The proposed Keystone XL pipeline awaiting approval from President Obama would create an estimated 20,000 jobs, $5 billion in annual tax revenue, and 700,000 barrels of oil a day. But it's not all good news. Environmental concerns about the proposed 1,700-mile-long pipeline, which would transport crude from the Alberta oil sands in Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast, continue to mount. On Sunday, environmentalists formed a 12,000-person human chain around the White House in protest, while Nebraskans have called for a rerouting of the pipeline away from an environmentally delicate area of the state. Should Obama approve Keystone XL?
Yes. This should be a no-brainer: If Obama and the Democrats "really cared about jobs, this pipeline would be underway," says Rich Lowry at National Review. This is a "big, honking" infrastructure project that would create thousands of jobs in the struggling construction industry. "This shouldn't be a close call." And make no mistake — Canada will "exploit its natural resources," with or without us. If we balk at Keystone XL, Canada will build a pipeline of its own to the Pacific, and "send its oil to China" instead. We should approve this project immediately.
"Obama's Keystone XL kops"
Hold on. This would devastate the environment: Keystone XL wouldn't be carrying "oil from old-fashioned, stick-a-tube-in oil fields," says Brandon Keim at Wired. "Alberta's vast oil deposits are dirty and hard to reach, mixed into sand or locked deep underground." That means getting to them will be a "hugely energy-intensive process" that will leave "apocalyptic landscapes" in its wake. Old forests and bogs will be stripped and drained and turned to "barren slopes and toxic ponds." It could take hundreds of years for the environment to recover. That's why American environmentalists want no part in the transport of this Canadian oil.
"The apocalyptic landscapes of Alberta's oil sands"
We should just focus on clean energy: "There's no question the Keystone XL pipeline would be wrong," says Michael Brune at the San Francisco Chronicle. This project risks the health of the American people by potentially contaminating the air and water supply. Plus, it's wrong "to pretend we don't have what it takes to move our country Beyond Oil and build a clean-energy economy based on renewable energy and efficiency." Let's focus on "clean, safe, and secure energy," instead of furthering our dependence on oil.
"Keystone XL is the wrong future for America"
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- 10 things you need to know today: October 24, 2014
- What the Middle Ages can tell us about the GOP's big charity myth
- Why is the Pentagon stuffing caves in Norway full of tanks?
- The U.S. is about to sell weapons to Vietnam. That's bad news for China.
- 43 TV shows to watch in 2014
- How to be the most productive person in your office — and still get home by 5:30 p.m.
- Let us now praise Billy Joel
- 3 horrific inaccuracies in Homeland's depiction of Islamabad
- Did the media get Ferguson wrong?
- 10 self-sabotaging interview mistakes to avoid
Subscribe to the Week