OK, and with that disclaimer clearly stated I will begin point by point.
1. The number of jobs created whether it be 13,000 or 5-6,00 is only regarding the actual construction of the pipeline. It does not include the "spin off" jobs created by more business for local good and service providers. It does not include the maintaining and supply distribution jobs that would come along as well. However, i will concede that it is an immeasurable number and can't be used in a practical argument whether for or against, but nonetheless is something to keep in mind.
2. Environmental impact. This particular issue is more difficult to address as most people are prone to believe that the EPA, State Department, White house and so on actually have an understanding of what environmental precautions are favorable for the overall national interest. So I'm going to break it off into sub-categories to get my point across in a clear easy to read manner.
2. A. Yes there is no 100% safe way to transport, drill or even work with crude oil, oil sands, or refined oil. There will be leaks and problems to over come and it should be the responsibility of the oil companies and the oil managing companies to limit the amount of problems and to pay for everything that happens in the result of a spill or leak. Keeping in mind that any fines or penalty fees that are levied against the company by the American government are ineffective as it will just cause the company to just adjust the prices of their product so to pass it on to the consumer. It's a sneaky way of the government getting more of our money while "looking after our best interests".
2. B. The environmental movement is fueled by their desire to stop the production and use of fossil fuels thus replacing them with green renewable energy sources. Sounds nice, but they seem to only look at the problems associated with fossil fuel and ignore the problems with their green energy ideologies.
WIND POWER: Wind power poses several major dilemmas. First, wind remains uneconomic despite heavy subsidies from ratepayers and taxpayers over the last two decades. Second, from an environmental viewpoint, wind farms are noisy, land intensive, unsightly, and hazardous to birds, including endangered species. With the National Audubon Society calling for a moratorium on new wind development in bird-sensitive areas, and an impending electricity industry restructuring that could force all generation resources to compete on a marginal cost basis, wind power is a problematic choice for future electricity generation without a new round of government subsidies and preferences.
SOLAR POWER: Solar power, at least when relied on for central-station or grid electricity generation, is not environmentally benign on a total fuel cycle basis and is highly uneconomic, land intensive, and thus a fringe electric power source for the foreseeable future.
HYDRO POWER: Hydropower has lost favor with environmentalists because of the damage it has done to river habitats and freshwater fish populations
GEOTHERMAL: Geothermal has turned out to be "depletable," with limited capacity, falling output, and modest new investment.
BIOMASS: Biomass is also uneconomic and an air-pollution-intensive renewable.
The above info concerning green energy was provided in: Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not "Green" by Robert L. Bradley Jr
Robert L. Bradley Jr. is president of the Institute for Energy Research in Houston, Texas, the author of the two-volume Oil, Gas, and Government: The U.S. Experience, and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.
2. C. With the above stated it can be concluded that unless we all want to pursue an Amish lifestyle there is no pretty way to supply the energy we consume. It's one of those things that can be compared to a person wanting a steak but not wanting to see the cow killed and butchered.....hmmm...now i'm craving steak. The United States is broke and cannot waste anymore time or money pursuing the wet dreams of Al Gore and Eco-nuts. We need jobs and we need energy, more importantly we needs lots and lots and lots of OIL!
3. It's not really fair showing screen shots of Fox News blaming Obama unless you want to talk about the canonization he receives by MSNBC (Obama's very own Media Political Action Committee, lol.), CNN, New York Times, and just about every other media source. OK, so they blamed Obama. If you don't wanna hear or see such atrocities there are oodles of other media outlets that will praise him for his achievements, progress, and whatever else they can paint a pretty picture of. Who knows if he gets re-elected he may even get a Nobel prize....oh wait he already got one in record time. LOL Talk about bias.
Any ways that's my two cents. Very good subject to discuss. None of what i wrote was to be condescending I just wanted to make sure my views and opinions were expressed in a manner that would not get confused or misread
Take care all!!!! Sorry for any typos! I was trying to rush through it. P.S. Go Patriots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
