I am writing this in response to the article titled “Keystone pipeline is not good for Nebraska.” Currently, I’m a second-year marketing student at Creighton and feel its necessary to share my opinion.

Often, the only news that people see about the Keystone pipeline is negative. Nearly every news article (or opinion article, in this case), revolves around the various environmental effects of building the pipeline—the deforestation, the potential for oil spills, the water waste, the list goes on.

But why are we building the pipeline in the first place? Major funding and lobbying at the hands of TransCanada is many people’s answer, but why are they funding it?

A company doesn’t usually spend $5 billion on something that won’t increase their bottom-line. But why will their bottom-line be increased in the first place?

Demand and efficiency. This is the short answer as to why they are attempting to construct the pipeline. First of all, the pipeline will be a much more cost-effective option for oil exportation.

Shipping oil from Canada, which was not economically rational at one time because it would need to be done by train or truck, would be much cheaper with the Keystone pipeline. With more efficiency also comes less pollution from transportation.

The second reason for its construction that most people don’t consider is demand. We all drive petroleum-fueled cars. The vast majority of the US and the world has and will continue to drive petroleum-fueled cars (that is, until Tesla Motors and Elon Musk make electric cars more accessible).

Furthermore, it’s a rational assumption that the person who wrote the piece likely drives a petroleum-fueled car as well, or has ridden on a diesel-fueled bus, or flown in an airplane. The oil from the pipeline won’t be pumped into the Gulf of Mexico for fun. It’s going to consumers. As long as there continues to be the demand, there will be a need for suppliers (i.e. TransCanada) to supply the oil. And that is what the pipeline will serve to accomplish— meeting demand.

Responding to the comments regarding climate change: one sentence claims, “The pipeline would cause irreversible climate changing effects such as the runaway greenhouse effect.” This is simply an absurd claim.

For those that aren’t aware, the “runaway greenhouse effect” is essentially the concept where climate-change/greenhouse gas causes the ocean to boil away. Many scientists believe that this will occur on Earth in approximately five billion years. If you believe that a pipeline running 2,000 miles through the US will cause these effects, that’s absurd.

Secondly, the article states that, [according to] the FOE…pollution is 3-4 times greater than that of normal oil”. This is an unfound fact. A more respected agency, the U.S. State Department states, “Oil sands crude emits about 17% more greenhouse gases than traditional oil.” This is much less than 3-4 times (as the original fact claimed). Furthermore, the pipeline is a mode of transportation, not a method of extraction. The fact stated above relates to the environmental effects of extraction.

Imagine for a minute that the pipeline doesn’t get passed.

Years into the future, we will likely run low on fossil fuels. Worst-case scenario (which wouldn’t happen, because this it would go against all logical economic concepts), the only untapped fossil fuels in North America are in the tar sands of Canada (where the Keystone pipeline would be transporting oil from).

Do you honestly believe that by not building the pipeline, and with incredibly high demand, Canada’s tar sands will just be forgotten about and unused? That’s beyond unrealistic.

Even if the pipeline is never allowed to be built, the oil will be extracted and used/consumed by other means and will fail to have a benefit on the US economy. Even if all oil from the pipeline is exported (which won’t happen),the US will profit from consistent taxes/revenues from TransCanada and export taxes/fees, not to mention the American jobs created in the process.

My point is not to convince people that the Keystone pipeline will be good for the environment. By no means will it be good, nor will it have a positive impact on the environment. Instead, it will ultimately serve our demands for oil in the most efficient and environmentally-effective method possible, and will create American jobs in the process.

Consider riding a bike everywhere, selling your car or even making the switch to a CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) fueled car, and then write a letter about why big oil companies are bad and the Keystone pipeline would be detrimental.

They are business, meeting consumer demand.​