, Alas, it looks like Obama vetoed the bill approving the keystone pipeline. The alternative options to the Keystone for transporting and refining this oil will be a greater environmental damage. environmentalists need to raise the bar, drop this 'not in my backyard' mentality, and do more research on cost benefit analysis.
pro pipeline
it doesn't sound like a good thing
Check out Magnegas, they are a small company with huge potential in reducing our emissions.
I think it should be approved so the oil can travel safer and the tiny bit of damage it will do to the climate is nothing.
Veto. This has bad news written all over it
I'm not really for obama but i think he made a good choice
VOTE FOR BERNIE ONLY DUDE AGAINST THIS BULLSHIT
Wtf dude?
Dominic Preas hate to tell ya but my boy Donald won
That doesn't sound too good
well, shiiieeet.....
Some people are against it because of this... but I'm more upset about the deregulation of crude export - leading to the U.S. becoming even more reliant. Watch my video on this topic.
Why cant they route the pipe to Vancouver....
Because it's going to be piped to the Gulf, where tankers will take that shitty tar sand to China to be where it will be extracted into oil. U.S is never gonna get any of this oil. It's too expensive to process into crude oil. We're just renting our land to Canada for terrible pipeline that won't help our energy source. FORGET ABOUT IT.
Jeepers this sounds awful!
holy biased reporting
We Canadians are pissed.
Another one sided propaganda piece
He should divorce Wayne Brady.
Approve the fucking thing.
It’s the pipeline or nuclear energy, we need to choose the lesser of two evils. It’s 80 plus k for Tesla or 400 bucks a month for gas.
Lmao what? where did you pull that number from?
@Pk-io6xe if you live in California 400 bucks a month in gas is like reasonable
Veto.
Fix the elections ffs
With the recent fracking the states should have addiquit suppllies of cleaner fuel for the next few years .
Peak demands for oxygen in an ever increasing confined space may be another matter.
Typically I love y'all videos and as I care little on the overall topic, I feel as a history major you were very bias and didn't provide both sides as done in most videos. Thanks
VETO!!!!!!!!!
#NODAPL
Hey guys, Canada here. Sorry about that cancer and climate change stuff. At least we have universal health care though so everything is pretty much fine. Too bad for you though.
sync380 who pays for it, canada has pretty high taxes and we don't even take care of those who have protected out country why should we give free shit who just sit there and don't help?
SHUT IT DOWN!! This is our one home! Shut it down so that our children have a future.
Biased.
Time to use green tech
You know that green tech would need oil to be used, remember heat makes electricity and if you need lithium, that needs machines and it's not good for the air. Plus electricity isnt reliable look at texas.
hmm. such a hard choice. 8 billion dollars to increase supply and fuel demand. Or 8 billion dollars to decrease demand, not ruin our drinking water, intrude on property that isn't their's, and reduce pollution, increasing overall health.
hmmm. Yup. I definitely don't know which to choose.
96 likes, 1 dislike
wow
Is this channel conservative or liberal?
I’m from the future...shit gets weird
Biden ftw
@@LocoMe4u Biden success on day one, Killing 11,000 jobs in one day without a replacement. Mission accomplish.
I worked at Walmart with a guy the worked in the oil field in Alberta/BC area on a chainsaw crew. He said they would go along and and cut trees down. I asked what they do with the lumber they cut down, he said other crew comes along and cut up the trees and leaves them there to rot. I told him “what a waste” he said “it is what it is man, but I guess it is a waste ya”
The fact that this happens is absolutely disgusting! Lol good that the XL got cancelled. Leave the forests alone. There are plenty more ways to get energy.
Yet our taxes are raised and we will still be using more carbon emissions, actually the pipeline is way more beneficial. They want wind turbines, solar panels, all that stuff needs energy, energy needs heat, and heat needs oil to burn, so more energy being used more oil and more carbon. Problem is that the pipeline was a oil paradise so we save alot of money on it, but now we have to buy oil from foreign countries which will also raise carbon emissions by boats, trains, and trucks, less trucks will be driving though because of it's high prices on diesel. That's clear enough.
@@m1a2abrams34 not when you consider it passes throuh over 1000 water ways, marshlands, and wetlands. So chance of major disaster is much higher than what it would be say down in the gulf. One bad incident up there and it probaly would have gotten shut down anyway
@@charlesdoyle3630 it still would use less oil to use, plus if you didnt know, I just learned that when they build the pipeline they cut down trees of course, but what people dont know is that for every tree they cut down they put two more, so tree cutting is no problem.
I like your video, but there are way too many bells and whistles in it. Your audience are not idiots if they were, then they wouldn't be looking this stuff up. TestTube has a better way of informing the audience in my opinion, so no subscription from me.
That's true they didn't mentioned that, but that's the only thing they didn't mentioned so my opinion is still the same. I'll admit i'm surprised at the amount of videos they have and so few subs, i'm sure they'll get a lot more subs from the TestTube video though so they'll be fine without mine.
Vegard Løknes
The Young Turks? yeah those guys are awesome and i only recently found them. So i have a lot of catching up to do.
Vegard Løknes You think Testtube was being Neutral :O
You Americans don't really go and look at these thing in person do you, come out to Alberta, and take a look at the mine's, FYI the earth is not exploding.
Vegard Løknes The Young Terks? The leftist version of Fox News? well ok.
Vegard Løknes What does wealth have to do with anything???
HAHAHAH grade A propaganda
destro the planet?
Too bad.. cause trump did it already👌
Are you sick of the mainstream media? Do you want to hear opinion and analysis from a young, conservative, and constitutional youth? You've come to the right place. Check out my content!
Yeah, the last thing we should be doing right now is using lots of water to extract stuff that could poison lots of our limited water resources. Because, you know, there's just so much usable water on the planet and there aren't droughts or conflicts over it or anything...
"Stop reliance on Foreign Oil!" "Make the U.S. more energy independent!"
*Goes and buys Tar Sand Oil from CANADA*