According to a recent poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News, Americans support constructing the Keystone XL Pipeline by a 3-to-1 margin. While 85 percent of people surveyed said they think the pipeline will bring a great number of jobs to the United States, 47 percent also believe the project poses significant environmental hazards. Is the Keystone XL worth building? The Warrior debates what  should happen next.

Will Increase Jobs and Lower Gas Prices – Pro

By Joo Hyun Kim ‘14

According to the Washington Post, the unemployment rate rose to 6.7 percent in February and only 175,000 jobs were created. It is clear that President Obama has been unable to keep the promise that he made during the 2012 presidential election to create seven million jobs. If there is any way that the president can directly give Americans jobs, it would be to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Keystone XL would transport oil from Canada to the United States to promote refining markets in the American Midwest and the U.S. Gulf Coast. The number of jobs projected as a result of building a Keystone pipeline is 42,100, according to U.S. State Department.

While the biggest benefactor to the pipeline is the workers in the petroleum industry, consumers also benefit from the Keystone XL. If the pipeline is built, consumers can take advantage of the lower oil price because the increased supply of gasoline from Canada will decrease its price.

Moreover, even without the potential economic benefits of the Keystone pipeline, the value of gasoline, since it is the main transportation method of most vehicles in the United States, supports the need of Keystone pipeline. Approximately 13 percent of oil in United States is dependent on Middle East and 20 percent comes from Latin America. By building the Keystone pipeline that reduces time and energy it takes to transport gasoline, the United States can cut reliance on foreign imports outside of North America. If the Keystone pipeline is built, oil prices will not increase rapidly when sources in the Middle East inflates the cost of oil.

The environmental concerns regarding the carbon emission of the Keystone XL is understandable but largely exaggerated. Even if the United States decides not to participate in the pipeline project, Canada will cultivate oil from the area and export the gasoline for economic benefits. The carbon emission caused by Keystone XL is expected to be 17 percent, but the traditional alternatives to the pipeline will produce just as much, if not more.

Obviously, the better solution for the environment to the Keystone XL is to use renewable energy instead of crude oil. Renewable energy development will benefit both the economy and environment so it could solve the dilemma of the pipeline. However, the most available source of energy is crude oil and not renewable energies, and there is no significant sign that Americans will give up their reliance on gasoline-powered vehicles. Environmentalists should accept that building the Keystone XL will benefit our economy.

 Will Not Have Payoff Equal the Cost – Con

By Brian Hughes ‘15

The decisions our nation makes are almost always with money in mind. After all, the business of America is business. However, while running a huge line of oil from Canadian tar sands through the heartland states of America sounds like a promising way to limit oil imports from more costly areas in the world, the economic gains are just not there realistically. And in addition to the money issues, there’s another major problem that should make the Keystone XL pipeline a no-go: the environment.

Just for a start, the Keystone XL would not reduce oil prices in America. TransCanada, the company planning this bad idea, claims that most or all of the oil extracted is likely to be shipped overseas to markets where oil sells for higher prices. The company also mentioned how the pipeline would allow for the drainage of Canada’s oil reserves – the second largest on the planet – so they could be sold abroad as well. These reserves are currently keeping oil prices low in our country, especially for farmers in the Midwest. When oil costs go up for the farmers, they must charge more for their products, meaning the everyday consumer must pay more for his or her food. That doesn’t sound like an economically profitable route for anybody.

Another overhyped aspect supporting the Keystone XL is that it will create jobs that unemployed Americans need. This is true to a certain extent, but the workforce required for the pipeline would be a mere 4,500 workers or so, and only for construction, making jobs temporary as well. The only permanent jobs that would stay around would be the people needed to fix constant leaks along the pipeline, factoring in environmental hazards as well.

If President Obama does as he says he will, not signing the bill until reports confirm the pipeline will not intensify the climate change issue, he shouldn’t pass it. The plan is to mine and refine oil found in tar sands in Canada, and unlike conventional crude oil, tar sands are one of the dirtiest and most environmentally destructive fuels to extract and process. An EPA report notes that these tar sands are 17-percent more greenhouse gas intensive than crude oil, and range from two- to 10-percent more intensive than oil from South America that would be extracted instead. Mining companies are also digging up thousands of acres of forest to get to these oil sources, leaving behind wastelands of toxic ground when they finish.

A realistic way to go would be to take the $5.3 billion for the Keystone XL and put it towards domestic techniques like the development of horizontal oil drilling in the ground and off-shore instead of straight down into the earth. Once the technology is finished, drills would reach their targets faster, with more accuracy and cover a bigger area. This would speed up our energy independence process, create enduring jobs in the United States and lessen the environmental threat of tar sand extraction.