Keystone's hit to the environment

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/18/news/economy/keystone-pipeline/

For the past several years, the building of the Keystone Pipeline has been a point of contention in congress, as many lawmakers would like to see this ambitious project come to fruition have been pushing for the pipeline to be built, which would create jobs and provide crude oil from Canada to the U.S. But the Obama Administration has been actively blocking the approval of the Keystone Pipeline, citing its environmental impact as a major issue in this debate. But many have speculated that if the sand oil produced in Canada doesn't make its way from Alberta into the U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico, emitting more carbon dioxide and harming the environment, then the same oil will still flow into the United States from a different source, like Venezuela.

I strongly support the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. It is time for the Obama Administration to finally stop dragging their feet and approve the pipeline. If the Keystone Pipeline is built, it will carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, which would undoubtably lower oil prices, and would create thousands of jobs for U.S. workers maintaining the pipeline in the U.S. While this project wouldn't help the U.S. reduce our massive trade deficit, it would reduce our dependence on oil from less desirable sources like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and would probably be much cheaper, as the source of oil is much closer to the United States, effectively lowering the cost of transportation for the oil itself. Essentially, the construction of the Keystone Pipeline would result in a very positive economic impact overall, as more jobs would help lower unemployment, and cheaper gas prices would alleviate pressure on consumers, resulting in a consumer surplus.

While the environmental impact of the Keystone Pipeline might not be attractive, it will not be nearly as terrible as the Obama Administration is making it out to be. While oil from oil sands like that produced in Alberta does emit 17% more carbon dioxide than conventional oil, experts speculate that oil sand production will only comprise 4.5% of the oil market by 2030, so according to the author, only "4.5% of the world's oil would be 17% dirtier."In addition to this, only 0.4% of global greenhouse emissions would come from Canadian oil sands by 2030 if the pipeline were built. The marginal benefits of building the Keystone Pipeline would definitely outweigh the marginal costs of doing so, as the resulting jobs created and cheaper oil prices will have a very positive economic impact.