Last Thursday, the Senate voted 62 to 36 to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Before heading to the president’s desk, the legislation will have to be coupled with similar bills that passed the in the House earlier in the year. However, President Barack Obama has vowed that he will veto the bill. And while the Senate does not have enough votes to overturn said veto, it will not go down without a fight.

Regardless of the outcome, the Keystone XL pipeline is arguably the most useless and futile infrastructure funding projects in American history. It should not be built.
With more focus being placed on becoming less dependent on foreign oil — specifically Venezuelan — the U.S. State Department has been researching possible routes for oil transportation over the past several years. In 2010, the government finished construction on Phase I of the Keystone pipeline system — running crude Canadian oil from Hardisty, Alberta to Pakota, Illinois.

In the following four years, the government completed pipelines through Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas — connecting refineries around Houston to the pipeline from Canada.

It would seem that the government had finally found a way to give the Gulf Coast refineries cheap Canadian oil. However, they’ve since decided more pipeline is needed.

This is where the rudimentary and unnecessary Keystone XL pipeline comes in.

It’s a common misconception that the Keystone XL pipeline is a brand new project. That’s not the case. The new Keystone XL proposal would essentially repeat the first phase of the pipeline but with a different route and a larger pipeline. The only legitimate difference is that, in the new proposal, American light-crude oil would be added to the Canadian oil at a checkpoint in Montana.

The Keystone legislation is riddled with flaws. Although advocates claim otherwise, the XL pipeline would create roughly 40 permanent jobs after construction, according to the State Department’s final environmental impact report. As stated above, the proposed pipeline would literally duplicate what is already built.

Some other points advocates are making are that the pipeline would easily increase America’s independence from foreign oil, increase tax revenue for the towns where the pipeline has checkpoints and increase America’s energy security. But it’s quite the contrary.

Yes, TransCanada will have to pay heavy taxes on the route, but with the deflating Canadian dollar and the bureaucracy surrounding the funding behind the pipeline, there is suspicion as to how much American small towns will benefit.

And there shouldn’t even be a debate as to security issues. The pipeline is massive — a fantastic target for accidents and danger. There is simply no need to construct such a wasteful mass that would copy existing structures.

Sure, America’s dependence on foreign oil is frightening and needs to be decreased, but there are much safer, more conscientious ways to do so — such as more research toward using existing infrastructures as energy sources, and embracing more renewable energy sources.

At a time when we face climate change issues, environmental debates and resource uncertainty, it is more useful to spend our time and money researching more sustainable environmental activity, in order to join other developed countries in paving the way for our planet’s future.

Eric Dunay is a freshman in the School of Architecture. His column appears weekly. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Published on February 3, 2015 at 12:15 am