Keystone XL Pipeline VETOED!!!...And why this isn't as good as it sounds

I'm someone who considers herself to be deeply connected the environment that surrounds my home. When I heard about the Keystone XL Pipeline and all of it's not-so-secret detrimental effects to the environment, I took up arms and banners against it. I protested and posted blogs.  I let my friends on social media and the poor interns at my senators' and representative's offices have it.  I was angry.

I still am.


1) The Keystone XL Pipeline infringes upon thousands of acres of valuable corridor habitat. These places allow migratory species to rest and refuel before continuing their journey to their summer or winter homes.

2) KXL carries the severe potential to leak.  While the the organizations who have vouchsafed the material that the pipeline would be constructed out of, they either could not or would not test the junctions, which is where most major leaks occur.

3) The process to extract and refine tar sands oil is inefficient and costly.

4) The "thousands" of jobs created are part-time and does not create a sustained job market.

BUT...Who is invested in this project?

If we just look at the list above, you see 2 investors:
            1) The United States (Government and People)
            2) Canadian Fuel Market

But (hold onto your socks, they're about to get knocked off) we're not the only ones who matter in a global market.

Are we honestly so arrogant to think that if we stop KXL from being built that Canada will just say, "Oh, OK. If the US doesn't want our oil, then we just won't develop this highly coveted resource"?

I was. I thought about my home.  Nebraska farmers and city-folk alike came together and submitted claims of unconstitutionality against KXL.  I thought about about the sandhills and the bluffs and the rivers, all unique environments desperately needed by the migratory birds that we are so famous for in early spring.  I thought about my air and water quality and the economy that I participate in.

But, in the grand scheme of things, I don't matter.

Let's give ourselves a brief pat on the back, U.S.  Even though we are still far from acceptable, the United States has set, maintained, and (more importantly) enforced certain environmental standards that are among the best and most rigorous in the world. And that's just on a federal level. State-wise, there can be additional regulations and consequences to reduce contamination and detrimental development.  (Insert happy dance).

But don't get too happy. In 2010 study, we still ranked 25th out of 25 developed and typically Western countries with environmental standards.  And, if we are so low, imagine the types of standards and level of enforcement (or, perhaps more fitting, lack thereof) in less developed countries or in those countries that are even more isolationist than we are.

Let's look at China, another heavy hitter and high bidder for this valuable, but dangerous resource. In a very brief comparison summary of Chinese vs US air quality standards, you can see that Chinese air contamination (and lack of strict environmental regulations) severely affects the quality of life of the people, especially children, living there. Primary school students have to be taught how to breathe shallowly in order to minimize their exposure to pollution.

Now let's get hypothetical:
The US has broken off all ties to Canada's tar sands oil.  We've explicitly stated we will not permit it within our borders.  China, now the highest bidder, gets the oil.
              Problem 1: Oil can only be exported to China via oceanic oil tankers. Great.  Before we even get the fuel to China, we have to deal with an increased risk of oil spills in the Pacific. 
Once the oil gets to the various Chinese plants and stations that require it, it is burned.
             Problem 2: Depending on the location of these plants/stations, environmental regulations cannot be reliably enforced. Cool. So, omitting the disastrous levels of pollution that get put out in the extraction and refining processes AND  the pollution and risk of spills to get the oil to these plants/stations [both of which hold similar variables in the US's version of this equation], there might not be any actual environmental regulation on how much of this oil can be burned at once/how to get rid of any dangerous by-products/etc...

In this hypothetical situation, the net negative of the US not having KXL outweighs the net negative of the US building KXL.  In this situation, one of many like it, the US was actually globally irresponsible in refusing the oil.

Back to the point: the president vetoed the bill to approve the construction of KXL today.
For the US regional ecosystem, this is undoubtedly a win.
In order for it to also be a win on a global scale, we have to look past our economy, our environment, our small but significant lives.
At the grandest scale, we need to eradicate the need for oil.
At the present scale, we need to eradicate the need for this particular Canadian tar sands oil.