On November 6, 2015 President Obama rejected the proposed Keystone Pipeline that would run from Alberta, Canada into southern Texas.  The idea of the Pipeline was to transport Canadian crude Oil into the Gulf and out into the global market (Davenport).  The Keystone Pipeline was proposed to run through North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Texas.   The Keystone XL Pipeline poses an imminent threat to a vast amount of ecosystems in the Great Plains region. Obama should have rejected the pipeline because the pipeline would be transporting over 800,000 barrels of carbon-intensive petroleum from Canadian oil sands.  The effect of these carbon intensive petroleum barrels and the effect of the pipeline itself would release harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere leading to global warming(climate change), pollute ground water, and cripple ecosystems throughout the Great Plains (where the pipeline has been proposed to be built).  Because of these reasons, opposing the Keystone XL Pipeline would be in best interest of both the United States and the ongoing battle against human caused climate change, and instead of building the pipeline the United States should look to be the first large industrialized country to turn to renewable or clean energy to set an example for other countries that are industrialized or looking to become industrialized.

Construction of the Pipeline will lead to an increase in oil sands production. An increase in oil sands production will have an immediate and detrimental impact on the current phenomenon, Global warming, an effect of climate change, because the pipeline will change the economics of oil sands development (Biello, 1).   Pollution from tar sands can come in eleven different ways, which a few of those directly effect the imbalance in the atmosphere. Permitted discharges of gases from the pipeline and evaporation from tailing ponds lead to large amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, and other harmful greenhouse gases, which are chemicals that could pose a threat to the atmosphere (Timoney, 1).  In Alberta, Canada these ponds that hold the tailings range over 77 square kilometers and by expanding the pipeline only more byproducts would be produced, meaning more room will be needed for the extra tailings that will be made from the building of the final piece of the pipeline (Lewis, 1). Increased global oil production would increase the number of barrels produced by 60%, which would lead to a decrease in oil prices.  With a dramatic increase in oil production and a decrease in oil prices, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are presumed to increase emissions from 1.3 million to about 27.4 metric tons per year (Banerjee, 1).  It is believed that bitumen, low-grade petroleum, will admit 17% more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than an average barrel of crude oil (Nikiforuk, 1).  The low-grade petroleum in Canada is actually worse for the environment than a normal barrel therefore the keystone pipeline will have a tremendously negative impact on climate change.     Currently around the world and in the U.S., carbon emissions are growing exponentially.  The pipeline would only add to the United States footprint and make us closer competitors with other countries such as China that lead the world in terms of carbon emissions.  Carbon dioxide ad other greenhouse gases trap heat near the Earth's surface, and according to data our world could warm on average anywhere from 3-12 degrees Fahrenheit which would dramatically change the Earth (Swift, 1).  Global warming effects the melting of land ice, which in turn affects sea level rise, which will hurt large portions of the United States, such as Florida.  Florida is projected to lose over a fourth of its land to sea level rise when global sea level rises 6 feet. Another issue with the keystone pipeline is how the construction of it will cripple ecosystems and add to climate change.  Constructing the Keystone Pipeline requires building roads and using trucks to transport materials.  Overall, building the pipeline itself would have a tremendous carbon footprint and producing oil sands will lead to a tremendous increase of carbon; therefore, effects of climate change in the U.S. like warmer temperatures, sea level rise, droughts, and dramatic changes in weather will continue in the foreseeable future.

Tar sands and tailing ponds are a big issue with the keystone pipeline. Transporting oil through the heart of the United States also means that possible contamination of our own water sources and rivers is possible.  The Ogalla water Aquifer, the biggest aquifer in the United States is  threatened by the construction of this pipeline.   The Ogalla Aquifer runs through South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Nebraska.  All of which, the proposed pipeline will run through as well.  Studies show that elements such as mercury, arsenic, bitumen, and lead have been found in ground water near pond tailing locations.  An example of these types of ponds failing can be seen in U.S. history with Pacific Gas and Electric Company where essentially the company was not managing the wastes from their production and the materials in the ponds were leaking into the nearby towns water source.  Over 12 years there were over 200 reports of cancer from the area reports of other illnesses were also reported.  Scientists studying the current tailing ponds in Alberta analyzed local ground water and the tailing ponds and found that each ponds leaks large amounts of byproduct everyday.  The scientists discovered that on average 6.5 million liters of leak from a single pond everyday (Timoney, 1).  With the nearby Athabasca River, these contaminants are known to have reached this river.  This river also runs through a giant national park in northern Canada, which means that the contaminants could leak into the park and affect the wildlife.  With the new proposed pipeline, production of oil will double meaning that more ponds and more leaking overall. The data the scientist collected from near by groundwater sources shows that there is a close similarity between the tailing ponds and the groundwater allowing the scientists to include that the contaminated water did in fact result from a malfunction in the Alberta tailing ponds (Tenenbaum, 1).  Scientists have proven that these pipelines and ponds leak and by producing oil at the rate the Keystone pipeline proposes to, it will produce a projected 1.65 million barrels of fin tailings per day (Tenenbaum, 1).  With a nearby river, the Athabasca River, and the largest American aquifer, the Ogalla Aquifer, it is in both the Canadians and the United States best interest to reject the pipeline until further research is done on how to contain the fined tailings from leaking and seeping into local water sources.  With high concentrations of toxins in these tailings like mercury and lead, it is important to have the safety and health of the people in mind when thinking about approving the proposed pipeline.  With ground water polluting like in Flint Michigan and in California with PG&E, it would be wise to expect the same from the Keystone Pipeline.  Lined or unlined ponds do not stop chemicals from percolating into ground water or rivers.

The new proposed pipeline through river contamination, poisoning species that drink the toxic water, and the clearing of forests to build the extended pipeline, will affect ecosystems throughout the continental United States.  Studies of local river systems like groundwater have discovered lead, mercury, bitumen, and arsenic.  These elements have been absorbed by the species within the river ecosystems making them dangerous to consume for humans and other animal species that would naturally prey on them.  For example, local fish, walleye and whitefish, both male and female, were tested for these chemicals and were discovered to have exceeded the U.S. guidelines for mercury consumption (Tenenbaum, 1).  Mercury is a health risk for humans and especially pregnant women because it affects both the heart and circulatory systems. One of the biggest problems with the pipeline has been the loss and destruction of habitats.  Coniferous forests, deciduous forests, wetlands, riparian forests, and water bodies have all seen the impacts of the tar sands and byproducts of the pipeline.  With over 12,000 tailing ponds, since the mid 1990's the tailing ponds have increased by over 400%.  Studies have shown that somewhere around 36% of coniferous forests in the area have been destroyed and deciduous forests were destroyed at 25% Many of these forests also contain endangered plants species and the last thing the ecosystem needs is the loss of a species that could defect the whole food chain or the overall history of the forest (Tenenbaum, 1).  These large percentages of forests, account for the deforestation of around two million acres throughout Canada and the United States just to construct the pipeline and mine.  Roads, pipelines, power lines, and seismic lines can only be constructed unless forests and other natural ecosystems are cleared. Communities that live near the tar sands are already experiencing health problems linked to the pollution, and dozens of wildlife species are at risk, including millions of migrating cranes, swans, and songbirds that will will be effected due to water being polluted and air quality effecting their migratory paths (NWF). The pipeline will cut through the land of the United Sates which already as sensitive habitats that will be even further impacted by the constructing (NWF).  Animal species in these areas have also started to decrease in numbers.  Bird populations have decreased by the hundred of thousands due to tailing ponds exposure and other sources of toxins from the low-grade petroleum bitumen.   It is also presumed that the black bear population in this area has also taken a big hit.  Air quality in this area is diminishing rapidly.  In 2006 the plant ranked in the top six for the six air contaminants or VOC's (Banerjee, 1).  Tar sand plants have been the top four VOC polluters in Canada as a result from tailing pond evaporation.  The Keystone pipeline has already ruined the air quality, the local species of animals, ancient forests, and river systems.  Overall, increasing production of the pipeline will only destroy more of the natural beauty of Alberta, Canada.

Despite the negative environmental impacts the Keystone pipeline has, it does have a huge positive, which makes the construction of the Keystone Pipeline an ongoing debate/ or controversial topic.  Economically the Pipeline will have a tremendous impact on both the economies of Canada and the United States.  Even though the production begins in Canada, many Americans believe that the pipeline could lead to self-efficiency, so America will no longer have to buy oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or do offshore drilling or fracking within our own country.   Self  -- efficiency is the goal according to TransCanada because the oil is being transported from Alberta to the Gulf shores and will be used by Americans and not shipped to other countries.    Another claim by TransCanada is that the pipeline will employ over 42,100 jobs both directly and indirectly (Keystone-Xl). The U.S. Energy Information Administration claims that around 50% of the oil actually stayed in the U.S. for American use while the other half was sold making it both an economic benefit and a path to self-efficiency for the U.S (Jackson,1).   The keystone pipeline in 2012 generated over thirty-seven million dollars in property tax, which was then used to rebuild infrastructure like roads, hospitals, and other public facilities (Keystone XL Truth Video).  These infrastructure changed happened in the counties where the pipeline runs through, therefore, these counties have seen many positive impacts from the pipeline and a lot of money coming through their economy and government.  Economically the pipeline could generate millions of dollars for the U.S. and repay for itself within a few years.   The ongoing debate however, is if the extension of the pipeline, how much of the oil will stay in the United States? How many of the jobs are temporary and permanent? What will the United States do about the environmental impacts and ongoing fight against climate change?

The Keystone Pipeline will be detrimental to local ecosystems, global warming and climate change, and the overall health of the ground water.  Economic benefit overall for the United States has not been seen by this pipeline and most of these jobs created will only be temporary.  Construction jobs, which are the majority of the jobs created, are only temporary because construction jobs will end after the extension is complete.  Green house gases and carbon Dioxide levels are already on the rise in both the United States and globally.  The effects of climate change have already been seen with ongoing droughts, increasing average temperatures, more frequent severe storms, and sea level rise due to the melting of land ice.  Because of what our race as a whole has done, the effects of our changing climate are not reversible; however, it is not too late to slow down the rate in which our climate is changing through clean energy such as wind, solar, nuclear, and tidal energy.  Although these energy sources are expensive, they repay for themselves after a few years and overtime save money.  These energy sources do not hurt our air quality and do not leak deadly toxins in groundwater and rivers.  The sources are 100% clean and will not poison animal species, require minimal removal of natural habitat or even no removal of natural habitat (Marier, 1).  Our country needs to invest in further research on ways we can make these systems cheaper and more efficient so that we do not have to rely on Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela for foreign and corrupt oil. It is clear that the only reason why this is a controversial topic and even open to debate is because he multibillionaires like the Koch brothers are paying off climatologists and politicians so they can continue to take advantage of the American people. I believe that Obama rejecting the Keystone Pipeline was in the best interest of the United States and was done to make sure that our planet is preserved for the next generations.     

