Throughout much of President Obama’s terms, the Keystone Pipeline has served as a component of national gridlock. The difficulty reaching consensus on the proposed 875 mile crude oil transportation unit goes beyond party lines, however, because its controversy lies along both economic and environmental fronts.* Economically, Coral Davenport of the New York Times reports that while it may contribute thousands more jobs and $3.4 billion to the economy, environmentalists stress the damage such production methods will have on the immediate surroundings. Overall, these pros and cons are quite thorough and apparent amongst debaters:

If you are pro-Keystone, you probably value economic benefits most prominently. Its construction would produce approximately 42,000 jobs through the two year project through labor and “indirect support jobs,” as Davenport refers to them. The pipeline would also serve as a fundamental shift of sorts for the United States’ petroleum trade policies. Since it runs between the US and Canada, this would present both literal and figurative relations with the friendly ally that Canada is. As said by Senator Joe Hoeven of North Dakota, “Working with Canada we can achieve true North American energy security and also help our allies.” A more regionally-insulated trade agreement could help shield the United States from the political volatility of the Middle East’s primary oil-exporting nations.

Those who value the con’s of the Keystone pipeline, however, view these priorities systemically in reverse. Even economically, where most of the pros lie, its true worth is shaky. While, yes, thousands of jobs can be created, a large majority of them would be temporary and single-serving. These worker would then become unemployed again around the same timeframe and further distort unemployment rates. This harsh reality is shown best by Bernie Sanders’ contentions at a Senate hearing in November 2014, wherein he states that “[suggesting] this is some kind of big jobs program is nothing more than a cruel hoax and a misleading hoax to workers in this country who need decent-paying jobs.” Furthermore, the pipeline would require earth-brutalizing processes to operate the pipeline. With its potentially disastrous effects on the environment and climate, Keystone would be a proverbial slap in the face to all scientists forewarning its dangers. So uncertain are its safety practices relative to the environment that President Obama has suggested this consideration to be central to his decision to veto the proposed legislation. While this does not ultimately end the debate and stop the Keystone pipeline, it certainly gives more time to study and educate its true implications toward the environment’s sustainability and society’s inherent effects on this.

*The video below also offers a condensed synopsis of the Keystone debate:

http://www.nwf.org/pdf/Global-Warming/KXL_Myths_vs_Facts.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/24/obama-keystone-veto/23879735/

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001628