http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/13/ny-times-columnist-joe-nocera-calls-out
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/opinion/nocera-the-poisoned-politics-of-keystone-xl.html?_r=1&ref=joenocera
Here are two links. This first one commented on the second one therefore I felt the need to include both because both are useful. Before I had read a more liberal perspective of the Keystone Pipeline, but today I had found one that's conservative. Not only does Nocera want to trade with Canada for tar sands, he criticizes Obama for declining the offer for political reasons. He criticizes our political system because he believes the only reason Obama declined the Project was because the election is coming up. Rather than taking the oil when it was offered, we let it go, ultimately allowing Canada to find diverse buyers for their oil for example China. At the current rates of consumption, we, the U.S. consume 51% of the oil in the world and China is right behind with 49%. Nocera argues that this trade would've even further decreased our reliance on OPEC Nations but according to my previous article, apparently the oil would be exported to other countries, therefore I don't know the accuracy in that statement. Many facts in the article contradict the previous one therefore its hard to pick a side. But Nocera only argues his side. Yes, he addresses the other side slightly but more mocks environmentalist. He is taking a more anthropocentric outlook on the situation and doesn't look at the picture as a whole. He doesn't support his argument with any evidence and is highly based off of assumptions. He doesn't show how the Keystone Pipeline would stabilize oil prices and for how long. He doesn't explain how much energy we would lose making the pipeline and how much we would actually gain. Currently, the United States consumes 20 million barrels of oil a day therefore how long would the supply from Canada really last us and how long would it be before we actually recover from the cost. Conservatives don't consider the process as a whole and try to sway the public with the magic words of "lower gas prices." Well, I heard the same thing about drilling in ANWR, and guess what, that would only lower gas prices by a penny. Is it really worth the trouble?
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
Keystone Pipeline
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x1368169330/Nardone-Keystone-pipeline-A-bad-idea
Julie Nardone describes the Keystone Pipeline project as a "bad idea." She first begins her column by relating to every American who owns a car or uses transportation, which is pretty much everyone. She states the fact that we export oil to foreign countries which seems ironic because of the "staggering price of gas." She continues to explain that this project will not decrease our price of gas because it would all be exported. Therefore it would not "reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern oil." She then provides a flaw in government information which stated that the project would have "minimal environmental impact" because the report was conducted by a client of TransCanada therefore euphemizing the information for public support. Nardone also shared that Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project had been completed and 30 spills alone occurred in the first year, giving her credibility. She described the environmental impacts that would occur if the pipeline broke, the Ogallala Aquifer would be contaminated, which provides 82% of the drinking water in the middle of the country as well as irrigates 20% of farmland. She concludes he argument questioning the United State's constitutionality and protection of public good, and illustrates the changes that would occur in America.
Whether this pipeline is built is relevant to my life because I would say I am more of an environmentalist. My AP Environmental Science has exposed me to all the potential dangers this project would pose, and after reading this column and realizing it wouldn't benefit us directly, I don't see a point in building something so risky for the government's selfish wants. They should try to fix the economy and national debt a different way, rather than investing millions into this project.
Julie Nardone describes the Keystone Pipeline project as a "bad idea." She first begins her column by relating to every American who owns a car or uses transportation, which is pretty much everyone. She states the fact that we export oil to foreign countries which seems ironic because of the "staggering price of gas." She continues to explain that this project will not decrease our price of gas because it would all be exported. Therefore it would not "reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern oil." She then provides a flaw in government information which stated that the project would have "minimal environmental impact" because the report was conducted by a client of TransCanada therefore euphemizing the information for public support. Nardone also shared that Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project had been completed and 30 spills alone occurred in the first year, giving her credibility. She described the environmental impacts that would occur if the pipeline broke, the Ogallala Aquifer would be contaminated, which provides 82% of the drinking water in the middle of the country as well as irrigates 20% of farmland. She concludes he argument questioning the United State's constitutionality and protection of public good, and illustrates the changes that would occur in America.
Whether this pipeline is built is relevant to my life because I would say I am more of an environmentalist. My AP Environmental Science has exposed me to all the potential dangers this project would pose, and after reading this column and realizing it wouldn't benefit us directly, I don't see a point in building something so risky for the government's selfish wants. They should try to fix the economy and national debt a different way, rather than investing millions into this project.
SOPA
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20120122/BUSINESS/301220018/Asheville-columnist-Crossman-SOPA-poses-grave-threat-Internet-freedom
Craig Crossman in his column explains the Stop Online Piracy Act and what would occur if it was past. He begins by explaining the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Under this act, two international treaties were ratified on handling copyright infringement committed on the internet. He uses YouTube as his prime example and what regulations it originally had. The Crossman continues to explain the changes that occurred in 2010 as a result of Viacom International Inc. v. Youtube, Inc. He then criticizes the rewriting of the laws because it prevents "humans [from doing] what we do best: create and innovate." He provides theoretical examples, illustrating what would happen to a popular website like YouTube is asmall complaint were to come up. It would shut down. Therefore, this is known as the Internet "blacklist""where websites would shut down permanently. He then directly states his opinion, stating the law is "particularly infuriating" because we would be shutting down the Internet which is the "best thing America has going for it." He disagrees with the law exaggerating that it "seeks to destroy the global community."
This is relevant to my life because I am a teenager growing up in a technologically based society, where an internet plays a role in my life. I do use Google and YouTube, therefore if these websites were to shut down, it would affect how I obtain information greatly.
Craig Crossman in his column explains the Stop Online Piracy Act and what would occur if it was past. He begins by explaining the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Under this act, two international treaties were ratified on handling copyright infringement committed on the internet. He uses YouTube as his prime example and what regulations it originally had. The Crossman continues to explain the changes that occurred in 2010 as a result of Viacom International Inc. v. Youtube, Inc. He then criticizes the rewriting of the laws because it prevents "humans [from doing] what we do best: create and innovate." He provides theoretical examples, illustrating what would happen to a popular website like YouTube is asmall complaint were to come up. It would shut down. Therefore, this is known as the Internet "blacklist""where websites would shut down permanently. He then directly states his opinion, stating the law is "particularly infuriating" because we would be shutting down the Internet which is the "best thing America has going for it." He disagrees with the law exaggerating that it "seeks to destroy the global community."
This is relevant to my life because I am a teenager growing up in a technologically based society, where an internet plays a role in my life. I do use Google and YouTube, therefore if these websites were to shut down, it would affect how I obtain information greatly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)