This article highlights the Obama decision to deny a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline. While it wasn't Obama's lack of support for the pipeline, it was that the Republicans were forcing him to make a decision. The article says it's going to be a "long year in the White House" because the problem, in the eyes of the author, is that the Keystone line should be approved. It's reasons for this is because the pipeline will create jobs and produce much needed energy, as well as bolster the beneficial economical partnership with the Canadians. Keystone would be designed to stretch 1,711 miles from Alberta to refineries along the Gulf Coast. Two contrasts in the issue are opposing views from labor unions (for) and environmentalists (against).
The article uses strictly logos in its argument, stating it is important to be constructed because between now and the time it is reviewed again, we could have a new president with a new agenda, or Canadians might find alternative markets for heir oil. It denied the US a reliable source or oil and cost jobs, according to the argument presented.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-pipeline-20120119,0,3017097.story
-Matt Foley
I'm beyond ecstatic the Pipeline permit was denied. One of the reasons I support Obama is because he understands the need to get a serious move on on developing renewable energy sources. Even if we built the pipeline and extracted every last possible drop of oil from the tar sands (in which the process to extract the oil is one of the least energy efficient and cost ineffective), it would eventually run out because it's a NONrenewable resource. Yes we need to continue to use oil until we can transition away from fossil fuels and nonrenewable fuel sources , but spending a huge sum of money on a pipeline seems absurd when it could much better spent on developing healthy, clean, and more progressive job creating renewable energy projects.
I'd argue that if the author is very must inclined to state that the pipeline should be built, and has little argument for the opposing argument, it may not be entirely logos to be trusted.