Support for the Keystone XL Pipeline

On November 14, the House successfully voted 251-161 to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, leaving the bill to be sent to the Senate that will vote on Tuesday. In the last six years, the Obama administration has repeatedly stalled any attempts to pass the bill through the State Department's approval process of the pipeline over environmental concerns and objections to claims about increased jobs and prosperity resulting from the pipeline.  According to Heavy.com, “ The proposed Phase IV, Keystone XL, would begin in Alberta and extend to Steele City, Neb., essentially replacing phase I of the existing pipeline with a more direct route and "carry more than 800,000 crude oil barrels a day to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast." Ultimately, what is clear is that the Keystone XL Pipeline will increase jobs and prosperity for America and actually reduce any large environmental risks.

The proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline have maintained that its expansion will bring thousands of new jobs to the U.S. while President Obama has rebutted with "The most realistic estimates are this might create...2,000 jobs during the construction...which might take a year or two, and then after that...somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs.” However, in an massive environmental review of the project in January 2014, the State Department found that, "The Keystone XL project, if built, would support 42,000 jobs over its two-year construction period...[and] once built, the pipeline would support 50 jobs  and provide immediate non-governmental economic stimulus to local economies.

Environmental concerns that discuss how the Keystone XL pipeline will accelerate climate change have well intentions but are meaningless. According to the same State Department report, "blocking or approving…the Keystone XL pipeline would not have a "significant" impact on overall greenhouse-gas emissions and future tar-sands expansion...because...most of Alberta's oil will likely find a way to get to the market anyway — if not by pipeline, then by rail." In addition to this, if the pipeline is blocked and oil producers are forced to ship oil through rail or truck, "overall transportation emissions would increase by 28 to 42 percent." 

In consideration of all these factors, should the federal government reject a pipeline that would otherwise have its oils transported through dangerous alternatives and also lose the opportunity for the U.S. to achieve energy security? Clearly, America must move forward and I urge the Obama Administration and the Senate to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.