Posted: September 3rd, 2013
Environmental pollution is the number one contributor to global warming. Often, some geologists and other scholars argue that pollution is not among the contributors of global warming. Hence, they tend to decide that human activity is not the cause of global warming. However, it should be noted that human activities may affect the environment positively or negatively, it only depends on how the activity is viewed. Therefore, in the paper, an article in the New York Times involving a human activity that affects the environment both positively and negatively, is analyzed.
The article, ‘No to a New Tar Sands Pipeline’ , is about a pipeline of transporting tar between Canada and the United States. The pipeline is believed to cross an international boundary causing a lot of political debate. In addition, the article has discussed the arguments from both sides indicating both the benefits and disadvantages of the project. According to the article, there have been so many surveys done, all of them having proved that the project would be a risky venture to the environment (New York Times 2011). On the other hand, there are those studies that believe that the project would be extremely beneficial because it is going to reduce the oil prices that are being controlled in the Middle East.
For this reason, the project is going to have an enormous impact on the environment. The impact would affect the areas of Canada and United States where the pipeline is passing through (New York Times 2011). Presently, the project will destroy the forests that are nearby the areas that it is going to pass through. Secondly, the water bodies of the two countries involved are going to be exhausted. This is because it requires twice as much water to extract one barrel of bitumen from its natural resources. On the other hand, it has future impacts on the environment. It is going to eradicate the nearby forest thus affecting the natural habitats. Secondly, it is going to contribute to global warming. These are only a few of the effects of the project.
It is believed that the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from this project is going to be released in the air would be extremely high. It is approximately eighty-two percent of carbon dioxide is emitted from the tar that is going to be transported using the pipeline (New York Times 2011). This shows that the green houses gases will destroy the atmosphere causing global warming in the environment. Hence, if the project is approved by the United States President Barrack Obama, it is going to cause continued destruction of the atmospheric environment, leading to global warming (New York Times 2011). In this case, large volumes of tar will be transported, and every time more than eighty-two percent of carbon dioxide will be released in the air.
According to geological surveys, when an amount of carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere, it takes long for the society to recover from the damage assuming that there is no emission of carbon dioxide during this time. For instance, if the project is approved, it means that eighty two percent of gas will be emitted in the air (New York Times 2011). This means that it will take the world generations to recover from the damage caused by the emissions, assuming that there will be no more emission during this period. Henceforth, the time of recovering from the project is undefined.
The space or the location of destruction that will be done by the project is going to be both small and large. The regions where this pipeline is going to pass through will be the first to be affect by the damages. At first, the atmosphere will be destroyed leading to the destruction of the forests. Secondly, the atmosphere will mix up all over the world contributing to global warming. This shows that at the time of the project, the two countries will be the first to be affected, before the damage spreads all over the world.
The project will also have adverse impacts on the biological environment. The pipeline is going to affect the habitat of most of the animals that live in the forest. Those animals that live in the nearby forests are likely going to be affected by the pipeline. This is because the pipeline will destroy their homes leaving them without homeless. Secondly, these animals depend on food from the forests. Hence, when the forests are destroyed they will not have much to eat. This will result in the animals dying from hunger. This shows that the pipeline project is going to have an immense impact on the biosphere since it will affect the biological cycle of most of the animals that live in the forests.
In addition, the project will affect the ecosystem greatly. According to the survey, other pipelines that have been created similar to this project have been spilling tar all over the oceans causing the life in the ecosystem to die. The bitumen transported is extremely corrosive (New York Times 2011). Additionally, it reacts once it is exposed to water. Therefore, when the bitumen is split in the water, it reacts with the water killing all the life in it. This affects the ecosystems. In this situation, when the project is approved by the president, it is going to affect all the animals that are living in the nearby water systems.
On the land, the bitumen affects the soil with its chemicals destroying the organism living in the soil. Bitumen is mined from the dirt where a lot of boiling water is required to separate the bitumen. In this process, the chemicals that are contained in the water after the reaction with the bitumen mix with soil. All the organisms that are in the soil will often die including the plants. In this case, if the project commences it means that the land biosphere will severely be affected by the activities of the pipeline.
Finally, the project will affect the environment socially and economically. This is because it will earn revenue for both countries. For instance, Canada will earn a lot of revenue when it transports it to United States of America. This means that it will increase the economy of Canada by raising the exports more than the imports (New York Times 2011). In this case, it shows that the country will be earning more that what they are spending. This excess money will be used in the country to improve other parts of the economy. Therefore, when the project commences it will affect the economy of the countries positively improvement of the country’s economy.
In addition, the project is going to create jobs for people staying in that region. This means that the job will create more employment opportunities for people staying in that region. When the pipes are not put in place, there are not many job opportunities. However, when the president approves the project, new job opportunities will be created. At first, people will be needed to put in place the various pipes. Secondly, there are people who are going to be needed to take care of the pipeline while it is in operations. This means that there will be creation of new job opportunities in the environment for the people who are staying in the nearby societies.
The project will also have an immense effect on the social environment. When people have jobs, it means that they are going to improve their living standards. This means that the society will change entirely. First, there will be no social misfits in the society. For instance, people will stoop stilling. This is because they have jobs that will help them to survive. Secondly, the people will have better lives. This is because they can afford the better lives. In this case, it shows that the people lives have changed socially. This is because before there was a lot of insecurity. However, after the introduction of the projection the society has become safe. Additionally, the social amenities in the society have changed for the better.
New York Times. No to a New Tar Sands Pipeline. nytimes.com. 2 April 2011. Web. 2 February 2012.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.