With so much buzz around TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would transport oil from Canada’s tar sands to the Texas coast, almost anyone new to the discussion would think a major battle with large effects on job creation, environmental protections and carbon emissions is being waged. Few would gather the actual significance of the pipeline on these fronts: minimal at best.

That’s right, with the State Department’s final environmental impact statement, released Jan. 31, comes revelations that only a few thousand temporary jobs would be created and the risks of spills or other negative environmental impacts are likely less than those of traditional oil transport. In addition to these findings, the extraction of Canadian oil sands (and thus the emissions associated with them) is expected to proceed rapidly whether or not the pipeline is built.

The validity of the State Department’s report has been called into question, though, due to a perceived conflict of interest by those involved the assessment. This is a grave accusation, but may be more than a little misleading.

Environmental Resources Management, the consulting firm that worked with the State Department on the Keystone XL assessment, does work with TransCanada and other oil companies to assess risk and environmental impacts of various projects, including pipelines. According to correspondence released by the State Department, these potential conflicts were known and dealt with, by ERM both separating its personnel and declining other business that would have jeopardized their neutrality.

To say that ERM worked on projects related in some way to TransCanada is technically true, but in the relatively small world of oil pipeline environmental impact analysis, such relationships are not necessarily cause for worry, as long as appropriate precautions are taken.

Opponents of Keystone have been hard at work long before the final environmental impact statement was published, however. Even without figures on jobs created or information on the potential damages to our land and water, it has been repeatedly stated that the Keystone XL pipeline is a symbol of our government’s environmental commitment.

Those that would see the project scrapped, such as 350.org, a group dedicated to combatting climate change, have vested the pipeline with as much symbolic importance as they can muster. Referring to the proposal as “the fuse to the largest carbon bomb on the planet,” 350.org has helped inspire hundreds of demonstrations around the nation, including a Feb. 3 protest right here in Ames.

What these protesters are doing is admirable, in a way. They have decided to take a stand in defense of our environment, against the damaging effects of the fossil fuel industry. Unfortunately for these activists, they have chosen the wrong issue. Stopping the Keystone XL pipeline may be a symbolic victory, but it is not a real victory for the American environment.

Yes, specific eyesores such as a thousands-of-miles-long pipe make it easier to drum up support, but a win is essentially meaningless. Keystone XL does not have a massive impact on the environment in any capacity.

Taken as an important precedent, the value of blocking the project is even worse. What would our government be saying by disallowing TransCanada to build a relatively safe transport system? We certainly would not be saying we disapprove of fossil fuels, or even the use of the comparatively pollution heavy tar sands.

All our government would be saying is that they will selectively prevent perceived environmental risks, irrespective of their actual impact. If we wish to protect our environment, we should be demanding policy changes with real effects, not symbolic victories.