Keystone pipeline pumping station, Nebraska (cc photo: Shannon Ramos)
In a report on congressional debates over the Keystone XL pipeline, the Washington Post‘s Paul Kane (5/4/14) opines that “the pipeline’s political mythology runs up against the reality of its significance in the energy universe.” Both sides, its seems, are exaggerating the importance of the project:
At its core, the debate is about producing energy, and jobs, versus environmental protections. Yet Keystone’s actual impact is far less significant in those areas and instead has become much more politically symbolic for the sides engaged in this fight.
Even the rosiest estimates predict just 9,000 jobs would be created by allowing this nearly 1,200-mile pipeline to be constructed from western Canada down to Nebraska — a nice bump but not exactly a game-changer for a domestic economy that created 288,000 jobs in April.
Environmental opponents decry that the ensuing 830,000 barrels of oil coursing through the proposed pipeline each day would be carrying a dirty batch of tar sands oil — an alarming figure, yet the first three phases of Keystone pipelines have already been approved and have the capacity to deliver 1.3 million barrels a day through a longer route to the Gulf Coast.
If only politicians on both sides could be sensible like Washington Post reporters!
This convenient debunking of hotheads on each extreme breaks down, however, if you examine the math. Nine thousand jobs is indeed a small percentage of a single’s month’s job growth—about 3 percent, as a matter of fact. Whereas Keystone XL will increase the Keystone pipeline capacity by a considerable amount—about 64 percent per day. (That’s why they call it “XL.”)
The number the Washington Post should be giving us is the amount of carbon in the Canadian tar sands. (photo: Jiri Rezac/Greenpeace)
Looked at another way, 830,000 barrels is about 4 percent of the US’s daily consumption of oil. If Keystone XL were increasing the total number of jobs in the US by 4 percent—that is, adding some 5 million new jobs—that would indeed be something to write home about.
But the really significant number is not the capacity of the pipeline but the amount of carbon in the Canadian tar sands deposits that the pipeline is intended to drain: 240 gigatons, enough to add 120 parts per million of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere if burned, as much again as the Industrial Revolution has managed to add over the past 150 years. If exploitation of the tar sands is not stopped, it will indeed, as climatologist James Hansen (New York Times, 5/9/12) wrote, be “game over for the climate.”
So, actually, comparing environmentalists’ concern about the impact of the Keystone XL pipeline to Republicans’ worry about 9,000 jobs is not as clever as Paul Kane thinks.
He deserves credit, though, for writing yet another article about Keystone that manages to avoid mentioning either “climate change” or “global warming.”
UPDATE: Date for Paul Kane’s Washington Post piece corrected.
Speaking of jobs, energy sources such as wind and solar create more than twice as many jobs as fossil fuel per unit of investment. See: http://theenergycollective.com/rosana-francescato/202511/truth-about-solar. So why is the U.S. government subsidizing the fossil fuel industry?
The vast majority of those “9,000 jobs” are temporary construction jobs. Only 35-50 permanent jobs will remain once the dilbit goo starts “flowing.” It’s not worth the certain damage to the Ogalala Aquifer or any other environmental damage that will be caused.
So why is the U.S. government subsidizing the fossil fuel industry?
I believe you have it backwards sir. The Oil industry is subsidizing the Government to the tune of ‘Paid into the war chest’ and the A.L.E.C. campaigns; we have the best government money can buy.
the 3 comments above fill in whatevers not in the article … BS ‘jobs’, ridiculously backwards investment strategy, and blatant graft .. these are the MAIN factors involved, actually, are they not?
The main question in this debate is whether Climate change is a problem or not. fossil fuel advocates think production of coal, oil and gas will employ out of work people and eliminate our need for foreign.
Those interested in whether the use of the products will hasten the destruction of our way of life. speaking for myself, even though I’m 92 years old, I say change to the Suns energy as soon as possible. It will employ many also, and may well be a matter of life and death for the inhabitants of Earth.
Scientists predict the planet will continue to function for billions of years whether we are here or not, just like it withstood the previous billions. Humans are a recent part of evolution, in many ways we are improving, but we sure haven’t learned to live together without constant WAR. I vote for using the Suns energy which produces more with no CO2. I hope future generations will praise our decisions rather than Damn us for wrong ones.
There are 4 million open positions in the US today. Want jobs? No really want jobs, not just both parties pretending to – want jobs? Support the grass roots movement for a National Hiring Day to fill some of those 4 million jobs. Bring the country together and get people jobs, in one day. Where is the leadership on this?
Common sense seems to be lacking today regarding our environment. Since when is it political?
The oil is going to move one way or another. Would the environmentalists rather it went by train?
There is no corporate-owned media outlet which should be believed about anything. They only publish the propaganda which promotes the profit-oriented agenda of the owners.
Correction: 9,000 temporary jobs while the pipeline is being built.
They could have permanent jobs installing clean, safe, inexpensive solar panels and wind mills.