The Keystone pipeline has been among the pressing environmental justice issues affecting both the US and Canada. While the pumping of oil is an integral infrastructural component vital to sustaining households and manufacturers, its devastating effects on people living in the affected lands outweigh the advantages. Thus, at the first glance, the victims of the issue are the communities living close to the pipeline who first-hand experience the adverse environmental effects of the pipeline. However, the same people are targets for new jobs that the pipeline offers, which is a positive contribution to local economies. On the downside, some farmers and landowners have been coerced to terminate their ownership of the land, and victimized by the energy company’s management. Therefore, the issue of the Keystone pipeline as an environmental justice challenge is far more complicated when it comes to the differentiation between the victims and the perpetrators due to the large number of actors involved.
The Keystone XL pipeline is a privately monetized pipeline that stretched over one thousand miles from the oil sands in the Alberta province, Canada, capturing Montana and South Dakota in the US and joining Texas’s existing pipeline. The pipeline has been subject to protests for more than ten years from environmentalist groups and Native American communities who stated that the oil pipes would cut through their sovereign lands and result in adverse environmental consequences (“Keystone XL Pipeline: Why is it so Disputed”). In 2015, President Obama rejected the pipeline scheme abiding by the recommendation of the Environmental Protection Agency and its concerns over the increased dependency of the US on fossil fuels. A few years later, however, President Trump reversed the decision of his predecessor, stating that the pipeline would bring thousands of jobs (“Keystone XL Pipeline: Why is it so Disputed”). In 2021, President Biden canceled the much-debated pipeline project, which was a blow to the North American fossil fuel industry (Estes). While the decision of the current president was part of the larger strategy aimed at addressing the climate crisis, it was cited to be “like a gut punch” to Canada, leaving the country in doubt over future opportunities in the gas and oil industry (Cecco). Therefore, at this time, the pipeline project is terminated due to the significant pressure from environmentalist groups.
When it comes to breaking down the victims and the perpetrators in the environmental justice problem, it is necessary first to address the perpetrators’ perspective and the reason for the pipeline’s creation. The perpetrators, who usually take the role of legislators and oil industry players, wanted to increase the supply of oil from Canada to reduce the dependency of the US on suppliers from the Middle East (“Keystone XL Pipeline: Why is it so Disputed”). In addition, new jobs were expected to be created, which is a significant point in support of the pipeline. From the victims’ perspective, the ecological impact of the areas affected by the pipeline was immeasurable because many regions, such as Sandhills, had fragile ecosystems (Honderich). Therefore, the risk to local communities is the main reason for the opposition to the project, with First Nations groups in Northern Alberta suing the provincial and federal government for damage caused for over fifteen years (“Keystone XL Pipeline: US Judge Orders Halt on Construction”). The development of oil sands in the region was implemented without the Indigenous groups being consulted, hindering their rights to engage in hunting, trapping, and fishing on traditional lands.
Political debates are also highly relevant in inflating the problem due to the difference in opinions regarding the positive and negative consequences of the Keystone pipeline. On the one side, there is a political pursuit to strengthen the economy, as supported by Trump’s administration. In addition, the western provinces of Canada primarily benefited from the pipeline because their prosperity depended on the success of the gas and oil project, which is why they pushed for Prime Minister Trudeau to reverse Biden’s decision (Cecco). On the other side of the political debate, there is increasing support for prioritizing climate politics as well as the significant dependence of Biden’s administration on Native voters. Therefore, despite the overarching support of environmentalist groups for the decision to stop the pipeline, it remains to be seen whether a true transformation in climate politics will take place.
Navigating the unique impact on all victim groups is a complex challenge because both sides of the argument are valid and relevant. There is also evidence of First Nations investors being interested in sharing the revenue from the pipeline, which points to the complex relationship between natural resource projects and Indigenous communities. While some members of Native communities protested the pipeline, others waited for the influx of job opportunities because their options were limited. Besides, the jobs in the oil and gas sector pay at least 50% higher than in other fields (Cecco). In the end, there is probably no unified solution that can help resolve the challenge for all the groups being affected.
Works Cited
Cecco, Leyland. “Alberta Leader Says Biden’s Move to Cancel Keystone Pipeline a ‘Gut Punch’.” The Guardian, Web.
Estes, Nick. “Biden Killed the Keystone Pipeline. Good, But He Doesn’t Get a Climate Pass Just Yet.” The Guardian, Web.
Honderich, Holly. “Keystone XL: Why I Fought For – Or Against – The Pipeline.” BBC News, Web.
“Keystone XL Pipeline: US Judge Orders Halt on Construction.” BBC News, Web.
“Keystone XL Pipeline: Why Is It So Disputed?” BBC News, Web.