The future of energy in 2016 is far from a clear picture. Sure, we're running out of fossil fuels at a rate that could eventually doom us, but at the same time, we're finding new, innovative ways to tap into those fossil fuels. Our leaders are encouraging us to use alternative sources of energy but technology has yet to prove it could handle the demands. With all of the political rhetoric floating around, it can be hard to discriminate facts from fiction. Perhaps no topic has been as clouded by politician's hot air than the Keystone XL Pipeline extension. With Democrats such as California Senator Barbara Boxer renaming it the "extra lethal pipeline" and Republicans such as Mike Huckabee claiming that signing this bill into law should be an easy decision for "anyone with an IQ above broccoli", it can be hard to remember that this isn't as political of an issue as our elected officials suggest (Boxer, Hymas). When deciding whether or not to support this pipeline, people need to realize they simply need to weigh the pros vs cons. And if you consider what would happen if we allowed this pipeline to be built against what would if we block the proposal, it's not that hard to see that the positives outweigh the negatives. The Keystone XL Pipeline extension makes sense on an economic, political, and yes, even environmental level so there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't allow it to be built.

The Keystone XL pipeline is an issue that should matter to every single American citizen. If not because of how it might affect us, but how it could change the country we leave to our children. So what exactly is the Keystone XL Pipeline extension? Simply put, it is an entirely privately funded project proposal that would extract oil from tar sands in Northern Canada and transport them to the Gulf Coast through 1,000 miles of underground piping. The portion of the pipeline through Canada has already been built, as well the Gulf Coast pipeline so the only portion that needs approval stretches from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Kansas. Trans Canada, the company behind this idea, wanted to build a pipeline to transport this newly-tapped into resource of tar sand oil to oil-hungry Americans. The only reason this proposal needs approval from Congress and the President is because it crosses the US-Canada border. Proponents of this bill generally tend to cite job creation and energy security as their main reasons while opponents suggest the negative message this sends to a country that has been trying to move away from fossil fuels. 

Before diving into all of the pros and cons, let's first look at how exactly this issue has played out in politics. After being approved by the Canadian government, a bill was investigated and reviewed by Congress for over six years. On January 9th 2015, the House (controlled by the Republican party) voted in favor of the bill, with the Senate (also controlled by Republicans) agreeing twenty days later. Obama vetoed the bill roughly a month later, and while Republicans promised to push to override the veto with a 2/3 vote in the Senate, they might be better off waiting until Obama's term is over. Democrat candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have come out supporting Obama's decision, while all of the Republican candidates have done the opposite. The next president will surely have a say in whether or not this bill ever becomes a law, adding yet another crucial issue to the 2016 election's effect on our country. 

Imagine you walk past two lemonade stands on your way to work. One of them is run by a neighborhood kid who you've always gotten along with and seems to have a good head on his shoulders. The other is run by someone you've never seen before, who won't let women buy his lemonade, shouts hateful words at his customers, and will fight anyone who tries to tame him. If both of them have pretty much the same product, who are you going to buy from? It's a classic business principle: do business with people you get along with. Saudi Arabia, a country in which women can't drive, religious freedom doesn't exist, and there is no such thing as freedom of speech, currently produces 17% of America's crude oil import (EIA). Why would we do business with a country like that instead of a country like Canada, one of our closest allies? 

Our energy dependence on foreign oil is getting old. It has gotten us into countless combats we never should have been in in the first place.

 We have all said we have been pulled into war because of oil. I think we all agree on

that. This gives us a chance to be more secure as a nation and more independent from foreign

oil. That is what we are talking about. The global supply of energy relies on oil producers in deeply unstable regions (Manchin, WV-D). 

If our country could learn from our mistakes and rely on oil imports closer to home, who knows how great the positive effects on our relationship with Middle Eastern countries are. The countries we do business with in the Middle East aren't stupid- they know that we are just using them for their oil. It's not something that is going to happen overnight, but if over time we can find our energy sources closer to home, the effects on foreign relations globally could be enormous. Most get caught up in weighing the economic and environmental impacts of this bill but it's important not to forget about the national security aspect.                           

The Keystone XL Pipeline extension would create thousands of jobs for Americans that are out of work. Unfortunately, some members of Congress have overstated the number of permanent jobs it would create, which makes the argument look a whole lot weaker. "The construction of the pipeline could create over 20,000 permanent jobs (Mariano)".  In 2011, the State department estimated it would closer to 5,000 permanent jobs (Fitzsimmons). Okay, so it won't create the tens of thousands of permanent jobs, but let's take a closer look at those 5,000 it will create. Obviously, when building such an important pipeline, you will need skilled workers. This isn't going to be the type of job that has a bunch of $10 an hour workers, it will be more along the lines of $40 an hour, as the people that are in these positions will have to be highly trained. From 2013-2015, President Barack Obama was widely praised for creating just under 8,000 jobs, roughly four times what President George W. Bush created in his two terms in office (Wikipedia). It baffles me pipeline could created almost just as many, without any help from the government, and it is still portrayed as a failure in job creation by it's opposition. Not to mention, this pipeline, like any new private sector venture in the business world, would create new tax revenue towards helping to reduce the federal deficit and debt. 

I'm confused as to how some continue to deny that this pipeline will lower gas prices in America. While America is now producing more of our own oil (mainly because of the fracking boom) and demanding less oil (hybrid vehicles, ride sharing, etc), gas prices have seen a decline in the years. Since this oil is the main component in our beloved gasoline, wouldn't this just continue to decrease the prices? Gas prices aren't the biggest issue in America right now, but if those in poverty spend a higher percentage of their income on basic needs like gas to get to work, the biggest impact from gas prices is felt by those less fortunate than others. Job creation, new tax revenue, and lower gas prices make a compelling argument for the pipeline extension, but it would be foolish to consider this proposal without carefully examining the environmental implications. 

If one heard that there is an argument to be made on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline extension that proposed the idea that building the pipeline might be safe environmentally than not, they might think that's crazy. After all, the way the media and our divided politicians in D.C. paint this issue out to be is one of the Republicans and their economic freedom against the Democrats and their environmental concerns. However, as respected environmentalists such as Patrick Moore, the founder of Green Peace, begin to support building the pipeline, hopefully the general public as well as Congress will realize how much more complicated of an issue this truly is. Moore and others argue that Canada will still export the oil regardless of whether or not the U.S. is involved, and a pipeline stretching through the U.S. would be far safer than transporting the oil via trains in the Canadian Rockies. This idea isn't a common one, but the more you examine it, 

When presented, there were more pages of environmental review of the XL Pipeline available to Congress than the Bible, War and Peace, Atlas Shrugged, and Obamacare combined (oil spill intelligence report). The pipeline would be built with the most modern technology we have and would have to pass thousands of EPA inspections. Still, the risk of a spill on American land is definitely something to consider when pondering whether or not to build such a major extension. Tar sand oil is so heavy it sinks to the bottom of any water, which makes it even harder to clean up (Boxer). The pipeline also would cross the shallow Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska, one of the largest sources of fresh water in the world and vital for the region's $20 billion agricultural operations (ProCon). With all of that being said, President Obama's most recent environmental impact study, conducted under the partially in collaboration with the agenda-pushing Environmental Protection Agency, found no significant environmental impact (Hoeven). 

This oil is going to be exported from Canada's vast supply of tar sands whether we like it or not. If the pipeline isn't built, it will be transported to Canada's eastern coast via trains over some of the most untouched, rugged mountains in North America. The potential of a spill would be far higher than if they simply sent the oil via pipeline through the U.S., as well as the potential of a train spilling and blowing up a town along the way. In fact, just the other day, one of Warren Buffet's crude oil trains derailed and burst into flames (Hedge). If this pipeline isn't built, the 830,000 barrels of oil a day coming from the Alberta tar sands will be transported by 1,400 railcars a day. To those worried about greenhouse gas emissions, wouldn't that produce far more than an underground pipeline? According to a study by Mikhail V Chester and Arpad Horvath of University of California, Berkeley, some train systems should be seen as nearly on a par with travel in large aircraft in terms of greenhouse gases emitted for each mile a passenger travels (Kanter). The greenhouse gases released from these trains through the mountains would be released in these wild areas such as Banff National Park, which is essentially Canada's version of our beloved Rocky Mountains. I'm not trying to claim that the pipeline is entirely environmentally friendly (the risk of a spill is to present to go that far), but it certainly seems far less harmful than the alternative. 

At some point I think environmentalists just have to realize this isn't just a big scheme by a major oil company and trust the technology that we have in place to build the most eco-friendly pipeline the world has ever seen. Representing the environmental opinion on an issue doesn't always have to be so cut and dry. To be successful when making environmentally minded decisions, we can't become so polarized. Passing the Keystone XL Pipeline extension is not the right choice for the future of our earth and protecting our finite, natural resources by any means. However, the alternative is so much worse for the environment that it doesn't make sense to be against the proposal as an environmentalist. In the end, we (the United States of America) have no control over whether or not Canada taps into these tar sands (and by all account, they will and in some areas they've already started). The best thing we could do for the future of our environment is approve this pipeline extension so the EPA and other American agencies can have oversight over this and the trains won't be transporting so many barrels. 

This isn't just an issue we can sit around and wait on; the Keystone XL extension is an issue that needs to be figured out in the next couple years; everyday that passes we are losing time that Canadians won't be waiting to export their oil. The Keystone XL Pipeline extension is a shovel-ready project. If our government simply gives the go-ahead, the pipeline will be built. Essentially if we don't act now and build this pipeline, who knows what missed foreign relations opportunities, unexploited economic prospects, and environmental downfalls and we will be cursing our country with. 

