The Revival of the Keystone XL Pipeline

by Lizzie Cohen

The Keystone XL Pipeline is now back into play under President Donald Trump’s Administration, that was previously stopped under Former President Barack Obama’s Administration. The pipeline would carry approximately 830,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil to Nebraska, where it would flow on to different refineries along the Gulf Coast. The pipeline has been debated very visibly in American politics with costs and benefits thrown around on both sides.

Those arguing for the pipeline believe the following benefits would occur.The pipeline would have a very high short term influence on job growth with thousands of jobs created for the time being, with a low long term job growth with experts projecting only 35 permanent jobs being created. It has also been estimated that the pipeline would cause an increase in tax revenue at both the state and local level along the pipeline route.

Those arguing against the pipeline believe the following costs will occur such as more carbon emissions being release into the atmosphere due to the type of oil that would be refined from the pipeline. More generally it would have the negative effects on the environment due to the pipeline, as well as disturbing native American lands that the pipeline will go through.

There are other costs and benefits that are not mentioned in the article, but overall it provides an argument for the effects that will happen from the Keystone XL pipeline. The article discusses the positive and negative effects as well as future projections that the pipeline could have on the United States as well as Canada.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/debate-renewed-over-economic-benefits-of-keystone-pipeline/2017/03/24/010e6db0-10cf-11e7-aa57-2ca1b05c41b8_story.html?utm_term=.8198971c5bab

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “The Revival of the Keystone XL Pipeline

  1. This article presented a nice summary of issues related to the pipeline. I noticed a lack of detail about much of the environmental and indigenous lands issues, with its primary focus on the economic impacts, as well as the jobs and steel elements that have received recent media attention. I find it interesting how inconclusive some of the estimated costs and benefits are: construction of the pipeline could potentially lower prices at the pump, but it also might raise prices. This reminds me of our previous discussions during the MPA program related to the absence of truly rational decision making due to time and information constraints.

  2. I’m baffled as to why our President is supporting an act that will cause more hurt and harm, than it will create jobs that he’s been preaching that he is working on creating. If this is an aim to ensure long-term job growth, I feel that they have failed. Since this would create only 35 permanent jobs, that does not help sustain our nation as a whole. I am also uncomfortable with how this will inherently effect our environment. I just read before class that President Trump has signed an order to start to reverse President Obama’s climate care/change policy. In reviving the Keystone XL Pipeline, this shows how much President Trump is “in the dark” when it comes to policies that affect the longevity of not only jobs, but our nation and climate as a whole.

  3. A lot of factors are at play here. Unfortunately our nation is still one that needs fossil fuels to run. We are changing adapting, but slowly. It would be great one day not to have fossil fuels be a heavy driver in this country. As we make advances in cleaner energy we d to ensure the infrastructure keep our country moving.
    There is typically a lot of criticism when a president first takes office and I see that happening here once again.

  4. Most of time, politicians are worried about sending out the message that will help them move their agenda along. I have read that the company that wants to build the Keystone XL Pipeline has had problems with their pipelines leaking and causing more damage. I do think that we need to move away from the fossil fuel, but with a positive massage. Posting how clean fuel will be able to save money and create more jobs is easier and is heard by more people instead of using climate change. I also believe that the Army Corps of Engineers found a way to avoid using the current path and moving it so it wouldn’t harm the current site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s