An years. This is where the politics

An environmental disaster waiting to happen in ones eyes, a potential “gold mine” in the others; the decision of the Keystone XL pipeline. What seems to be a perpetual environmental battle and one of the most politically controversial topics in the past decade. The Keystone XL pipeline is a proposed 1,179-mile pipeline running from Alberta, Canada to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would join the existing Keystone pipeline. The pipeline is owned solely by Transcanada which is an energy company based in Alberta, Canada and who are determined to create this pipeline. Over the years the path of it’s construction has changed numerous times due to the area it will be cutting through, which includes aquifers and farmland owned by Americans. There’s no question the intended pipeline has its pros such as its projected attribution to the American economy and the jobs it will create to construct it. However, I strongly believe the few pros it possesses simply do not outweigh the negative effects it will have. These include deforestation, the impact the pipeline could have on the environment and wildlife if there is a spill as well as the continued reliance to depend on fossil fuels; specifically coming from the tar sand oils from Alberta. 
Economy growth and creating jobs in America has been the go-to “motto” for the Republican party as of recent years. This is where the politics come into play with the decision of the pipeline. The State Department along with TransCanada estimates a total of 42,100 jobs could be created from the building of the pipeline. However, this number includes “indirect” and “induced” jobs so the actual number is somewhere around 3,900 construction jobs directly if the job is done in one year and about 50 permanent jobs (Jackson 2014). The building of the pipeline also has an estimated $3.4 billion contribution to the American economy. Another reason for it’s political publication is the fact that it is crossing country borders and not state. This makes the decision much more complex than just crossing state borders and connects Transcanada to the Republican party. Pipeline supporters argue it will create a stronger relationship between the United States and Canada. These few, often exaggerated by the House Republicans, are part of the advantages and reasons to support building the pipeline. 
Anti-Keystone XL pipeline is the other side of the spectrum, and is supported by a far larger number of people. For starters the big concern is the potential harm of our environment and a more than likely chance there will be a spill once the oil starts getting transferred. In recent years the has been a number of major pipeline spills. In November 2017 the original Keystone Pipeline had a leak of 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota, over a million gallons leaked from a pipeline into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010, and in 2015 in Yellowstone River, Montana 50,000 gallons of oil gushed into the river which contaminated drinking water there (Smith and Bosman 2017). There’s never really a question the pipeline has the potential to have a spill but rather when it will. 
Then you have to take into consideration the deforestation that will take place which will be detrimental to the sacred untouched land many middle-class Americans call home. There are thousands of acres across the newly proposed path where a large quantity of wheat and corn are grown in America, this will have a heavy effect on the agriculture and economy of these places.  Another problem lies with what the pipeline will be carrying, tar sand oils otherwise known as bitumen “the dirtiest oil on the planet”. Extracting and separating this type of oil compared to conventional oil requires much more work, fuel and water which leads to numerous problems such as to where to put the toxic remnants once separated. Bitumen being as corrosive as it is has to be taken into consideration as it will damage and wear down the pipeline much quicker than conventional oil. Nevertheless the potential problems the pipeline could have are far more dangerous than any positive outcome building it can have. 
Being an advocate for the environment and strong believer in renewable energy I stand firmly opposed to the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. The potential danger of it just seems far too likely, rather inevitable when looking at the past of the oil industry. There are many more feasible alternative options to create clean energy, a vast number of jobs and have economic growth, starting with renewable energy. Wind, Solar, and Hydro power leading the way for renewable energy is where the future should be heading towards rather then backwards with using more oil and petroleum to create fuel and products which harm and pollute our earth. I believe the building of this pipeline just seems unethical, impractical and simply the wrong thing to do. 

Author: admin


I'm Mia!

Don't know how to start your paper? Worry no more! Get professional writing assistance from me.

Check it out