Sunday, February 17, 2013
Obama Faces Risks in Pipeline Decision
Canada and the United States have some important agreements among them not only in terms of trading partner, but also in aspects related to Iran and Afghanistan. For instance, "Canada is counting on the pipeline to propel more growth in its oil patch, a vital engine for its engine. However, this aspect is critical because President Obama's decision faces a dilemma between alienating environmental advocates who overwhelming supported him during the election or causing a deep and perhaps lasting rift with Canada. For both of them, it is clear that the rejection of the United States would be viewed as an unneighborly act and could have retaliation. Basing on this, what do you think that President Obama should do in this situation? One has to take into account that the Pipeline oil is a very important resource for the United States. So, the agreement on the oil resource could help the nation to increase its income, which is not negligible. However, the environment has been an important topic when one analyzes the climate change, but beyond this is the pressure of the interest game that has to face President Obama. At that point, What is more rewarding in crisis time, in the economy, and in reality?
The following article gives us the vogue dilemma in Washington D.C.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I get the loyalty problems President Obama is facing but I personally think this could be a good step towards a lesser reliance on the "Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries." I personally trust Canada far more than many of the oil countries in the Middle East due to the good history of relations between the two countries. I think those values outweigh the environmental concerns right now. We are far from being non-reliant on oil so I think looking for shorter term solutions to oil problems is a good step.
ReplyDeleteA number of scientists believe this pipeline in the Alberta Tar Sands to be a "tipping point" that would lead us to a global climate catastrophe. Therefore, in my opinion, let's do a bit more research on this and get some solid numbers. Short-term growth and a little bit less dependency do not outweigh this, assuming these scientists have some reasoning behind their claims.
ReplyDeleteThe extra fossil fuel emissions from burning the Alberta Tar Sands are undoubtedly costly, the Brookings Institute has estimated that there should be a price on carbon of about 20$ that rises over time. However, let's all agree that in the near future, a carbon tax is politically impossible. So, if we tap into the Alberta Tar Sands, we'll burn a little more fuel than we should using an ideal tax. Even then, it's hard for me to believe that an outright ban on using this resource is more efficient than using it while not accounting for all the externalities. Let's advocate for taxes on fossil fuels and subsidize alternative energy research, but banning the pipeline seems like a poor choice.
ReplyDeleteHere's Matthew Yglesias making a similar argument.
The Alberta Tar sands is one of world's most polluted and dirtiest oil reserves and is certain to push the rate of global warming and it makes sense for the environmentalists to retaliate. However, there is lot more at stake, the economy, political ally and a valuable resource that has a high demand.Is it worth to ban the pipeline? Like Philip said it would be a very poor choice if they ban the pipeline.
ReplyDelete