The prominent and historic discussion of environment versus energy has manifested in the present day with the argument over TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline.

One major misconception in this debate is that TransCanada is trying to build a brand new pipeline. However, the truth is that the Keystone pipeline already exists– it runs from Oklahoma and Illinois in the U.S. to Alberta, Canada. The current dispute is not over the creation of an entirely new pipeline, but actually over the proposed expansion of the pipeline itself, which would extend from Hardisty, Alaska, to Steele City, Nebraska.

TransCanada asserts several reasons as to why the Keystone XL pipeline would benefit the United States as a whole. First, the building of just the extension would create 9,000 construction jobs, as well as thousands of other manufacturing jobs through other companies. Second, TransCanada would have to pay more property tax to various states and counties, adding to US’s overall revenue. Finally, this pipeline would allow the US to become more dependent on crude oil from Canada, a secure neighboring trade partner, rather than oil from a distant and volatile country.

Much of the criticism for the pipeline stems from its environmental effects. The Natural Resources Defense Council is one of the major opponents to the Keystone XL pipeline and asserts that the pipeline would be detrimental because it would transport tar sands oil; this oil notoriously corrodes pipelines and causes caustic chemicals to run through the pipelines, leading to the possibility of a higher number of spills and leakages.

Also, although the building of the pipeline would create thousands of jobs, only 35 permanent jobs would remain after its completion. As Jonathan Jen ’15 asserts, “Many seem to only support the bill to serve the interests of big oil companies.”

Furthermore, mining tar sands oil, which requires more energy to mine than other crude oils, would create an excessive amount of carbon pollution, harming the environment. However, Katie Kleinle ’16 states, “In the long term, attempting to prevent emission spikes from Keystone is basically futile; the tar sands are likely to be developed anyway. The issues I have are mainly with TransCanada’s attempted use of eminent domain and with potential compromises in the pipeline itself. There are lots of potential economic benefits, though– it’s a really two-sided issue.”

Macroeconomics, Government, and Global History 2 teacher Ms. Dwyer criticizes the media’s role in this debate: “The Keystone XL Pipeline has become the quintessential ‘line in the sand’ issue in a highly polarized debate about the future for United States’ energy policy.  The issue is surrounded by hyperbole, with the media portraying the left as arguing that the fate of global warming rests on denying this pipeline.  The right is portrayed as arguing that the growth of jobs and the entire U.S. economy rests on building this pipeline.  This issue reflects both our current divided government, and our polarizing media.”

President Barack Obama has the final say on whether TransCanada can build the extension. Mr. Obama has already vetoed a bill that would force approval of the pipeline.

Jen lauds, “Obama’s veto stopped the issue from becoming an even bigger mess.” Nevertheless, it is still unclear whether Mr. Obama will approve or deny the construction. Whatever the decisions is, the Keystone XL pipeline will strongly impact future conversations about energy.

For more information, go to www.keystone-xl.com and www.nrdc.org/energy/keystone-pipeline.