By HANNAH KLOSSNER

GUEST WRITER

A proposed four phase, 4,160-mile crude oil pipeline project is planned to span through Canada and the United States. Three out of the four phases are complete, with heavy controversy upon the final phase. What is the cause of such upheaval and why is there such high importance placed on such an issue?

Environmentalists and economists have very different views on whether or not this project is an acceptable proposal. Environmental advisor and member of the Adirondack Youth Climate Summit planning committee, Kathleen Eldridge says the pipeline is a threat as well as a concern because it disrupts ecosystems. A leak can cause a huge disruption to both wildlife and human habitats, continued Eldridge. “This is a band aid fix to energy needs. We should not be dependent on fossil fuel energy. This dependency will be the demise of the planet. The carbon emissions from this type of energy only fuels the demise of our planet and catastrophic climate change,” she says.

“It makes it easier for those interested in extracting this material to do so, also creating some political cover for them.  There are also concerns about the impact on places the pipeline turns through,” said Neva Goodwin the Co-director of the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University.

The halted construction of the pipeline is due to President Barack Obama. The Democrats seem to be against the idea because they realize this is not a good idea, added Eldridge. The Republican Party is all about big business, which would greatly benefit from the pipeline. Oil corporations would begin to take over society, said Eldridge. “The Republican platform is all about the rich, corporate barons who want to profit no matter what the expense, or destruction. It’s really all about the politics, and never about the environment,” she said.

The pipeline has created only about 35 permanent jobs, said Brian Stilwell, Associate Program Director for the East Coast of the Alliance for Climate Education (ACE). “Better and more jobs can be created in developing alternative, clean energy sources,” adds Goodwin.

Republican, Tracy McGowan, supports the construction, however does see the positives and negatives that could come about. “Both good and bad things can come of this, but with a weak economy we might as well give this a shot and hope for the best,” she said.

Brian Stilwell adds that fossil fuel companies already have five times more than what is safe to burn in their fossil fuel reserves. “Tar Sands Oil, what Keystone would carry, is the most carbon intensive form of fossil out there. It takes two tons of tar sands to get one barrel of oil.  Developing Keystone makes no sense if we are at all serious about taking on climate change,” Stilwell says.

Eldridge also comments, “We need to look into Nuke Green, nuclear energy, solar power, and windmills. More carbon use and dependency will add unwanted and unnecessary carbon emissions that are heating up our planet.” These unwanted fuel emissions are what result in catastrophic damage like hurricanes Katrina and Irene, she said.

The US already gets a majority of their oil from Canada so adding to the pipeline would lower the transportation cost of the oil, lower gas prices and energy costs said, Clifford Reilly ’17. Reilly adds that the US already gets one-third of its oil imports from Canada, which is the highest from any individual country. “Building a pipeline that long would interrupt natural migration patterns of animals in North America; there would be a significant environmental impact,” he said.

The pipeline runs through Western Canada and travels through much of the mid-western United States, all the way down to Texas. The final phase awaits final decision from