Since Obama’s rejection of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline request on Friday, November 6th, supporters and protesters alike have responded to the President’s decision in divided fashion. Obama expressed disapproval over the manner in which the Keystone pipeline has been used, namely, “…a symbol too often used as a campaign caudal by both parties rather than a serious policy matter.” There appears to be years of debate to evidence that difference between political parties. The irony of his decision is that it will be an early symbol for the direction climate change appears headed in future political discourse, and the reasons for his rejection seem well-founded regardless of partisan bias.
First, let’s clear up some common misconceptions. For one thing, the Keystone pipeline is already built and in service, bringing crude oil from Alberta, Canada to various refineries in the Midwest to be converted to gasoline, diesel fuel, and other commodities. The Keystone XL proposal requests permission to expand that pipeline and add 1,179 miles through states where most U.S. oil exists to the Gulf of Mexico. In the eyes on its supporters, this addition to the international pipeline would lower gas prices, create thousands of jobs, and reduce our dependency on unstable countries for oil. Those in opposition of the XL pipeline have expressed strong concern for the environment at large in the form of oil spills and extraction.
So, was the Keystone XL pipeline the key for creating stable economic growth? The answer seems to be “no”. The project would create 42,000 jobs (according to the State Department) for the construction of the pipeline, but nearly all of those positions are temporary and defined for the span of a year. Indeed, permanent job positions are closer to 50; hardly the ideal unemployment relief sought after.
Also, gas prices probably wouldn’t drop as much as proponents think. U.S. law prohibits the export of crude oil from domestic origin, but it does allow export of crude products such as gasoline. Yes, the refineries will get crude oil for cheaper, but the gasoline derived from crude has as much incentive to ship overseas as it does to marginally lessen the financial strain on the American consumer.
On the opponent’s side, would the Keystone XL pipeline be of significant harm to the environment? Yes and no. Critics have stated that the pipeline would lead to more oil spills and an expansion of tar sand development and accelerate greenhouse gas emissions. That statement would be true if the extracted oil did not reach the American marketplace through other means (which Canadian officials and oil producers vow it will). These alternative methods of transportation include trains, tanker ships, and already existing pipeline—all of which the State Department reported had higher environmental impact than the XL pipeline itself, and just as much risk of accident.
That being said, critics are right about the contribution to greenhouse gases—the project would provide the greenhouse gas emission equivalent to 300,000 cars on the road per year. These emissions would come from electricity-based power pump stations, vehicular fuel, and vented or leaked methane. Environmentalists argue that doing nothing with the pipeline is the favorable option.
In the end, the Keystone XL pipeline is a political symbol overblown by many in shadow of the far bigger issue on climate change itself. Obama’s refusal finalizes the controversial topic as yet another symbol: that Obama is trying to leave a legacy of climate leadership, and that America could be among the leading frontrunners. The pipeline is just a stepping stone in achieving progressive dialogue on what can be done about our inefficient addiction to fossil fuels. The President attends the U.N. climate conference in Paris later this month; we’ll see if his momentum continues on the international scale.
