XL pipeline: Flowing through American Congress

The Keystone XL pipeline has been the catalyst for much debate in the United States recently. On one hand, you have to take into account the economic benefit the $7 billion project would bring in. On the other hand, can you put a price on the inevitable environmental damage it will bring with it?

It is apparent that no matter the decision, there will be much controversy. Obama originally sidelined the issue to focus on his election campaign. After successfully winning over the American voters once again, everyone is no doubt anxiously waiting for a decision.

What does the project look like? The pipeline would carry Western Canada's curde oil reserves 2,735 kilometres through the US to Texas refineries. Look below for the current and proposed route of the pipeline.

Current & proposed pipeline route
(image credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Keystone-pipeline-route.png)

Economy versus Environment

How do you keep the two sides happy?

It is almost impossible in this situation. This is the decision that US congress has to currently make. The US economy is struggling and any new economic influx would be extremely advantageous to those looking for work and businesses alike. Not only will it benefit America and Canada economically but it will strengthen our relationship immensely. This relationship is extremely important to us here in Canada, where 73% of our total exports head up north. Therefore when the US is doing well, Canada is doing well.

In the article "Obama under pressure to make Keystone decision" published in The Gazette written by Josh Lederman, Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu is quoted as saying, "It's just a no-brainer... Canada is going to export this oil. It's either going to come to the U.S. or it's going to go to Russia or China. Even Democrats that aren't really excited about oil and gas development generally can figure that out."

However, in the same article former vice-president Al Gore shares his opinion on the matter, "At a time when we are desperately trying to bend the emissions curve downward, it is wrong to open up a new source of energy that is more carbon intensive and makes the problem worse,"

Al Gore is a role model and public speaker voicing current environmental issues. He spends much of his efforts as chairman of The Climate Reality Project, a non-profit focused on solving the climate crisis.

The environmentalists have a solid argument when it comes to the devastating effects of dirty energy. According to an article on NaturalNews.com, David Gutierrez reports that natural disasters have risen by more than four times in the last 20 years. Although it may be economically beneficial, it may pose greater costs from environmental disasters. We have seen just how disastrous mother nature can be to human life, entire cities and economies altogether.

Whatever the decision may be it will ultimately leave many relieved and many upset, there is no way around it. It will be interesting to see the repercussions and how the public reacts.