1. Hira Saleem
IMS 3310 Honors
Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Be Rejected
Proposed by TransCanada and fought over in the United States Congress, the Keystone XL
Pipeline is a controversial proposal that would allow transportation of oil from Alberta, Canada to
Houston, Texas. The $7 billion extension was proposed in 2008, making this the seventh year in the
fight to establish the 1,179-mile pipeline. Because it crosses an international border, it requires the
approval of the US Department of State.1 It has passed in Congress, and if approved by President
Obama, it will transport tar sands at a rate of 700,000 barrels a day.2 The grand debate has copious
dimensions like its political impact within the US and internationally, environmental hazards, and
economic repercussions. Just like any other major issue, it has America polarized. When all issues are
accounted for, it seems that the best decision for the country is a veto by President Obama.
Some call this pipeline a “proxy war” between the two political parties, with jobs as their main
point of dispute. Republicans rally behind the belief that it will create jobs and boost the economy.
However, this argument contains discrepancies in the number of jobs that will really be created by
construction of the pipeline. Supporters claim that it will add 40,000, whereas opponents argue that it
will create only 35 permanent jobs. Even if 40,000 is an accurate number, it should be considered that
they will last only two years.3 The jobs argument falls flat because in either scenario, the jobs would
make little impact on the US economy.4 The “green” industry on the other hand has consistently added
jobs to the market, so maybe the US should focus on renewable energy instead.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the tar sand will emit 150 million metric
tons of carbon to the atmosphere. One facet of this specific argument concerns that amount’s relation to
the total output of carbon emissions by the world. It is estimated that it adds up to just less than 1% of
the US emissions, and much less than that of the world.5 Regardless, even a minor step to inhibit this
emission by blocking the pipeline will echo the chants of the environmentalists.
Those whose states KXL will cross through have also erupted in local opposition. For example,
Nebraskan activists rallied against the pipeline in a demonstration in 2014 and had an attendance of
8,000. It is activists like those who won a battle in this war when their complaints caused TransCanada
to alter the route so that it would not infiltrate the “ecologically delicate Sandhills region.”6
Among these fears by the inhabitants is the risk of an oil spill. The proximity of the pipeline to
the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides 82% of the locals with their drinking water, is a major cause for
concern.2 And if it just so happens that a spill occurs, the operations to clean up the mess will cost more
money and adversely affect the economy, taking down the jobs argument with it. TransCanada has
already gone through twelve spills in the last year, despite their claim that environmental safety is
priority this time.7 A spill now could affect 27% of irrigated land in the US and cause a catastrophe.2
Even the state government of Nebraska, guided by a Republican governor, opposed the initial route.
Landowners in Nebraska have come up before the State Supreme Court to voice frustration against the
pipeline.6
One major advantage for the resistance is the fact that scientists, economists, and Nobel laureates
lead the opposition.8 It is clear that this side has an immense upper hand in credibility. Climate scientists
stand unanimous in the belief that the majority of the world’s fossil fuels must remain subterranean, or
else a climate cataclysm becomes imminent. The tar sands oil resting in Alberta is among the deposits

2. that should stay untouched, beneath the ground. It is not called the “dirtiest fuel on the planet” for no
reason.8 Additionally, this pipeline would increase the development of the Alberta tar sands, where
carbon is concentrated in huge amounts.9 The scientific community agrees that this oil pollutes more
than conventional oil.3 The bottom line is that this oil, and consequently the pipeline proposal, is a threat
to the environment. Some experts have even gone as far as to say that in the grand scheme, healthcare
costs might even increase because of the excessive release of carbon with this pipeline.9
On the international scale, the relations with Canada and the Middle East are of significance.
Canada has been a good ally of the US, and accepting oil from them over the Middle East seems like the
better decision to decrease dependence on oil from there. One study marks that bringing this Canadian
oil here will displace 8% of oil brought from “unfriendly nations” across the world. The overlooked fact
in the matter is that the US does not necessarily need this oil, from either source. The US is actually
producing more oil than it is importing for the first time in decades.2 The reliance on foreign oil is
superfluous at this point. The positive side to maintaining international relations refers back to when
President Obama signed a UN accord to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a huge margin by 20205, and
rejecting this pipeline would undoubtedly be a step in the right direction.
The overall concern lies within the conflicting sources of evidence surrounding the impact of
KXL, which has been claimed to be significant by some, and marginal by others. However, studies by
TransCanada have been found to be “deeply flawed”.4 Ultimately, it comes down to a key decision that
lies in the hands of President Obama. His decision will be an integral part of his administration’s legacy.
Whatever it may be, the consensus is that a judgment is ready to be made after years of suspension.
It really is more than just a pipeline. It has galvanized Americans behind and against an
increasingly important cause. Apart from its political and environmental stance, the impending veto is
above all a symbol of America’s trailblazing personality; the US can seize this opportunity to be a leader
in good, common sense energy policy. The government has a duty to protect the Earth before it has a
duty to consider unsubstantiated claims provided by the proponents of the pipeline.
“The Keystone XL pipeline is a line in the sand that signifies whether our country has the
courage, the commitment, and the capacity to be a global leader in addressing the challenge of
climate change before it’s too late.” -Tom Steyer5
1 Parfomak, Paul W., Robert Pirog, Linda Luther, and Adam Vann. Keystone XL Pipeline: Key Issues. Digital Commons ILR. Cornell
University ILR School, 2 Dec. 2013. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
2 Reuters, Thomson. "Things You Always Wanted to Know about KeystoneXLbut Were Afraid to Ask." Financial Post. National Post, 10
Nov. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
3 Calamur, Krishnadev. "Senate OKs KeystoneXL Pipeline, Setting Up Fight With Obama." NPR. NPR, 29 Jan. 2015. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
4 Skinner, Dr. Lara, and Dr. Sean Sweeney. Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs LostBy The Construction of Keystone XL. Scribd. Cornell
University Global Labor Instituteand TheGoodman Group, LTD, n.d. Web.
5 Davenport, Coral. "KeystonePipeline May BeBig, but This Is Bigger." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Apr. 2014. Web.
22 Feb. 2015.
6 Smith, Mitch. "Nebraskans Raise Their Voices in Fight Against KeystoneXLPipeline." The New York Times. The New York Times, 29
Sept. 2014. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
7 Lacey, Stephen. "After 12 Oil Spills in One Year, TransCanada Says Proposed KeystoneXLPipeline Will Be Safest in U.S." Think
Progress. Climate Progress, 17 Aug. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
8 "Mr. Obama’s Easy Call on KeystoneBill." The New York Times. Ed. The Editorial Board. The New York Times, 12 Feb. 2015. Web. 22
Feb. 2015.
9 Kunzig, Robert. "Canadian Oil Sands — National Geographic Magazine." National Geographic Magazine. National Geographic, Mar.
2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.