Keystone XL Pipeline Resurges to Forefront of Energy Policy
By Terri Harel | 11/16/2012 | Activism, Elections 2012, Energy and Water, Issues, Movements, Organizations, Safety | 48 Comments
The economy is the focus of media attention at the moment, with its post-election emphasis on the looming fiscal cliff. However, the Keystone XL pipeline has also made a resurgence lately, as the center of an environmental policy controversy. The administration’s response to the dispute would be a test of Obama’s relationship with the oil and gas industry.
On Wednesday, American Petroleum Institue (API) President Jack N. Gerard said, “If [President Obama] denies the application [for the pipeline], it will show climate and emissions matter more than jobs and economic growth to his administration.”
The Keystone pipeline is hotly contested because its potential benefits to the economy and American energy independence is pitted against serious environment concerns. The pipeline starts in Alberta, Canada, passes through Nebraska, and ends in Texas. The project has the potential to create thousands of jobs, as well as to become a vital energy resource for the US. Nebraska will have a public hearing about the project on December 4,
Rising gas prices and turmoil in the Middle East, as well as news that America could be going through a serious energy boom, has brought energy to the forefront of national debate. A recent post-election poll by Zogby Analytics noted that, not only is energy causing rifts within the GOP, but that many voters are now supporting American energy independence through progressive renewable energies over projects like Keystone.
Asked to pick the highest priority to help solve America’s energy challenges, twice as many voters select renewable energy like wind and solar power (38 percent) than any other choice. Independents [emphasis added] favor wind and solar over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 margin – 48 percent pick renewable energy while just 12 percent select the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and only 11 percent prioritize more oil and gas drilling on America’s public lands.
The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, also reports widespread public support for green energy and cites high politicization of environmental issues in part by big oil interest groups and “aggressive lobbying by the fossil fuels industry.”
However, a poll released by the API reports 60 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans support Keystone XL construction, although it makes no mention of independents, a bloc that has grown significantly in recent years. The poll notes that, overall, 75 percent of pollees support the project.
Environmentalist groups, such as Green Peace and The Sierra Club, seemed to have been victorious earlier this year, when President Obama and the State Department rejected the pipeline’s permit. The president approached his comments on the rejection cautiously, saying, “This announcement is not a judgement on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the state department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.” During the second presidential debate, Obama reiterated he supports energy independence and implied his rejection of Keystone had more to do with administrative hurdles than anything else.
What I want to do is to create an economy that is strong and at the same time produce energy. And with respect to this pipeline that Governor Romney keeps on talking about, we’ve — we’ve built enough pipeline to wrap around the entire Earth once. So I’m all for pipelines; I’m all for oil production.
The Keystone pipeline project will need to be addressed by the administration quickly. Lobbying groups and environmentalists are pressuring the government for action on the measure and as, potentially, one of the president’s first policy decisions of his new term, could determine the groundwork for environmental and energy policy of the next four years.





Leave Your Comment →
48 Comments
Lucas Eaves
11.16.2012
@lucaseaves
I truly believe this pipeline would be a disaster for the environment and that we can find other ways to create jobs than promoting the use of tar sand oil.
Dieter Maurer
11.16.2012
@dieter_maurer
Yes I see how Obama did with the Battery Companies LMAO
Cassidy Noblejas Bartolomei
11.16.2012
@cassidynb
The comment by American Petroleum Institute’s president, “If [President Obama] denies the application [for the pipeline], it will show climate and emissions matter more than jobs and economic growth to his administration,” shows how shortsighted members of the petroleum industry are.
Michael Higham
11.16.2012
@michaelhigham
Reports are saying that President Obama is expected to approve the Keystone XL pipeline project. Environmental groups have scheduled a protest in DC this Sunday.
Dieter Maurer
11.16.2012
@dieter_maurer
We need the jobs, we need to allow it . Its time for the liberals to realize this. I say allow it. If you want to stop something Stop the UN from taking over the USA
Angelo Giuliano
11.16.2012
It’s always better to think long term. I don’t care how many jobs it creates if there is no one around to full them because the land is un inhabitable and killed everyone off it wasn’t worth it
Mewatis Montana
11.16.2012
Wow……that’s what a call a real double bind.
Aly Delp
11.16.2012
We absolutely have to start paying more attention to long term environmental consequences of projects like this. There are already too many cases of negative environmental impacts from human sources to continue only thinking of the “right now”.
Janet Lynn
11.16.2012
You can think long term all you want but the serfs out here need heat for the winter and gas for the car.
Michael Damian Jeter
11.16.2012
Long term is always better.
Edward Theilmann
11.16.2012
if they’d stop wasting our money on their stinking wars and used it to do R&D we wouldn’t need pipelines or more drilling.Ah,but Obama is just a corporate puppet and all we can expect from the puppet is more of the same old so the puppet master keeps making money as he rapes our planet for his profit .
Patrick McNulty
11.16.2012
We should probably consider the other potential effects as well.. This pipeline would give eminent domain to Canadian energy companies, without them having to promise a drop of that oil to American citizens.. We have to consider IF the pipeline’s development is actually in our interests before we determine its’ value to us..
Jennifer Tk
11.16.2012
being that there are zero controls on the free market trade of oil/gas, I say no, protect the land for my grandchildren to enjoy. No pipeline will reduce the cost we pay here in the states because americans are strongly against anything that infringes on the natural flow of the free market. If it was required they keep and sell it here, I might say mabey. But they wont,,, so no dont destroy what little natural american land we have left.
David Hirtle
11.16.2012
I want him to seriously think about it with a team of people that can show both sides and are component. We are already doing harm to the sea with riggs. BP spill has caused 25ft of erosion to wet lands and that continues. Its the people that cut corners and risk safety for a dollar. If things are built right that’s great but over time fning people become greedy and selfish and risk it all for a buck! Bp CEO should have been put to death for all the life he destroyed for a buck. He and G W Bush will go down as the worst in history
Johnny Ritchie
11.16.2012
I saw one report that it helps America by having the oil bottle necked, the NortWest large Farms has the cheapest gas. When the line is built to the gulf the oil will be sold overseas and the NorthWest gas will go up due to selling it for the $6 – $8 per gallon overseas.
Karli Dwyer
11.16.2012
I hope so, David. If they go down as the worst in history, it will be because we’ve gotten our act together and chosen a better path.
Davis Jackson
11.16.2012
I agree with David up there. It’s absolutely imperative that he sees both sides, and weighs out the pros and cons of each side before making a decision as big as this.
Brandon Hendricks
11.16.2012
We should oppose keystone because eminent domain is being used to take peoples land to build it.
Valerie Cook
11.16.2012
With everything that is occurring in the Middle East, I would think that energy independence is not just something nice to do, but necessary. We cannot rely on our “friends” in the middle east. This pipeline would work along way towards this. Then Mr. Obama needs to get his boot off of the neck of those who would find other deposits and drill for the energy we need. He has continued to deny or withdraw drilling permits on federal land. If it weren’t for the private companies, we would be paying european style pricing. I know he wants “green energy”, but We can’t wait for “green energy” to finally be truly available and affordable. We need to act now to become independent. I am starting to wonder if this president is trying to collapse our economy.
Pam Mercier
11.16.2012
Against the pipeline:
1. Eminent domain
2. Oil to be sold overseas and not here
3. Fracking has already produced enough natural gas (while possibly destroying our groundwater) so that we will soon become the world’s largest fuel provider.
4. History of unsafe pipelines through uninhabited areas, so what kind of damage would be done in population centers with maybe thousands affected?
5. Pipeline location runs through what is becoming relatively active earthquake areas…(again possibly linked to fracking)
6. Jobs would be short term and would be handed out to campaign contributor companies and unions.
Daphine Wilson
11.16.2012
Long term
Mike Bohrer
11.17.2012
No it’s a mistake we already depend on other countries too much.
Steven Breedlove
11.17.2012
Our choice is simple: invest more money at great risk, or recognize oil and gas are, in geologic time, a very long creative process and finite. Green energy isn’t a solution at current rates of consumption either. We should think long term and make a transition to a low energy future. If we believe in market pricing, if we can ever ignore that the Canadian tar sands are “game over,” not building the pipeline is a better strategy at forcing corrective action within energy markets. We need to deny all new fossil fuel extraction and through very heavy taxation eliminate the profitability of existing extraction. And we need to find community solutions to providing energy efficiency and production on a limited scale with renewables to maintain communication infrastructure. That’s my two cents.
Steven Breedlove
11.17.2012
See anything on peak oil, techno-utopianism etc. Recommend Orlov, Greer, Heinberg, Kunstler among others. And the extraenvironmentalist podcast. And anything on transition towns.
Tim Locke
11.17.2012
I think more people need to look into Tesla patants and also learn and understand L.E.N.R. (toted in the late 80s as Cold Fusion) as it is not fake, it is very real, and their are working units out today using the technology). Hemp can replace Oil on the surface, leave the crude in the groud. That is the earths blood afterall.
Wayne Alexander
11.17.2012
I wonder if the railroads would have ever been built if we
Michael O'Boyle
11.17.2012
We need jobs, NOW, Obumble!
Eddie Denise
11.17.2012
First of all, the election was 10 days ago. Some people here need to let it go. Green energy should be pursued heavily, but let’s be practical too, it’s going to be quite some time before we are oil free. We need assurances that the pipeline will be put in the safest areas. Fracking has proven to be dangerous in some areas. And somehow, we should have a certain percentage of that Canadian tar sand oil directly available to the U.S. as a “carrying fee”.
James Treu
11.17.2012
Long term
Herve Abrams
11.17.2012
To those who oppose the pipeline because it would add more fossil fuels pollution to the environment:
If the pipeline is not built, the tar sands will still be drilled, then transported by truck and rail, both of which would be WORSE for the environment than transport by pipeline. Simply put, pipeline equals smaller carbon footprint. No pipeline equals bigger carbon footprint.
Note – the southern half of the pipeline is already under construction.
Jim McEntee
11.17.2012
Short term solution now! Their are no documented studies of environmental impact! Look at Alaska!
Leila Baroody
11.17.2012
There are other solutions and alternative pipelines to Keystone that already exist including flow reversal at one pipeline. Why risk breaking new ground to service dirty, low grade tar sands oil at great detriment to the environment without doing due diligence research?
Jeff Haberman
11.17.2012
Folks. Do you realize this is oil from a friendly country and if we are really so worried about the planet have you really thought long term? Isn’t it better we refine and developer the oil capacity in a way we approve of instead of the Arabs that I am reminded of how Sadam blew blew up the oil fields harming the planet far worse than the Canadians and us would? Let really think this through. Friendlier supplier, more control of production and how it is done, thousands of jobs created, a stronger nation monetarily, more consistent supplies and costs, profits that won’t be used to kill our own people and enslave others. The downside is where?
Kate Swigonski
11.17.2012
It is both a short and long term solution.
Tracie Dugas
11.17.2012
Just look at the effects of cracking in Louisiana a sinkhole that’s grown to 7 football fields in just a few months heading towards a dome that holds millions of tons of butane. There is a real fear of an explosion the size of 10 Hiroshimas! Hows that for safety first. Not even to mention the horror of the BP oil spill. They are now in route to pay off the people who suffer still from that disaster of a companies policies.
Tracie Dugas
11.17.2012
Fracking
Daniel Rose
11.17.2012
Instead of a pipeline in those fields, let the farmer’s grow hemp and get us off fossil fuels. The answer is with the farmer, not the businessman. “Let your Discourse with Men of Business be Short and Comphrehensive.” -George Washington
Tracie Dugas
11.17.2012
1 acre of hemp is equal to 40 acres of trees and grows at record rates.
Daniel Rose
11.17.2012
Lol I could blow this page up with the LONG list of hemp benefits. Pretty much, anything petroleum can do, hemp can do better, and more. Hemp has 25,000 different uses. Hemp makes gasoline, bio-diesel, and charcoal (replaces coal w no acid rain).
Tracie Dugas
11.17.2012
Well I say proceed to blowing up the thread.
Daniel Rose
11.17.2012
10 tons of bio-mass per acre in 4 months. Half of that weight is food. Hemp returns nutrients to the soil, halts erosion, doesn’t use chemicals and when used as bio-fuel, is carbon neutral. 6% of our overall crop usage dedicated to Hemp would supply our automobile fuel requirement. Henry Ford grew his first car from hemp plastic and ran it on hemp fuel. He is noted to have swung an ax into the car to show that hemp plastic is 10x more impact resistant than steel.
Daniel Rose
11.17.2012
Yup, Ford built his engines to run on biofuel and gasoline for the first few years but gave up when “Reefer Madness” gave big oil the monopoly. There are pictures of Ford standing in fields of Hemp. I’ve seen pics of boats and houses built from hemp plastic…which can also be made bio-degradeable. Ever seen a picture of sea turtle dead because it got wrapped up in a plastic 6 pack holder? Walk through a toy section anywhere and look at all the products made from oil or trees. It all goes into landfill and little of it biodegrades. Hemp solves so many problems. How about obesity? Diabetes? Digestive disorders? Cancer? A diet heavy on hemp hearts and vegetables will keep you healthy. No animal protein required (although I’m a carnivore and enjoy my steaks).
Tracie Dugas
11.17.2012
Notice how noone is commenting anymore? No competition!
Daniel Rose
11.17.2012
This was all of the top of my head. The trouble is when you fact check me you run into even MORE beneficial information about hemp.
Tracie Dugas
11.17.2012
So many people are so unaware of just how great it is and it’s counterpart cannabis is also not so bad, unlike alcohol.
Daniel Rose
11.17.2012
Just because Hemp is unwanted does not mean hemp is unnescessary. American grain farmer’s make $8 per hectare. Canadian Hemp farmer’s make $80,000 per hectare and import most of it to the USA. What happen’s when we turn American innovation loose on the Hemp crop? “The greatest service that can be rendered to any country is to add a useful plant to it’s culture.” -Thomas Jefferson “Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth and protection of the country.” -Thomas Jefferson
Daniel Rose
11.17.2012
“Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere.” -George Washington
Joseph Fournier
11.18.2012
Polls all to often demonstrate the ignorance of the general population to the basics of our energy infastructure. For example: How can 220 million gasoline powered vehicles in the US run on solar and wind generated electricity? We must have new pipelines built on a regular basis simply to replace our current aging infastructure – it is a matter of safety. It is such a shame that energy policy in North America has become so political.