The proposed Keystone XL pipeline has been debated for over 6 years. It would transport crude oil from Alberta, Canada to Nebraska. While it could provide economic benefits like jobs and tax revenue, there are also environmental concerns. The pipeline's route has changed to avoid sensitive areas, but there remain worries about potential spills and their impact on wildlife, water, and farmland. The issue has become politically divisive as well, with disagreement on whether the pipeline's potential increased oil supply and emissions contribute significantly to climate change. As oil prices have fallen in recent years, the need for the pipeline is less clear, but it remains an important symbol for both environmental protection and job creation that the president has not yet made a final decision

1. The Everlasting Keystone XL Pipeline
6 years and counting—the proposal
from TransCanada Corporation to expand
their Keystone pipeline, has been one of
the most hotly and rigorously debated
environmental issues in recent years. To
clear up facts, TransCanada submitted an
application with the US Department of
State to construct a pipeline in July 2008.
This pipeline will transport approximately
830,000 barrels of crude oil from Hardisty,
Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska and
connect with the already built Golf Coast
pipeline.1
By 2011, the US State Department
issued its final environmental impact
report, which expressed concern regarding
the pipeline’s route through an
environmentally sensitive region.
TransCanada rerouted the pipeline through
Nebraska, and in 2012 Nebraska Governor
Dave Heineman approved the route—
which two years later was voided by the
state legislature. In any case, it is the voice
of the president that will finally bring
resolution.
The Department of State 2013
environmental impact findings revealed
numerous potential environmental issues
linked to the construction of the pipeline.
These impacts were far more than issues
of wildlife conservation, but potential
spills and leaks, tribal interference, surface
1 “Timeline: The 6 year battle of the
Keystone XL pipeline”, Scott Haggett,
11/14/14
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/
11/13/us-usa-keystone-chronology-
timeline-idUSKCN0IX2JX20141113
and groundwater corruption, as well as the
disruption to soil and farmland. All of
these were taken into consideration and
still, in 2015 we do not seem much closer
to a decision.2
Unfortunately, Keystone XL has
become the focal point of considerable
political tension. Contrary to how many
would present it, the pipeline is more than
just the transportation of a high volume of
crude oil, the usage of which is being
linked to high emissions and the
progression of climate change. However,
the economic stimulus elicited by the
construction and maintenance of the
pipeline must also be considered. It was
projected that the potential temporary (2
year) job creation would be approximately
42,000 in the US. It has also been
predicted that the pipeline could also
contribute about $3.4 billion into the US
economy. That being said, where does that
leave us? Since 2008 the President has
been backed by a Democratic Senate that
would support his decision to veto the
project. However, in lieu of the 2014
midterms, the Republican controlled
Senate and House are working to bring a
bill forth to authorize the project.
In the end, it seems the significant
concern is the bigger picture in regard to
climate change and the impacts of using this oil.
Will expanding the Keystone pipeline only
increase the emissions of the US overall? Or
will emissions continue to march upward as
2 “Executive Summary –Draft “Keystone
XL Project” Pg. 8,
http://keystonepipeline-
xl.state.gov/documents/organization/2
05719.pdf

2. overall industry and manufacturing increase?
Low oil prices are currently at a shocking low
without the help of a pipeline, but rather
fracking shale formations in North Dakota. It
seems that one way or another; oil is being
procured, refined, and consumed. The
president has sat on this decision since the
dawn of his administration, an administration
that was meant to lead the US into a new age of
emission control and environmental
responsibility. At this point, perhaps Keystone
XL is not the environmental danger it has been
made out to be. The US currently produces 5.5
billion tons of emissions into the atmosphere—
without the help of Keystone XL. The pursuit
of alternative and clean energy and ultimately
energy independence, should be raised up as
the focal point of government and public
concern.