9 December 2016 "The Keystone XL Pipeline"
With the quickly approaching change in
administration, the United States can look forward to some major policy
changes. Most notably is the proposed change in energy policy—President-elect
Donald Trump has proposed some serious alterations to energy policy that Obama
has supported in the past. Though there has recently been much controversy
surrounding construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, a similar case from
recent history has been all but forgotten in the media—the Keystone XL
Pipeline.
The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed
1,179-mile 36-inch-diameter crude oil pipeline beginning in Canada and
extending south to Nebraska.[1] It
promises to transport crude oil from Canada and other parts of the United
States more safely and more efficiently. So what’s already happened? In 2015,
President Obama vetoed a bill supporting the immediate construction of the
Keystone XL Pipeline, citing that project officials had not conducted an
adequate assessment of the project’s environmental impact. Though this pipeline
would allow for an increased supply of oil from Canada and an increased supply
of US-produced oil, President Obama rejected it, deciding that the risk of
environmental damage was not worth the payoff.
During his own campaign and, now, after
his election, President-elect Donald Trump has proposed to “lift the
Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital infrastructure projects, like the
Keystone Pipeline, to move forward.”[2]
President-elect Donald Trump Greatly supports the Keystone XL Pipeline
project—but with one caveat: he believes it necessary for U.S. taxpayers to get
a larger slice of the project’s revenue than initially was proposed.
Those who are in the know about this
proposed pipeline project generally fall into one of two camps—supporters and non-supporters.
Those who support the project claim that a decreased dependency on the Middle
Eastern market is desperately needed in the United States. They also propose
that the increased jobs and lowered cost of oil will be a huge benefit to the
average American consumer. Those who do not support the project claim that the
environment will suffer more than the American consumer will benefit. They
hypothesize that the trend of climate change will be exacerbated, local
communities might suffer pollution to their water supply, and the risk of
leakage will be extremely high and potentially devastating to the local
ecosystems.
Both sides of this divide have entirely
fair and valid points. The average American consumer could certainly benefit
from lower oil prices, and limiting the United States’ involvement with
conflict in the Middle East is certainly in the country’s best interest. However,
climate change is a growing problem globally, and any way to limit extensive
energy waste is certainly in the world’s best interest. And what about the
average American who lives close to the building path of Keystone XL? Are lower
gas prices really going to help someone whose water supply has been
contaminated from an oil pipeline?
The way I see it, we’re looking at two
arguments centering themselves on the same plane—protection. Human rights.
Should humans have the right to clean drinking water? Should humans have the
right to cheap oil prices? Should humans have the right to more job
opportunities? Should humans have the right to participate in a fair
marketplace? Should American humans have the right to protection from the
Middle East? Should all humans have the right to protection from climate
change?
I know it isn’t fair to assume that
certain politicians push their agendas because what they ultimately want is to
destroy the agendas of other politicians. I know it isn’t fair to assume that
the politician who protects my values is the only one who has values at all. I
know it isn’t fair to assume that one human president will be the ultimate
cause of ecological disaster. I know it isn’t fair to put the value of human
lives lost because of climate change over human lives lost because of conflict
in the Middle East.
But I just can’t seem to get over this
problem I have with the idea of a one-sided viewpoint. I can’t seem to get over
the idea that every choice we make as Americans will have both short-term and
long-term effects. I would love to pay less than two dollars a gallon to fill
up my tank with gas, but I would also love to prevent polluted water supplies.
As an American, I would love for my country to limit its involvement with
Middle Eastern conflict, but I also know that the root of the conflict is about
so much more than a fossil fuel deposit in a certain area. I would love to
believe that the benefits of building yet another oil pipeline in my country
will last longer than the next presidency, but the world moves on quickly, and
a generation ago we also insisted on the long-term benefits of a short-term
plan.
A few months ago, I watched a
documentary called How To Let Go Of The
World (And Love All The Things Climate Can’t Change). Released just this
year, it follows a man named Josh Fox as he travels around the world and tries
to understand just what the Earth is feeling as its population begins getting
comfortable with climate change. One scene in particular hit home for me. Josh
was on a tiny island nation in the South Pacific, speaking with a man who had
lived there all his life, whose family knew no other way of living. At one
point they travel to where the man tells Josh his ancestors were buried.
They’re smiling and joking around the whole time, until a sobering realization
hits the man all at once—the graves are gone. What used to be land is now
replaced by ocean. It’s powerful cinematography, replacing a happy moment in
the film with one that pushes a wave of sadness.
But more than that, it’s a powerful
message. Climate change is a very real thing, and as I watched this film, I
realized that it is a very real possibility that I will never get the chance to
see this tiny island in the South Pacific. It’s already too late to totally
reduce our impact on the planet’s climate change patterns, it’s already too
late to save far too many endangered and extinct species, but I never imagined
it might be too late to save entire islands. I somehow didn’t image it would be
possible for entire nations—entire peoples—to simply disappear into the ocean.
But somehow, in today’s world, that has
become entirely possible. It’s become entirely common for documentarians and
celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio to travel around the world and make
astonishing discoveries on camera at how the world has already changed, and
shows no sign of slowing down. And it’s become even more common for people all
over the world to suffer from things like air pollution, oil spills, and water
source contaminations. The earth is changing, and I no longer believe it is
feasible to deny our involvement. So the fact that President-elect Donald Trump
has already made some blatantly anti-climate change choices for his upcoming
presidency shakes me to my core.
And even then, I think of my cousin,
who is finishing up her first semester at the Naval Academy this month. And
where I have never really been personally invested in the welfare of the U.S.
military before, I suddenly find myself worrying about her safety after
graduation. There’s nothing that I would like more than for her to never see
combat—I’ve never before felt the personalized fear of losing someone to war.
Of course I want the United States’
involvement in the Middle East to stop. Of course I want us to be
self-sufficient, no longer relying on other countries to give us power and
gasoline. But that doesn’t mean that I’m willing to forsake the environment and
forget the potential consequences of relying even more heavily on fossil fuel
energy.
When I studied abroad in South Africa
last semester, I remember being struck at how tightly the cashiers would pack plastic
grocery bags. Perhaps it’s because they knew the supply of plastic bags was
limited, or maybe it was because they knew it cost the customers extra for each
additional plastic bag they needed to carry the things they bought. Nobody that
I met in Cape Town seemed to question it, but my American friends (at least the
ones from states that have never made them pay for plastic bags) took a little
while to get used to it. I know that South Africa has a whole host of problems
that the United States doesn’t have, but I just find it so interesting to
consider the idea of people working together because they no longer have the
choice to deny each other’s beliefs.
The truth of climate change is all over
the world. And the truth of unemployment is all over the United States. And the
truth of unnecessary conflict is sprinkled throughout our history. I just don’t
understand how after all this time we still somehow subscribe to this belief
that we need to be separated into two camps. Why does there have to be such a
180 degree change in energy policy? Why do people have to be in such
disagreement about things such as the Keystone XL Pipeline? Why can’t we
realize that there are positives and negatives on each side?
Why can’t we acknowledge each other’s
viewpoints not as points of disagreement, but instead as places to meet
halfway?
I hope that the world doesn’t change
that much more when we have Donald Trump as president instead of Barack Obama,
but I know this is kind of a pipe dream, because it started changing as soon as
he started his campaign. I wish that the world could change in a different
way—maybe one that would allow us all to see things with more than one eye open
at a time. But I know wishing this for everyone on earth is unrealistic, and so
instead I will settle myself with the knowledge that I have somehow melded
together two viewpoints, and that I can maybe convince a few other people to do
this too.
Comments
Post a Comment