The Keystone Pipeline has been a hot button issue for the last few years and now with the presidential nominations coming up, it looks to be an issue that most candidates are giving their say on. Like every issue there are myriads of pros and cons, but before those are discussed a brief history lesson must be given. The Keystone Pipeline is a proposed project that is approximately 1,661 miles long and 36 inches wide that would transport crude oil from Alberta, Canada and then connect to an existing pipeline in Nebraska and Kansas before continuing through Oklahoma to refining centers in the Texas area. TransCanada introduced this proposal on September 19, 2008 to the U.S. State Department. In December 2011, U.S. legislators passed a bill containing a provision which required President Barack Obama so determine the pipeline’s future in the next 60 days. On January 18, 2012 Obama rejects the Keystone XL. Then, on January 22, 2013 Nebraska Governor Dave Heinman approved TransCanada’s proposed new route, a decision that a Nebraska district court held was unconstitutional. Following this, on January 9, 2015 the Nebraska Supreme Court struck down the lower-court ruling. On January 29, 2015 the U.S. Senate approves a bill to build the Keystone XL, but then on February 24, 2015 Obama vetoed the bill that would have approved construction.
Like almost everything there are both pros and cons to the Keystone Pipeline. Some of the pros are the creation of thousands of jobs, an increase in energy independence for the United States, and it’s the safer mode of transportation. Multiple Senators have spoken about how the Keystone Pipeline would help create thousands of jobs and would help limit the dependence on oil. Senator Joe Manchin has stated “[w]e have everything to gain by building this pipeline, especially since it would help create thousands of jobs right here at home and limit our dependence on foreign oil.” While Senator John Hoeven has stated “[t]he project will create thousands of jobs, boost our economy, reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil and make our country more secure.” This is by far the strongest argument that pundits of the Pipeline have. The creation of jobs is a plus no matter how you look at it. Unemployment would be decreased and the economy would strengthen. The creation of the Pipeline also helps us become less dependent on foreign oil. This would lead to lower gas prices as well as an economical boost, stemming from the fact that we would be importing less from the countries in the Middle East. Another argument supporters have relied on is that the pipeline would lead to safer transportation of oil. The TransCanada Corporation has stated that ”Delaying Keystone XL will continue to increase greenhouse gas emissions and force more oil to be transported by less safe means such as rail.” This is a positive because it allows for the oil to be transported more safely. No longer would oil need to be transported by rail car, it could just flow through a pipeline.
In addition to the pros, there are also cons to creation of the Keystone Pipeline. Among these are the pipeline’s potential contribution to global warming and that the Pipeline is environmentally damaging. The strongest argument for those against the Keystone Pipeline is that it would contribute to global warming. Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders stated the following while on the Senate floor:
First and foremost, at a time when the scientific community is virtually unanimous in telling us that climate change is real, that it is caused by human activity and carbon emissions, that it is already causing devastating problems not only in the United States but all over the world in terms of drought, forest fires, flooding, extreme weather disturbances, and rising sea levels, at this moment when the scientific community is so clear about the dangers inherent upon a further dependence on fossil fuels, it is absolutely imperative for the future wellbeing of this country that we listen to the scientists and we begin the path forward to break our dependency on fossil fuel, not accelerate more drilling for the dirtiest oil on the planet.
This is a strong argument because global warming is real and is rapidly effecting the Earth’s climate more and more drastically every day. By building the Pipeline we would be basically ignoring the scientific community and contributing to our dependency on fossil fuels, all while producing more carbon emissions and harming the global climate. Another problem that would come with the creation of the Keystone Pipeline is the damage that would be caused to the environment around the pipeline. The Natural Resources Defense Council stated in a March 2011 publication that “[i]n addition to the damage that would be caused by the increased tar sands extraction, the pipeline threatens to pollute freshwater supplies in America’s agricultural heartland and increase emissions in already-polluted communities of the Gulf Coast.” This is problematic because as stated the pipeline would travel through the “agricultural heartland” of the U.S., thus polluting both the water supply and the crops that we as people need.
There are both pros and cons to the completion of the Keystone Pipeline, and with the presidential campaigns ramping up for the 2016 nominations and eventual elections it will be interesting to see what each candidates stance is. It will also be interesting to see if the Obama administration will take further action with the pipeline, as the Keystone Pipeline is as much as a political issues as it is an environmental issue.
Canadian Business, Timeline: Key dates in the history of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project, http://www.canadianbusiness.com/business-news/timeline-key-dates-in-the-history-of-the-proposed-keystone-xl-pipeline-project/ (last visited September 18, 2015).
ProCon.org, Should the United States Authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline to Import Tar Sand Oil from Canada?, http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001628 (last visited September 18, 2015)