With the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline heating up, pundits and editorial pages are finding it hard to figure out why on earth anyone would be opposed to a massive new fossil fuel extraction project. Keystone opponents are the “tea party of the left,” according to Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank (11/17/14).
The USA Today editorial page (11/17/14), under the headline “Keystone’s Just Another Pipeline,” argued:
Keystone opponents have claimed that approval of the controversial line would be “game over” for the planet because it would unlock huge quantities of environmentally destructive tar sands oil that would spike global greenhouse gas emissions. But guess what? That oil is getting unlocked anyway, with or without Keystone. And if it doesn’t come to the US, it will head to markets in China and elsewhere.
New York Times columnist David Brooks (11/1/14) added:
Keystone XL has been studied to the point of exhaustion, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it’s a modest-but-good idea. The latest State Department study found that it would not significantly worsen the environment. The oil’s going to come out anyway, and it’s greener to transport it by pipeline than by train.
But is it really the case that, with or without Keystone XL, tar sands oil is coming out of the ground? Not really. As economist Dean Baker put it (Beat the Press, 11/18/14), “The assertion that ‘the oil’s going to come out anyway’ is what economists refer to as ‘wrong.'”
What does he mean by that? The Keystone XL pipeline is especially desirable because it provides a low-cost way of transporting tar sands bitumen to refineries that can process it. Without the pipeline, it becomes far less attractive, and thus more likely that it remains in the ground.
A State Department analysis argued that the oil would likely be transported by rail line if the pipeline was not built, which would raise the carbon emissions associated with the project. As Think Progess noted last year (4/18/13), there are reasons to be skeptical of the conclusion that rail transportation could move as much crude oil as a pipeline would. And journalist Patrick Rucker of Reuters (4/18/13) showed that many industry analysts are skeptical that the tar sands would be viable without Keystone.
There are, of course, plenty of other reasons to be critical of the Keystone XL pipeline, and of tar sands oil drilling in general. In the same edition of the New York Times, for instance, a column by Canadian journalist Andrew Nikiforuk notes the effects in western Canada are considerable:
Since the mining frenzy for this garbage crude took off in 2000, nearly 2 million acres of this ancient forest have been cleared or degraded, according to Global Forest Watch–a swath more than six times the size of New York City. If Keystone XL and other proposed pipelines are approved and bitumen production grows, much more forest will be lost.
Or, as David Brooks would tell you, a modest-to-good idea.
I remember the Republicans standing on principle against the bank bail out for an entire 24 hours. Maybe the Democrats can beat their record?
USIDIOT TODAY: “That oil is getting unlocked anyway, with or without Keystone. And if it doesn’t come to the US, it will head to markets in China and elsewhere.”
It ain’t necessarily so:
* Transport capacity for oil, especially by pipeline, is limited — that’s why it’s increasingly being shipped by rail.
* Rail transport is accident prone (e.g., the colossal explosion in Megantic, Quebec, last year). Opposition to it is growing.
* Pipeline proposals to carry oil/dilbit to China and Europe (i.e., west and east from Alberta) are encountering major opposition, particularly in British Columbia.
* If the price of oil goes much lower, tar sands oil — with expensive energy, water and transport costs — becomes much less economic.
* There’s some prospect that Canada’s Tea Party Conservative government will lose next year’s election. If so, government support for pipeline and rail transit of oil, and the massive tax breaks the industry gets, will likely decline.
The USA Today editorial page (11/17/14), under the headline “Keystone’s Just Another Pipeline,” argued:
And if it doesn’t come to the US, it will head to markets in China and elsewhere.
And like usual, wrong because the oil is going to head to other markets; to whomever pays the most for it. Always has, always will. The Oil we produce here does not stay here, and FAIR has made that point many times over.
The only think “inevitable” in this world are Death and Taxes, and per Terry Pratchett, he just shows occasionally when needed.
Reasonable minds can not differ on this issue. When the other day, Obama finally admitted that the pipeline would carry oil destined for the world market, not the US; and that there would be almost no permanent jobs created, he acknowledged what anyone who had seriously studied the issue for an hour and wasn’t in the hip pocket of the oil industry already knew: Keystone XL is tantamount to allowing your neighbor to run the sewage pipes from his feed lot, rendering plant and slaughter house, through the middle of your living room. The pipe might never burst, but why would you ever be so stupid as to allow it to be laid in the first place? Enough!!