Social construction and physical nihilation of the Keystone XL pipeline: Lessons from international relations theory

If a prime goal of energy policy is to achieve energy security, why is there a controversy over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, designed to deliver new supplies of oil from within North America? This Viewpoint seeks answers in the debate over the underlying purposes of energy policy: how does one answers the question "what do we want from energy policy?" Perceptions of feasible answers and policy options change over time, as witnessed in the 1970s. Analogous shifts in opinion are changing today's policy debates and widening the contradictions in policy purposes. Attention to the existence of these contradictions, without illusions, is necessary to meet the policy challenges of the future effectively. - Highlights: • We apply international relations theory to explain the persistence of the Keystone controversy. • Key question relates to policy purposes: "what do we want from energy policy?" • Alternative purposes: maximizing economic growth or ensuring environmental sustainability. • 1970s US cases show how perceptions of each purpose's relative feasibility shift. • Different purposes generate different attitudes to policies that result in higher oil prices