Keystone XL Pipeline Blog
Maggie Jasurek-Parker
Last week the House of Representatives approved a bill to move forward with the building of the proposed controversial Keystone XL pipeline by a wide majority, but this week the bill was rejected by the senate. Some groups are applauding this development because they say it will harm the environment, produce safety hazards and cause negative impacts to some peoples’ way of life. But once the senate becomes republican dominated at the beginning of 2015, it is assumed that the bill will be reintroduced and proponents are hoping that it gets passed because they believe that it will be good for the economy by adding jobs and reducing the cost of fuel. Attached below is a map showing a map of how the oil travels from Canada to the US. Which brings energy to us and reduces pollution, through the transport of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
One group that is opposed to the pipeline’s construction is the Rosebud Sioux Tribe because the plan has the pipeline running through their reservation. In a recent New York Daily News Article by Nicole Hensley; “House approval of Keystone XL pipeline is an “act of war”: Rosebud Sioux, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/house-approval-keystone-xl-act-war-tribe-article-1.2012976, Cyril Scott, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal President said, “We’re going to protect our land and our way of life.” Scott went as far to call it an “act of war.” He said that the tribe will close their borders and will block any attempt to build; citing concerns about changing their living habits.
American Indians are joining with environmentalist and others opposed to the plan and are organizing protests. One such movement was detailed in Jeremy Diamond’s CNN article “Protestors to put inflatable pipeline on Sen. Mary Landrieu’s front yard,” http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/17/politics/protesters-mary-landrieu-keystone/index.html, where multiple groups are planning to stage a protest at the Senator Mary Landrieu’s home because she supports the building of the pipeline. To gain attention to their concerns the organizations are hoping to put an inflatable pipeline in her yard. The article says that the groups are anxious that the pipeline will influence harmful climate changes and damage the environment.
Environmentalists like Jack Turner who points out in his posted paper, “Why Keystone? The Pros and Cons of the fight Against the Keystone XL Pipeline and What Has been Overlooked In the Fight”, http://www.wearepowershift.org/blogs/why-keystone-pros-and-cons-fight-against-keystone-xl-pipeline-and-what-has-been-overlooked-fig, that the whole debate has been good because it has gotten so many people to join the environmental movement. His sentiment is an example of the environmentalist’s position and he cites a recent Colbert Report that puts forth that “we’re taking 200,000,000 years of oil and putting it all up in the atmosphere at once.” He says the issue is a lot broader than the Keystone XL pipeline and that we are overlooking a number of similar pipelines that are already under construction in the U.S. He states that our society is not sufficiently protesting the issue. Turner feels that all protests and lawsuits will continue to help stop the pipeline effort and that the controversy has been good for the overall environmental debate.
But although the project has its many detractors, others firmly support it. In a recent article in Harvard Magazine; The Keystone XL Pipeline, http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/11/the-keystone-xl-pipeline, Michael B. McElroy summarizes that he is for it, although he acknowledges some concerns. He feels the potential benefits out way any negative impact. McElroy agrees with theorists who say it will be a good way to secure more energy for the U.S. by providing a better way to get oil. Although he talks about his concerns regarding the increase of CO2 pollution, the escalation of global warming and questions if Americans are “using” Canada because it is being built in part in their country. He also debates the influence of the Canadian public company who owns it. But he counters that by mentioning that there is an existing oil line today and that it shouldn’t matter where the oil is used. He also adds that both Canada and the U.S. have approved sanctions that will reduce green-house gas; reducing the environmental risks.
Another supporter of the bill is Mike Russo who point out in his article Keystone Pipeline Update: Pros & Cons, http://mikerussoexpose.com/?p=1170a number of key benefits to building the new pipeline. He says that the number of jobs that will be created will improve the economy for both Canada and the U.S. He states that a lot of the decisions around this are political and that the conservationists that are concerned about emissions and leaks are not properly weighing in the potential benefits. He negates their position saying that carbon emissions have gone down in the U.S. enormously over a number of years. He says that the science is not complete on alternative energy and because we have an immediate need for more oil it is imperative that we should move forward with the project. He also cites that it is a way to get an energy supply domestically. He calls out that the methodology around extraction is improving and the potential for leakage is small. Russo says that if this were offshore, a cleanup from a leak would be more difficult.
The long debate regarding the building of the Keystone XL pipeline will keep evolving as the republicans take control over the senate in 2015 and get ready to stage the bill’s reintroduction. But President Barack Obama could then still veto it even if it is approved and protests are sure to cause major delays in getting the project initiated. The environmentalists make some good points in their concern for the environment with CO2 increases; potential leaks in the pipeline and disturbing people’s property, but the proponents also make a good case as well. There is an immediate need for more fuel, alternative science is not solid yet and the economy would benefit by the addition of jobs and decreasing fuel costs. The future will decide the outcome and probably provide a learning moment either direction that this goes.