Public Opposition

Check out THIS article from the New York Times. It covers an anti-Keystone XL concert that was held in September.

image source: http://www.nytimes. com/2014/09/30/us/keystone-xl-pipeline-nebraska-opponents.html?_r=1

TransCanada tries to give people the impression that their project is widely supported and clearly beneficial to everyone involved. Although it is true that many people support the pipeline, events like Harvest of Hope show that there is definitely an active and widespread opposition. About 8,000 people showed up for the concert, which was held on land directly in the pipeline’s route.

Opposition to Keystone XL is strong, especially in states like Nebraska that would be heavily affected by the pipeline. In fact, events like Harvest of Hope have taken place across the United States.

 

When scientists are concerned…

…you know it’s time to pay attention.

University of Nebraska – Lincoln scientists Dr. John Gates and Dr. Wayne Worldt have several questions, such as

“What medium term containment and long term remedial strategies can most effectively safeguard the aquifer, streams, lakes and wetlands in the Sandhills?”

These scientists are concerned about how Keystone XL would affect water in the unique and delicate Sandhills of the American Midwest. And rightly so.

image source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-dale-norton/keystone-pipeline-nebraska_b_1301836.html

The scientists discovered that the State Department had only analyzed one study about oil in aquifers to support their Keystone XL report. One case can provide helpful information, but it can by no means be an example for ANY oil spill in ANY aquifer. Dr. Gates and Dr. Worldt write:

“The results of the Bemidji study are indeed very instructive, but it is important to note that the analogy breaks down in significant ways owing to considerable differences in aquifer structure, setting, and uses.”

The Sandhills are beautiful, unique, and delicate, and the Ogallala Aquifer is just below. Why even take the risk of building an oil pipeline? It’s simply not worth it.

Land Rights

If approved, Keystone XL would have to go through the United States. Of course, this requires access to land. Not every owner whose land is part of the proposed path is willing to let TransCanada make use of the land. But, because the project is legally “in the public interest”, TransCanada can basically force most landowners to allow the pipeline on the property. Even though it’s perfectly legal, it’s just wrong. Construction of a pipeline is obviously a pretty invasive use of someone’s land.

image source: www. pbs. org/newshour/rundown/nebraska-judge-strikes-law-allowing-keystone-pipeline-construction-move-forward/

Landowners own their property for a reason, and generally it is not so a foreign company can use it. Land may have been in an owner’s family for decades or have spiritual or traditional value. The land might be a source of income, like farming, or be recreational. In any case, TransCanada should not be able to build a pipeline without the owner’s consent.

Even though TransCanada claims to be working with landowners to create mutual benefits and positive relationships, the fact that landowners really don’t have the right to refuse shows that TransCanada (surprise, surprise) cares more about money and tar sands oil than families and farms. In other words, it’s not the kind of company I would trust with my land.

Pipeline Pollution

According to TransCanada:

“the extreme statements — that this is ‘game over’ for the planet — are clearly not intellectually true”

But those statements are pretty close to the truth. Keystone XL would release the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as 5,708,333 cars. To nullify the pipeline’s climate effect, 5,708,333 people would have to trade in their cars for bikes. More than FIVE MILLION people.

image source: http://refineryreport.org/tar-sands.php

If you think leaving the lights on in an empty room is bad, just think about what Keystone XL would do. If all of TransCanada’s tar sands oil was produced, it would raise global temperature by 0.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Game over? Definitely. NASA writes that even small temperature changes are:

“significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age”

0.6 degrees hotter? No, thank you.

American Energy Security and Why a Pipeline Won’t Help

Of the crude oil America refines, 60% is imported. If the Keystone XL pipeline was built, this number would supposedly significantly decrease.

But the United States is already MUCH less dependent on foreign oil than it used to be, and most of the refined oil will be sent elsewhere, to places such as Asia. That won’t help America’s energy security!

Instead of building an international pipeline, the United States should focus on renewable energy sources with lower emissions. Solar panels and windmills are good, clean options. And, unlike oil, they are not affected by the politics and economies of foreign countries once they are built.

What more could an American want?

image source: http://inhabitat.com/sunpower-new-super-efficient-solar-panels/

Oil Spills?

Would there be oil spills? Yes.

image source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-04-01/exxon-arkansas-spill-raises-scrutiny-of-keystone-pipeline

Even TransCanada says so: In 50 years, the company expects 11 serious leaks. As if that isn’t enough to be concerned about, researcher John Stansbury thinks a more accurate number is 93 serious spills in 50 years. That’s about two every year. Yikes!

But, so what? Oil comes from the ground anyway, right?

Oil kills wildlife, pollutes the land and water, is difficult to clean up… The list goes on and on. Plus, there are other hazards that are not as obvious. According to Stansbury, “toxic gas… could cause dangerous conditions at the site”.

Besides, who wants a backyard full of oil? That’s just gross.

image source: http://ens-newswire.com/2013/06/14/exxonmobil-sued-over-arkansas-pipeline-oil-spill/

American Jobs

Jobs are important! They provide a certain sense of purpose and fund our daily lives. Jobs are also a measure of the economy: news sources and politicians love to cite unemployment stats when discussing the economy.

So, how many jobs will the Keystone XL pipeline create? In other words, how big would its local economic benefit be?

image source: http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2013/01/07/this-is-what-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-looks-like/

The answer varies depending on who you ask. TransCanada writes that 42,000 workers will be employed either directly or indirectly. Of these, the company says 9,000 will be permanent. On the other hand, Alan Neuhauser of U.S. News thinks it’s closer to 10,400 jobs, with only 50 being permanent. The U.S. Department of State, one of the more authoritative sources, found in a study that “operation of the proposed Project would generate 35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs”.

Yes, the pipeline, if approved, will need workers for construction. And yes, this would provide an economic boost. But this benefit would be temporary and the Keystone XL pipeline would support only a limited number of jobs during the rest of its lifetime.

Keystone XL

What is Keystone XL? It’s basically a proposed 1,702 mile crude oil pipeline that would connect Alberta, Canada to America’s Gulf Coast. TransCanada, the company behind the pipeline, needs a presidential permit to build the pipeline. Since the project is so big and could affect many people, it has generated lots of controversy. Opponents claim that there are severe environmental risks, and that the benefits will be minimal. Supporters, including TransCanada itself, claim that it will create jobs, be safe for the environment, and protect America’s energy security.

image source: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-keystone-xl-pipeline/12200/

Individuals or companies that would stand to gain from the pipeline are the strongest voices for the pipeline. Independent and scientific reports, however, almost always suggest that the pipeline should not be built. Keystone XL would have oil spills, create a limited number of jobs, and contribute to climate change, among other things.

                         image source: http:// ecowatch.com/2013/03/13/350-endorses-markey-kxl/

So why is it even important? Keystone XL is of special concern in states like Nebraska, which would be crossed by the pipeline. But truthfully, the pipeline will have national and regional effects as well. Keystone XL is an international issue, and people all over the world should make their thoughts on the project known.