New York Times Alyssa Schukar
Responding to the Opposition
Despite all of the downsides to the Dakota Access Pipeline, there is a whole other side that argues in support of Energy Independence, and brings up questions of ethics that are not usually on the minds of the opposition. First, that the Dakota Access Pipeline is actually safe, and second, that withdrawal from using up domestic oil would result participation in all the unethical components of using foreign oil.
Paul Towne is a former oil man and supporter of the Dakota Access Pipeline construction, and not just because of the jobs and other “obvious economic benefits” that he mentions would come along with it in the beginning of his article, “What are the arguments in support of the Dakota Access Pipeline?” (Towne) Those “obvious” economic benefits could include the property tax revenues that landowners would see at a local level, or the jobs created during pipeline construction that could boost the economy. But the most prominent benefit of the pipeline that keeps supporters close is that it is here. Towne argues that the media chooses to leave out the unethical ways in which the US treats foreign countries in order to avoid extracting resources on domestic soil. He claims that in order to have transparent government, the United States must stay out of the extraction of foreign oil and remain at home instead. By remaining at home, the United States could avoid altercations in the Middle East; fighting over a valuable resource that is bountiful on the home front. Further extraction of foreign oil could lead to further resentment of United States business and government from foreign leaders, which in turn, could lead to the possibility of war (Towne).
Towne also examines that transportation of oil via pipeline is a much safer alternative to oil transported via rail (Towne). Installing the pipeline would mean less transportation of crude oil by truck or rail, which is much more likely to spill. In this way, the pipeline would be a better environmental choice, seeing as the current state of oil transportation results in more spills than if a pipeline were to take its place.
Paul Towne is a former oil man and supporter of the Dakota Access Pipeline construction, and not just because of the jobs and other “obvious economic benefits” that he mentions would come along with it in the beginning of his article, “What are the arguments in support of the Dakota Access Pipeline?” (Towne) Those “obvious” economic benefits could include the property tax revenues that landowners would see at a local level, or the jobs created during pipeline construction that could boost the economy. But the most prominent benefit of the pipeline that keeps supporters close is that it is here. Towne argues that the media chooses to leave out the unethical ways in which the US treats foreign countries in order to avoid extracting resources on domestic soil. He claims that in order to have transparent government, the United States must stay out of the extraction of foreign oil and remain at home instead. By remaining at home, the United States could avoid altercations in the Middle East; fighting over a valuable resource that is bountiful on the home front. Further extraction of foreign oil could lead to further resentment of United States business and government from foreign leaders, which in turn, could lead to the possibility of war (Towne).
Towne also examines that transportation of oil via pipeline is a much safer alternative to oil transported via rail (Towne). Installing the pipeline would mean less transportation of crude oil by truck or rail, which is much more likely to spill. In this way, the pipeline would be a better environmental choice, seeing as the current state of oil transportation results in more spills than if a pipeline were to take its place.
Rogerian
There is no way the U.S. can both achieve “energy independence” from foreign countries and remain resilient in opposing fracking, pipelines, and the extraction of vital resources. By avoiding transactions over valuable resources in foreign countries, we avoid reliance on resources that are not our own, as well as going one step closer to becoming energy independent. And something must be done in order to sustain the United States’ incessant need to consume oil.
But what Towne fails to address is what will happen after all the oil has been used up. Though the United States’ consumption of oil is figuratively limitless in comparison to less developed countries, the Dakota Access Pipeline should not stand as a symbol for many in will there or won’t there be domestic oil, but rather a question of what else, or what are some other alternative energy solutions. Instead of seeing oil as a resource consumers must get the most out of, and attempt to stretch out until no oil is left, Americans should be making a transition into not just alternative sources of energy, but alternative mindsets; by considering the disparity of resources now to make an investment in the future for later. Though protesters of the pipeline are fighting for short term water safety, they are also resisting long term environmental impacts, as well as the excessive national use of fossil fuels.
But what Towne fails to address is what will happen after all the oil has been used up. Though the United States’ consumption of oil is figuratively limitless in comparison to less developed countries, the Dakota Access Pipeline should not stand as a symbol for many in will there or won’t there be domestic oil, but rather a question of what else, or what are some other alternative energy solutions. Instead of seeing oil as a resource consumers must get the most out of, and attempt to stretch out until no oil is left, Americans should be making a transition into not just alternative sources of energy, but alternative mindsets; by considering the disparity of resources now to make an investment in the future for later. Though protesters of the pipeline are fighting for short term water safety, they are also resisting long term environmental impacts, as well as the excessive national use of fossil fuels.