Keystone XL

In any examination of an economy, energy is a sector that is part of it's "main heights." One of the reasons many have called for nationalization of the sector.

But I like to think of energy in a completely different view. Knowing the fact we need energy to support ourselves there needs to not only be a more comprehensive movement away from oil, but a more robust examination of what "Green" technology will really do for Labour and how that affects all of us and what can be done to have less dependance on all materials that harm our environment(s).

I chose to talk about the Keystone XL pipeline for one reason in particular: this pipeline, and the issues surrounding it, exemplify all of what I have mentioned above.

The Tar Sands of Canada, mostly located in the Province of Alberta, are a source of crude for all of the western hemisphere and the rest of the world as well. The nice thing about the tar sands is that drilling is not a main method of extraction, rather crude, once filtered out, is literally in the soil itself and is easy to obtain. The Tar Sands have brought enormous prosperity to Alberta and many Canadians travel to work there for the dream of striking it rich even in the lowliest of jobs at the sites.

The downsides outweigh the benefits to the production of crude. Water systems have been polluted, some to the point where life is no longer sustainable; Aboriginals (Native Americans here in the US), have had their lands destroyed; Alberta itself has become so expensive to live in that even with a $80,000 salary it is hard to make ends meet if you are the only paycheck in your household; and among other things, the price of oil in Canada, as in the US, has risen rather than fallen.

So to those who say "DRILL!!" its not exactly working, anywhere, to get the price of oil down again because the speculators will still control what we all pay.

On the flipside, Labour Unions, in particular, and most other critics argue for the jobs the pipeline will create and sustain over a long period of time. Not a bad argument, but what is the reality in those numbers?

MSNBC, among others, have pointed out that over the long term, the jobs really won't matter because the costs, numerical and otherwise, outweigh the benefits. Nevermind that the pipeline will just cause more environmental disruption and a high potential of environmental damage in that same time period. In the interest of keeping this short, please follow the link to read the evidence I mention in this paragraph.

"Green" technology creates more labour issues on its own and there is no real sense that being "eco-friendly" all the time will solve our labour and environmental issues over the use of energy.

There are those in the scientific world who are experimenting with atomic energy down to the smallest of particles to find ways to make energy without disrupting our environment on a massive scale. Maybe paying more attention to these folks and giving them more support will lend a way to get us out of this mess generations before us got us into that we are now addicted to.

In my own conclusion, for now at least, investment in alternative sources of energy needs to be invested in more than it is now, we need to get off oil because as far as I'm concerned, I'm tired of feeling guilty everytime I turn up my thermostat, light my stove up, or get in my car. There needs to be a better way,