According to Berger (1977), editorials are articles written to reflect the opinions of the newspaper and the majority stakeholders of the newspaper. Rocco & Hatcher (2011), therefore, provided the guidelines for this essay.
Editorial for The Voice of Enterprise: What the Critics Won’t Tell You
We at The Voice of enterprise support the government’s pipeline project that will not only go a long way in meeting the country’s petroleum needs but also generate additional revenue through export of the surplus oil and natural gasses.
The government is proposing to construct a 2000 km crude oil pipeline that will traverse from the mines in the remote frontier through the largely uninhabited territory to the refineries (Assignment 2: Editorial Essay, 2017). However, considering the current protests witnessed by lobbyists and leaders of indigenous populations, creating awareness of the benefits to be reaped from the project is insufficient to sell the project. While most of the territory that the pipeline will traverse continue to remain largely uninhabited, the leaders of the indigenous individuals assert that continuing with the construction of the pipeline through the proposed route will interfere with their history and heritage since the region was inhabited by their forefathers.
The critics argue that relocation of historical sites impacts their significance (Assignment 2: Editorial Essay, 2017). Lobbyists and environmental pressure groups consequently protest that if the pipeline is laid in the proposed route, cherished historical heritage sites and pilgrimage will be destroyed. The environmentalist also argues that construction of the pipeline through the proposed routes will have adverse impacts on the pristine environment that has largely remained untouched.
Nonetheless, most of the arguments presented by the critics of the projected are usually uninformed. The government together with the CEOs of the leading oil companies have held a series of discussion with the concerned representatives of the indigenous native populations to identify the best way of proceeding with the project.
The critics are not mentioning that the indigenous communities are being offered a chance to move away from plagues such as malnutrition, short life expectancy, poor health and malnutrition and high infant mortalities (Assignment 2: Editorial Essay, 2017). Relocating to cities that will afford them with the opportunities to enjoy the comforts of modern life including proper health care, education systems for both the adults and children and safer environments
Consequently, the pressure groups are not mentioning the befits that the country stands to enjoy after the completion of the project. Currently, petroleum products mined in the country do not fulfill the total energy needs, thus leaving importation of petroleum products from other oil producing countries to cover up for the deficit.
Thus, completion of the project will completely eliminate dependency on the importation of petroleum products to completely meet the energy needs of the country. While the recent drops in global oil prices is a relief to the country’s fiscal budget, elimination of the oil imports will further ensure channeling of the funds initially spent on oil importation to other important sectors such as healthcare.
Construction of the pipeline is also plausible in that it not only reduces the government expenditure on imports but also it affords the country of becoming one of the oil exporting nations in the world, thereby, earning the additional government revenue from the exportation of surplus petroleum products (Ganguli, 2014).
While the critics of the proposed government’s pipeline project have presented their reasons, proceeding with the construction of the pipeline is the best bet currently. The government should proceed with the project with consideration of how the project will be completed with minimal disturbance to the environment. For example, use of pillars in cherished heritage and pilgrimage sites.
Editorial for The Age of Reason: Financial Gains or Social and Environmental Degradation?
The Age of Reason of the reason is always on the frontline in advocating for causes that uplift human and social welfare. The Age of Reason does not support the government’s project of constructing a 2000 km long pipeline that passes through not only in the pristine environment but also right in the middle of historical heritage sites and homes of the country’s native indigenous minority (Assignment 2: Editorial Essay, 2017).
The advocates for the project claim that laying down of the pipeline is a net positive for the country, in that, apart from making the country more energy independent, the project will also create jobs and earn the country additional revenue from the export of petroleum products. From an economic perspective, this argument could not be further from the truth.
However, when the pipeline construction is viewed from a social and environmental angle, it is obvious that the project will have immense impacts to the traditional lives of the native communities (Assignment 2: Editorial Essay, 2017). Moreover, it will destroy sites that have historical and religious significance to the indigenous communities. The elders of the indigenous communities further point out that their prayer sites will be destroyed if the government proceeds with the construction of the planned pipeline.
While it can be argued that the pipeline would pass through a largely uninhabited area, the project in itself is a danger to the environment. As Erickson & Lazarus (2014) point out, Oil pipelines are prone to leakages. Spillages are often caused by a number of factors such as operator errors, corrosion of the pipes and material failures and are often unforeseen. Even though the pipelines have a highly commendable success rates, huge spillages often result from a very small failure. These spillages have adverse effects on the environment.
Erickson & Lazarus (2014) further point out that use of pipelines contributes to global warming and degradation of the ozone layer. The pipelines contribute to global warming by increasing the availability of petroleum products for consumption. Thus, it is crucial that we ask, is the government so ambitious with the financial gains that it is willing to forego the ecological footprints of the project?
Consequently, the project will result in loss of biological diversity. Since the construction work will be done in remote and in a pristine environment, the process will interfere with the ecosystem and habitats of the area, thus destroying the biological diversity. Moreover, traversing the pipeline through the forest is more likely to result in deforestation. Erickson & Lazarus (2014) assert that deforestation causes soil erosion. Thus, the activity will contribute to the destruction of the ecosystems and habitats and in the long run, resulting in the loss of biodiversity.
Human activities during the construction of the pipeline and the mining process will also introduce pollution to areas that have largely remained untouched. Thus, this editorial is of the opinion that the government adopts alternative green energy sources that will prevent the country from over-reliance on fossil fuel. Consequently, the alternative energy sources will not only have very minimal ecological footprints but also it will promote the preservation of the ways of life of the indigenous people and their historical heritages.
References
Assignment 2: Editorial Essay. (2017) (1st ed., pp. 1-2).
Berger, T. R. (1977). Northern frontier, northern homeland.
Erickson, P., & Lazarus, M. (2014). Impact of the Keystone XL pipeline on global oil markets and greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Climate Change, 4(9), 778-781.
Rocco, T. S., & Hatcher, T. (2011). The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing. John Wiley & Sons.
Ganguli, S. (2014). Central Asia-South Asia Energy Cooperation: Quest For Energy Security As A Dependency Variable. Central Asia & the Caucasus (14046091), 15(2).
