The Controversial Keystone XL Pipeline: A Political Albatross and a Climate Change Conundrum

The Keystone XL pipeline, a proposed project to transport tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast of the United States, has been a subject of intense debate for over five years. The pipeline, which has garnered support from Republicans, some Democrats, the oil industry, and labor unions, has also faced opposition from environmental groups due to concerns over its potential impact on climate change and public health. This article explores the background of the Keystone XL pipeline, its political implications, and the ongoing debate surrounding its approval.

The Keystone XL pipeline is a proposed 1,179-mile project that would begin in Hardisty, Alberta, and extend through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska to connect with existing segments in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels a day of tar sands oil, which is extracted from the Athabasca River and other areas in western Canada. The oil industry and labor unions argue that the pipeline would create jobs, reduce the United States’ dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and generate revenue for the U.S. economy.

However, opponents of the pipeline argue that it would increase U.S. reliance on the dirtier oil at a time when the country should be moving away from fossil fuel dependence to limit climate change. The extraction and refining of tar sands oil emit 17% more carbon pollution than conventional oil production, making it a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental groups, including NextGen Climate Action, argue that the pipeline would be a gateway to the unchecked development of one of the world’s dirtiest fossil fuels.

The debate over the Keystone XL pipeline has become a political albatross for President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, particularly as they try to hold onto control of the Senate in November’s congressional elections. In 2012, Obama delayed a decision on the pipeline until after the election, and in 2014, Congress forced action on the project within 60 days. The issue has become a symbol of the climate change debate, with Republicans and labor unions pushing for its approval and environmental groups opposing it.

The pipeline has also become a source of tension between the United States and Canada. In 2013, during the G8 summit, the differences between President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper over the pipeline were on full display. Obama has mandated improved fuel efficiency standards and toughened pollution regulations for new power plants, but the Keystone issue has become the most visible symbol of the climate change debate.

The State Department, which is responsible for approving the pipeline due to its international border crossing, has conducted several environmental impact studies on the project. In January 2014, the department released a report concluding that building the pipeline would have little impact on overall carbon emissions from tar sands oil. However, this conclusion has been met with skepticism from environmental groups and some Democrats, who argue that approving the pipeline would send the wrong message about the United States’ commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The issue of public health has also become a concern in the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline. In February 2014, Senators Barbara Boxer and Sheldon Whitehouse called on Secretary of State John Kerry to examine higher rates of cancer and other illnesses reported in communities impacted by tar sands oil extraction and refining. They argued that elevated levels of carcinogens and mercury have been documented downstream from tar sands extraction sites and that communities in these areas show elevated levels of rare cancer rates. They also cited significantly higher levels of dangerous air pollutants and carcinogens downwind from tar sand refineries.

The split between environmental groups and organized labor over the pipeline further complicates the issue for the Obama administration. While environmental groups argue that the pipeline would be detrimental to public health and the environment, labor unions argue that it would create jobs and generate revenue for the U.S. economy. Four Democratic senators facing tough re-election battles in November – Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich, Mark Pryor, and Kay Hagan – have also expressed support for the pipeline.

The ongoing debate over the Keystone XL pipeline raises important questions about the United States’ energy policy and its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While the pipeline would create jobs and generate revenue for the U.S. economy, it would also increase U.S. reliance on the dirtier oil and contribute to climate change. The issue is likely to remain a contentious one in the coming months, particularly as the November elections approach.

In conclusion, the Keystone XL pipeline is a complex issue that raises important questions about energy policy, climate change, and public health. While the pipeline would create jobs and generate revenue for the U.S. economy, it would also increase U.S. reliance on the dirtier oil and contribute to climate change. The ongoing debate over the pipeline highlights the need for a comprehensive energy policy that balances economic considerations with environmental concerns and public health. Ultimately, the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline will have significant political and economic implications for the United States and its relationship with Canada.