Keystone XL: Obama’s veto contrary to people’s will and benefit

President Obama, as expected, vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline bill last week despite overwhelming support from Americans. His veto appeased the left wing.

Its pushback lies in climate concerns, and environmentalists have not failed to express their worries. The Natural Resources Defense Council argues that Keystone is not safe because of pipe leakage, and also advocates that the pipeline is economically disadventageous, as it creates temporary, rather than permanent, jobs. The Keystone Pipeline would transport 730,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta’s tar sands and would increase greenhouse gas emissions, as oil from these tar sands is also among the most polluting. 

However, such views overlook the many greater positives that the pipeline offers the American people and economy. Most Americans agree, with 57 percent of Americans supporting it.

The Keystone XL Pipeline would be 1,179 miles of crude oil pipeline beginning in Alberta, Canada, and reaching down to Nebraska, allowing American oil producers to access the refining markets that would be available in both the Midwest and the Gulf. 

TransCanada projects that the pipeline would create thousands of jobs, maintain low gas prices and wean the U.S. off of Middle Eastern oil.

While 57 percent of 1,011 Americans surveyed by CNN supported the construction of the pipeline, 28 percent opposed it, and 15 percent said they were unsure. 

Construction of the Keystone Pipeline would create an estimated 40,000 jobs. Even Obama, who advocated the deliverance of unemployment benefits for up to 39 weeks and thus incentivized remaining unemployed, should be able to agree that giving 40,000 people jobs is a significant advantage.

The pipeline would also decrease our dependence on the Middle East for oil as well as countries like Venezuela­—and with these regions being in the tumult they are, this would work in our favor for a multitude of reasons. Shifting our dependence on foreign oil to our own nation also contributes more than $3 billion toward U.S. GDP. The taxes that the project would pay would also benefit the towns the pipeline runs through, increasing the tax revenue 10 percent or more. 

So, what’s the holdup? From everything I’ve mentioned, Obama looks like a huge fool for vetoing a project that would boost our national economy as well as help local economies where the pipeline is built, give the U.S. closer access to crude oil and create thousands of jobs. 

However, to provide another source to the discussion, the State Department issued a report in which it found that the pipeline is actually the most environmentally benign option. The alternatives are railroads and tanker ships, which also carry the risk of explosion, as demonstrated by a tanker explosion last month in West Virginia.  The State Department’s 17,000 pages of scientific research, as well as other environmental impact statements, all came to the consensus that the pipeline would have a miniscule impact on the environment. Obama should be cognizant of this fact because of multiple studies on the pipeline made available to him over the past few years.. 

Compared to the alternatives, this pipeline is an opportunity for high profits with little risk. 

What this comes down to is Obama playing callboy to those who are waging war on energy infrastructure.

Because the House and Senate are both Republican, we can expect Obama to begin exercising his veto power much more in his remaining days in office. The Keystone Pipeline is just an example of what could be to come in Obama’s last two years of presidency.  

Marlo Safi primarily writes about politics and public policy for The Pitt News.

Write to Marlo at mes260@pitt.edu.