The Pros And Cons Of The Keystone XL Pipeline

In the New York Times’ Room for Debate series, eight individuals who all are involved in some way with issue of fossil fuel use, as scientists, environmentalists, petroleum industry representatives, etc., are asked for their opinions on the Keystone XL pipeline and if protesting its development is really worth the struggle. The proposed pipeline would carry bitumen, a type of heavy, black oil, from northern Alberta, Canada, where it is extracted from tar sands, to Houston, Texas. In Houston, the bitumen would be sent to oil refineries, refined, and made ready to sell on the global market. The Keystone XL pipeline has attracted so much protest because tar sand oil is an very polluting energy source and has significant implications on climate change, but those in favor of the pipeline say its impact on the climate

David Hughes, a geoscientist, say stopping the pipeline development is a step in the right direction when it comes to weaning dependence on fossil fuels. According to McKibben, the Alberta oil sands are “one of the five or six largest pools of carbon on the planet,” and extracting oil from them would be the equivalent of putting at least six million more cars on the road (“Room for Debate”). Since carbon emissions are the primary culprit in accelerating climate change, opposition to a pipeline that would release such a huge amount of them is prudent. Hughes agrees and argues that protesting the development of Keystone XL is actually not just a symbolic effort, but one that has economic effects. He points to the fact that Canada’s options at transporting tar sand oil with other alternative shipping methods like other pipelines or rail line are limited due to public opposition and slow regulatory processes. The uncertainty of whether or not the oil can assuredly reach refineries discourages future investment in tar sands (“Room for