Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia Pipeline

What is all the hullabaloo about the Keystone XL Pipeline?  I hadn't really heard about it, or probably had just shut down my intelligence monitor whenever it was brought up, until an article surfaced showing Daryl Hannah being arrested, among many others, at a protest in front of the White House.  Then I began to listen and this is what I learned.

First the boring part...  The Keystone XL Pipeline started with a proposal by the TransCanada Corporation in 2005.  At the time, there was push-back from the unions stating it would exclusively serve US markets, create permanent employment for very few Canadians, reduce energy security, and hinder investment and job creation in the Canadian energy sector.  With some hesitation, however, the pipeline was approved anyway.

On March 17, 2008, the U.S. Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation of facilities at the United States and Canada border.  In 2008 ConocoPhillips acquired a 50% stake in the project although in 2009 TransCanada agreed to buy back CononcoPhillips' share of the pipeline.   So what's the problem with that?

The issues arose when TransCanada proposed taking the pipeline across the border into the United States in 2008.  A permit was granted by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission on February 19, 2010.  Impact statements were filed and then it was noted that the information provided in the statement was very narrow and needed revision.  Upon later revising the impact statement, it had been decided there was "no significant" impact to the environment as long as they follow EPA regulations strictly.  But this news wasn't as consoling as you would think.

One concern is that the pipeline could pollute air and water supplies and harm migratory birds and other wildlife. It will cross the Sandhills in Nebraska, the large wetland ecosystem, and the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world. The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, provides drinking water for two million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture. Critics are concerned that a major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy. Portions of the pipeline will also cross an active seismic zone that had a 4.3 magnitude earthquake as recently as 2002. Opponents claim that TransCanada applied to the U.S. government to use thinner steel and pump at higher pressures than normal.

Additionally, the oil that would be pumped through this pipeline will be oil-sands crude which is the dirtiest and most costly to refine.  The cost of the pipeline and refinement of the oil would increase gas prices across the Midwest.  But this pipeline will create "thousands", "tens of thousands", even "millions" of jobs, as conservative talk show hosts would have us believe.  Wouldn't that alone make it worth the increased costs?  Not necessarily.  According to TransCanada, the amount of permanent jobs created would be only in the hundreds.

A study from Cornell University said the pipeline could actually lead to a decline in jobs in the long run. One reason is that, since the pipeline would lead to higher fuel prices in the Midwest, it would slow consumer spending and cost us jobs. The study also said jobs could also be lost due to crop failures or other events associated with higher pollution levels the oil sands would bring. And it said more oil would mean a decline in green jobs.

So here we are, wrestling with the idea of allowing a Canadian company, one that shows little regard for safety and greater concern for costs, to build a pipeline across our country in areas of potential earthquake activity and crossing an aquifer that provides drinking water to millions as well as supporting agriculture, providing only hundreds of jobs and possibly eliminating hundreds of others, while increasing the cost of gas throughout the Midwest.  Why are we even considering it?

So, knowing all of this information about this very volatile subject, you can imagine my surprise when Congress voted on the Payroll Taxcut Bill with added increases in Medicare, an extension of Unemployment Benefits and a provision that will move ahead completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline within 60 days of passage of the Bill.

All of the House Republicans are in favor of the new Bill.  Representative and House Speaker, John Boehner even stated "The president says that the American people can't wait for jobs. Well clearly if we pass this bill today we will be taking the first big step toward creating jobs in America."

Knowing what I know about the Keystone XL Pipeline, I begin to wonder: How many millions of dollars did TransCanada have to shell out to get our Legislators to fall all over themselves to jam this bill through?

And again, we are at another precipice, with our representatives standing, looking over the edge and tossing our futures into the void.  If it comes back up we can implement it, right?  Legislation that doesn't create jobs should not be wrapped in Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia ice cream and fed to the American public as if it's something healthy for our country.

And again I ponder this very important subject.  Will we ever be able to get beyond the facades that allow us to support these types of bills that are destructive to the many and beneficial to the very few in our society?  I sure hope so.

And I've learned a very good lesson from all of this: If someone is willing to get arrested for a cause, isn't it worth finding out what it's all about before we flip the channel to something mindless and sedating?  It could mean a great deal to the quality of water we'll be drinking or the air we'll be breathing at some point in the not too distant future.  Think about it.  Just my opinion....