Will the Keystone XL Pipeline Produce Good Jobs? And at What Cost?

Story tools

A A AResize

Print

 
 If you’ve been following the controversy over the Keystone XL oil pipeline, recent events will either encourage you, disappoint you, or both.

For a market that’s yet to be determined, this much ballyhooed project would transport hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil daily from Canadian tar sands compounds to the U.S. Gulf Coast for refining. What we do know is that the pipeline would dramatically increase the volume of climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions, erasing what little progress North America has made in reducing its carbon footprint.

The State Department—which has final say in whether Keystone XL gets built—recently admitted as much in a highly publicized (and heavily criticized) preliminary draft of its environmental impact study. State acknowledged the climate-change risks but then argued that rejecting the project wouldn’t reduce the amount of emissions flowing into our atmosphere because Canada would still burn the tar sands and pipeline the oil elsewhere.

Since the State Department report dropped, Republicans and Democrats in both houses of Congress have been pressuring the Obama administration to approve the controversial pipeline, which is four years in the making. Similarly, AFL-CIO, one of the nation’s largest labor unions, all but endorsed the contentious project citing the jobs it would create. A recent budget proposal from Paul Ryan also trumpeted a high level of job creation. (President Obama recently said the jobs numbers have been exaggerated.) Read more here.