Keystone XL Pipeline

Alberta’s boreal forest, a beautiful chunk of greenery in Canada, is riddled with machines and equipment used to dig and extract tar sand for oil companies. 50% of this land, home to an array of animals, including migrating birds and the Canadian Lynx, are forced to evacuate their habitats for TransCanada to build their oil empire. The original Keystone pipeline, which runs from Canada into the United States is currently existing without its sister pipeline, the Keystone XL, that has been proposed for the last six years. A project this big has its reasons for being halted by President Obama, some of which are political, the other environmental. President Obama left this expansion pipeline up in the air as he ran for office his first time and managed to put off making any real decisions until far into his second term. In February of 2015, he finally vetoed the expansion and has received mixed feedback, which of course is natural for any man in his position.

The Keystone XL, which does not exist currently, is a 2,000 mile long pipeline that would start in Canada and reach Texas and the Gulf Coast. Each day this $8 billion pipeline would manage to carry 830,000 barrels of tar sand oil. This amount of oil would cut our reliance on foreign country oil in half, thus loosening up the grip from the Big Oil companies, for our government at least. For us common folk, the only thing involving gasoline that we care about is whether or not this project would lower our prices at the pump, and sadly this would not. The new pipeline is what the American government is looking to use as a way in to their Big Oil agenda, and Obama is weighing more environmental issues for the sake of his country. If you look deeper, this pipeline will cost more to maintain then it will benefit us.

“Its proponents argue that it would be creating jobs in the United States. But the truth is … it will probably create a couple thousand construction jobs for a year or two,” Obama said. “We’re not going to authorize a pipeline that benefits largely a foreign company if it can’t be shown that it is safe and if it can’t be shown that, overall, it would not contribute to climate change.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/6/obama-downplays-keystone-ignores-state-department-/#ixzz3TqzioAb2 

Estimates say that at least 42,000 jobs would be created from this endeavor, which is the leading pro reason for the new pipeline. In reality only 35 jobs are permanent after the pipeline is built and we cannot just keep building new pipelines every time we need jobs, there are better and healthier solutions. The tar sands oil, which is made from sand, clay, water, and bitumen (hydrocarbons) is riskier and more costly to work with, over the conventional liquid oil. More carbon emissions are released when using tar sand oil and it takes 3x as much freshwater to process it.

While the expansion of the Keystone pipeline will cause a job increase, especially during the construction, it will also causes an increase in greenhouse gas emission, which is the cause of climate change. Expanded the pipeline may also help us to fuel our vehicles and other technologies, but at the same time negatively affect the environment which we exist in. Beyond the release of greenhouse gases there is also the risks of potential leaks that further impact the environment. On top of that, this is also a highly intensive process because the oil must be extracted from the sand, causing an even larger carbon foot print than most conventional oil pipe lines. While I can acknowledge the benefits of this pipeline, i still must ask if the benefit really outweighs its negative impact. 

So what’s really the greatest option? Justice for the environment can come in many different forms, including an utilitarian one. The greatest good for the greatest number of people is to not build the pipeline. Of course the job perspective is fantastic and exciting, but it is extremely short term and is not repeatable. The greatest justice in this case would be to not destroy significant parts of the environment (air, water, animals, etc) just to build this pipeline that will not benefit America economically, but instead only further our reliance on using resources that should be replaced. The externalities are only negative and no real positive ones can be identified!

While expanding this pipeline will potentially give us the freedom to access more oil, it will breach the freedom of those living in the area during construction, because of exposure to dust and other waste. The expansion could also potentially affect the animals in the environment, taking away their freedom to access reliably clean water sources, because of potential leaks and spills. Too many humans and animals can be affected negatively if the pipeline leaks, which is more common in tar sand pipelines. We need to buy into alternative resources because if we become obsessed and dependent on any technological advancements, it should be ones that help better our environment. Let’s save Alberta’s forest and keep the Keystone XL from becoming anything more than a twinkle in a Republican’s eye.

Learn more about the Keystone Pipeline here: 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-keystone-qanda-20150307-story.html#page=1

Authors: Korby Reed and Ashlee Dilley