The
Keystone XL pipeline is an almost 1200 mile proposed plan from Nebraska to
Alberta. This pipe will have the capacity to transport over 830,000 barrels of
oil each day, which will reduce the United State's reliance on Venezuela and
the Middle East for crude oil by about 40%. After several years of permits,
this pipeline is set to be inputted in 2015. This pipeline is a mélange of
benefits and detriments for the “Great American Desert” and the US as a whole.
The benefits of the project include
the creation of hundreds of jobs for the creation and upkeep of this pipe and
reduced dependency on foreign oil. These are both great, but, these benefits
are not lasting. Newsweek stated that this pipeline would only create
thirty-five permanent jobs after construction work ends. While reducing the
dependency on foreign countries for oil is beneficial for our economy, it
neglects the still prevalent effect of crude oil on our environment.
There are many obvious protests
against this pipeline, first being its effect on the environment. The pipeline
spans many different ecosystems and trespasses on the homes of many endangered
animals. Originally, the pipeline was meant to traverse the Ogallala Aquifer,
one of the largest in North America, but the plan was revised and the pipe will
still cross over fifty different rivers and creeks. This pipeline, like many
others, has the possibility of failure. In 2010, there was a huge oil spill in
the Kalamazoo River, here in Michigan, which contaminated over 40miles of river
and wetlands. This risk could be very detrimental to the vulnerable habitats
along the pipeline’s path.
Crude oil is an easy and effective
energy source, but it is non-renewable and creates harmful carbon emissions.
Rather than building this pipeline, I propose this money, time, and energy be
invested into wind and solar energies that would be equally effective in this
area. This would also create jobs (hopefully many permanent) and the US
economy. Many farmers in the Midwestern states have vowed to oppose this
pipeline, even with its almost certain installation, and I have to say I stand
with them.
This picture is from the already started construction in Winona, TX.
As is often the case with controversial environmental issues there are costs and benefits to both sides. While the environmental costs are a legitimate worry, the truth is whether the pipe is built or not we need crude oil and the demand for it is now. Many people talk about clean energy as the better alternative, but it cannot meet the demand in this country in the immediate future. Whether the money is spent on (continuing to) build(ing) the pipeline or importing the oil from else where money will be spent on oil. In addition, while the number of jobs it will create is unclear, often government projects like this do not provide permanent jobs, merely a short boost. For example, the building of the highways helped rebuild the countries economy at the time even though the jobs were only temporary. It helps stimulate the economy which could lead to more jobs in the future. In an ideal world substantially more funds would be focused on finding a more reliable source of energy instead of encouraging an non-renuable one, but sadly it is the reality we live in. The environmental costs (from the use of the oil) would be incured anyway. the possibility of pipe failure, on the other hand would be a tragedy, but as you mentioned before a tragedy this country has been willing to gamble before. I believe the pipeline will be built and it will reap significant benefits.
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/03/the-keystone-xl-pipeline-and-its-politics-explained/
From an economic point of view, the US needs keystone pipeline. By getting the cheap oil sands from Canada, the US will have a higher supply of crude other than crude from North dakota, and thus we will have a larger supply and a cheaper price. Consumer wise, we will have cheaper gasoline and thus it is good for consumers in a whole. Also, it is relatively safer to transport crude as compared to railways because the probability of having an accident in a railway is higher.
ReplyDelete