Reflections on the Keystone XL Pipeline Proposal

This post is not directly in response to any of our readings or discussions in class, but is more so generated out of my increasing frustrations with the situation surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline proposal; however, this topic is inherently tied into sustainability and the future of our planet, and as such, seems pertinent to this blog's theme.

The best article summary that I have read regarding the current situation surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline project was written by Lois Beckett for ProBUBLICA, a news source that encourages muckraking and "journalism for the public interest" (now isn't that a novel concept?! news that aims to accurately report the situation and NOT cater to corporate interests in exchange for financial backing?!) If you have time, I'd really suggest reading the article, otherwise, here are the key points that really stuck with me (and my responses to them):

The proposed project consists of a "1,700-mile pipeline that would transport crude oil from Canada to refineries in Texas." 

1)            Proponents say that the project will provide our country with energy security and 20,000 jobs! 

But won’t most of these jobs be temporary in nature, and if so, what is going to happen to those 20,000 people when they’re out of work again in two years’ time? Is an oil pipeline really going to be a boon for our economy the way TransCanada says? Furthermore, these job numbers were generated in a study that TransCanada Oil paid for themselves- you be the judge of how reliable this data actually is... (Not to mention the EIS was conducted by another company that has financial ties to TransCanada Oil as well).

2)            The pipeline will cross over the Ogallala Aquifer. This means that if an oil spill does occur (and given our country's past record of inspecting and enforcing environmental regulations on oil companies, this doesn't seem far fetched to me) we will be contaminating our country's arguably most important water resource. Is that something on which we really are willing to gamble?! Cleaning up a surface oil spill and working to rehabilitate damaged ecosystems is hard enough when we can directly see the damage, can you imagine how much more difficult (or impossible?) it would be to reclaim our groundwater aquifer system if a spill occurs?

3)            TransCanada is a Canadian oil company, yet if this project is approved, they will be able to take private property from land owners under eminent domain, as is written into our country’s laws. Eminent domain has always seemed slightly unfair to me, but what really rattles me is that this is a foreign country using eminent domain to their advantage- if we allow this, won't a precedent be set for foreign companies to do the same in the future? Haven't we already outsourced our industry enough? Are we willing to essentially outsource land (and private rights) within our own country as well?

I think that if this pipeline proposal becomes a reality, we will be continuing to reinforce our dependence on (and commitment to) fossil fuels. If the US hopes to ever be energy independent, how is this a step in the right direction? Furthermore, what will this pipeline do to efforts to establish alternative energies in the US? If this pipeline goes through, won’t the US be sending its citizens, and foreign countries, the message that we are perfectly happy to keep on maintaining the status quo? I don’t think that this pipeline is worth the purported benefits that TransCanada claims it will bring to our country, and I definitely don't think it's worth the risks.