Why is the Liberal Justin Trudeau disappointed about President Obama rejecting Keystone XL Pipeline project?

I think that to would have done more for the Canadian economy than it would have done for ours. For us there would have been about 40K temporary jobs and 40–50 permanent jobs. The product would have gone through our country but then be shipped overseas. They would have had all the benefit from the sales. We really would have had nothing except maybe 50 guys at most making 15 bucks an hour.

The pipeline would have benefited Canada more than the US. For the US all it is is a polished turd being presented as a gold brick.

It would be difficult to locate a greater economic boon in the history of Canada than the stimulus provided by the shale oil/tar sands deposits. Regardless of the horrific environmental consequences, the exploitation of the deposits has been a lifesaver for depressed provinces like Newfoundland. The project provided desperately needed lucrative jobs drawing tens of thousands of Canadians from all over the country. The outright dismissal of the pipeline scheme must be regarded as a grave development by any Canadian politician wishing to remain in office, although the collapse of world wide oil prices had already rendered the pipeline an economic boondoggle.

I agree @stanleybmanly , and as a Canadian I think Canada needs to build a refinery at the Tar sands site and refine it here at home, not ship it to a foreign country via pipeline or rail just waiting for a environment disaster to happen, plus it would put more CANADIANS to work at long term well paying jobs if we did it all here.

@SQUEEKY2 I was wondering about that—that makes the most sense to me.

The irony, is that if the shale oil is produced (which it may not now because of depressed oil prices) then it will be transported by rail, which is higher environmental risk and has a worse carbon footprint.

@Rarebear Tar sands oil is the worst, and a lot of Canadians (and environmentalists worldwide) would rather it simply stayed in the ground, period. It’s getting harder to argue for continued production as oil prices fall, and the inevitability of alternative energy sources starts to sink in. But yes, it would be safer to refine it at source than transport it. That shit cannot be cleaned up when it spills.

As to Trudeau’s response regarding Keystone, I have wondered this question as well, and I suspect that he is probably ambivalent about it. Environmentally, it’s a win – economically and politically (because he campaigned on it), it’s a loss. Hard to guess which side he cares more about personally, if that matters.

@dappled_leaves I’m not saying that tar sand oil is not environmentally destructive. I’m saying that if they pull it out of the ground, which they may if the price of oil goes back up again, then it has to be transported somehow. You either transport it by rail or by pipeline.

It’s a bipartisan issue in Canada, and I’ve heard other liberal politicians such as Chrystia Freeland, speak out in favor of the pipeline.

Economically for the United States I don’t think it’s as big of a deal the Republicans are making it—it’s a much bigger deal for Canada. Yes, the US would get some temporary jobs for pipeline construction, and some permanent ones for the refinery, but the percentage of the overall GDP would be miniscule. Conservative politicians here talk about the loss of jobs, but there are plenty of infrastructure jobs that could be done if the government has the will to fund it. So that’s a weak argument, especially now when there’s no economic incentive for it.

On the other hand, the liberal politicians talk about climate change and the pipeline’s effect on that. That’s also a very weak argument, in that as I wrote before, if the oil fields are developed, and the pipeline is not approved, then it has to be transported by rail which will INCREASE the carbon footprint.

My person opinion is that it’s a market argument. The effect on the environment in the US would be minimal, assuming the pipeline doesn’t leak. The major ecologic effect would be in Canada; as you say, if there is a disaster, it would happen there. If the Canadians want to poop in their own backyard, that’s their business.

@Rarebear I was not disagreeing with you. And yes, of course there is far less potential benefit from this project for the US than there would be for Canada. Trudeau would not be interested in its benefit to the US, economically or otherwise.

Personally (since I did not offer my own opinion before), I know that both pipelines and rail transport carry grave risks – and that rail carries more immediate risk for human beings. In my opinion, rail is preferable to pipeline, because the immediacy of the risk should lead to tighter monitoring and regulation. Of course, there is still negligence in oil transport by rail, as the Lac-Mégantic disaster illustrated very well, and that is a problem. But a pipeline is an easy thing to bury and ignore, and despite reassurances that the industry checks and maintains them properly, we still, inevitably, have environmentally catastrophic spills that go unnoticed for months, if not years. That’s not ok with me, even if it appears to be ok with the population as a whole.

Great posts all. Thank you.

Sure there’s the carbon footprint, which would be greater by rail. However, the proposed KXL pipeline would have ran over or near some extremely ecologically sensitive areas, such as the Ogallala aquifer (one of, if not the, most important aquifers in the United States).