Obama recently vetoed the Keystone Pipeline XL project meant to transport oil from Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska. I have to say I support his decision.

TransCanada Corp. hopes to extend a 36-inch wide pipeline 1,179 miles across the United States to make transporting oil faster and more efficient, despite the Obama administration’s lack of support for the project.

TransCanada tells its audience all about the benefits of installing the pipeline, such as an increase of jobs, more money from faster oil transport, and less dependence on foreign nations.

TransCanada focuses on the supposed benefits like more oil and jobs and ignores the consequences of installing such a pipeline.

First, the pipeline could be devastating to the Ogallala Aquifer, a 225,000 square-mile underground pool of water that runs from South Dakota to Texas. Many are concerned with the possibility that the pipeline could leak and contaminate the aquifer that provides drinking water to millions of Americans.

So what TransCanada and multiple politicians need to ask themselves is whether or not money from efficient oil transport is more important than providing water to millions of people across the United States?

Also, the thousands of jobs that this construction project provide are only short-term, so in the long run it wouldn’t benefit anyone except for the guys in charge at TransCanada.

TransCanada also claims that they won’t contribute to global gas emissions; however, if they contribute to oil distribution, then they most definitely will contribute to our declining environment at some point. We may not see those effects right away, but every reaction starts a chain reaction, which, in this case, is a negative one.

Instead of ignoring the multiple reasons we shouldn’t allow the pipeline to be installed, the government officials, mainly the Republicans, are supporting the Keystone XL pipeline should listen to science. Right now they are allowing themselves to be blinded by corporate profit and money.

While I do validate the opposing viewpoint in their effort to bring about a boost in the economy. They are flawed in their thinking, trying to stretch the truth of their benefits to gain America’s support.

Obama has a point in denying the Keystone Pipeline XL; we should be using the money that was designated to the project for other purposes such as environment friendly cars and transportation and fixing the environment that we have damaged.

After weighing the pros and cons of the pipeline, I believe that the negative consequences simply outweigh the benefits that are gained.