By: Christina Leon
After a contentious and drawn out seven-year process, President Obama has finally announced the rejection of TransCanada’s 1,179-mile pipeline proposal during a Friday press conference at the White House.[4] The project would have authorized the extension of a pipeline network that would have traversed natural habitats through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska carrying 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day from the Canadian oil sands to refineries along the Texas gulf coast.[1] Keystone XL would have further promoted the development of “dirty” oil by leveling the Boreal forests in Canada which releases, on average, about 17 percent more greenhouse gases than conventional crude.[3] The landmark decision is being hailed as a big win for climate change activists who had been rallying for years to terminate the proposal. Advocates were adamant that detrimental environmental consequences twould arise from fostering the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. The decision was announced in light of the recommendation on behalf of the State Department which concluded that Keystone “would not advance U.S. national interests.” [2]
Many have cited the move as a means of bolstering the president’s environmental legacy. Others contend the immense publicity generated by the project has been greatly overblown on both sides. The State Department both in 2011 and 2014 voiced no major environmental objections to the plan in terms of stark increases in carbon emissions or severe depletion of natural resources. Republican House Leader Paul Ryan claimed President Obama had “rejected tens of thousands of jobs while railroading Congress.”[2] In his announcement the president asserted, “This pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others.”[1]
Ultimately, rejection of the Keystone pipeline strengthens the image of the United States regarding its commitment to taking climate change seriously in the international sphere. With the United Nations conference on climate change talks just weeks away in Paris, it is imperative that the U.S. serve an aggressive role in ensuring the conference will set strict global greenhouse gas emissions standards and take meaningful strides to hold nations accountable. While the decision may result in greater symbolic rather than practical ramifications, it is evident that the denial of the Keystone XL is a step in the right direction toward creating a political space necessary to push stronger climate change policy through Congress. Nevertheless, opposition from the Republican Party and energy industry remains. TransCanada, the company behind the proposal, has already stated it is considering filing an additional permit application.[3] It is clear the $8 billion dollar project is not yet silenced and will continue to be a source of debate and contention.
Sources:
[1] Davenport, Coral. “Citing Climate Change, Obama Rejects Construction of Keystone XL Oil Pipeline.” The New York Times. 06 Nov. 2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.
[2] “Analysis: Polarized Politics Dictated Obama Keystone Call.” The Washington Post. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.
[3] “Obama Kills Keystone XL in Bid to Boost Climate Leverage.” The Chicago Tribune. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.
[4] The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline. N.p., 6 Nov. 2015. Web. 6 Nov. 2015.