{"id":402,"date":"2014-02-27T08:00:59","date_gmt":"2014-02-27T08:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.pugetsound.edu\/econ\/?p=402"},"modified":"2014-02-27T07:58:10","modified_gmt":"2014-02-27T07:58:10","slug":"keystone-xl-economics-part-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.pugetsound.edu\/econ\/2014\/02\/27\/keystone-xl-economics-part-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"Keystone XL Economics Part II"},"content":{"rendered":"

Following up on Collin’s article yesterday, I want to add an\u00a0additional perspective<\/span><\/a>\u00a0on the economics of the Keystone XL pipeline.<\/p>\n

First off, while the State Department report on the Keystone XL pipeline suggested that the pipeline will probably not increase greenhouse gas emissions,\u00a0a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service<\/span><\/a>\u00a0found that the pipeline would increase greenhouse gas emissions anywhere between 3 and 21 million metric tons annually, assuming that the pipeline will accelerate tar sands oil production. This is mainly due to the fact that refining tar sands oil is far more energy intensive than refining normal crude oil.<\/p>\n

Another environmental issue the pipeline raises is the risk of oil spills and potential drinking water contamination. The pipeline runs above the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water to 2 million people in Texas and New Mexico. Complicating matters further, according to\u00a0a New York Times article<\/span><\/a>\u00a0citing federal reports, the agency tasked with monitoring and enforcing safety standards for the pipeline, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, is<\/p>\n

“chronically short of inspectors and lacks the resources to hire more, leaving too much of the regulatory control in the hands of the pipeline operators themselves.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Lastly, it doesn’t even look like the pipeline will create any significant increase in employment of US workers. According\u00a0to a report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute<\/span><\/a>,\u00a0the pipeline will create roughly 2,500-4,650 temporary construction jobs for two years, while creating as few as 50 permanent US pipeline jobs. The State Department’s estimate falls along the same lines, estimating the creation of 5,000-6,000 temporary jobs, while noting that the project would not have a significant impact on long-term employment in the US.<\/p>\n

The President now must decide whether potential environmental damage and drinking water contamination is worth the benefit of a few thousand temporary jobs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Following up on Collin’s article yesterday, I want to add an\u00a0additional perspective\u00a0on the economics of the Keystone XL pipeline. First off, while the State Department report on the Keystone XL pipeline suggested that the pipeline will probably not increase greenhouse gas emissions,\u00a0a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service\u00a0found that the pipeline would increase greenhouse gas emissions anywhere between 3 and 21 million metric tons annually, assuming that the pipeline will accelerate tar sands oil production. This is mainly due to the fact that refining tar sands oil is far more energy intensive than refining normal crude oil. Another environmental Continue reading Keystone XL Economics Part II<\/span>→<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":374,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[92,88,8,91],"class_list":["post-402","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","tag-energy","tag-environmental-economics","tag-government-regulation","tag-jobs"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.pugetsound.edu\/econ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/402","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.pugetsound.edu\/econ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.pugetsound.edu\/econ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.pugetsound.edu\/econ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/374"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.pugetsound.edu\/econ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=402"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.pugetsound.edu\/econ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/402\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":410,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.pugetsound.edu\/econ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/402\/revisions\/410"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.pugetsound.edu\/econ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.pugetsound.edu\/econ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.pugetsound.edu\/econ\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}