We must separate the substance from the rhetoric and symbolism.
TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring tar sands oil from Canada to refineries in Oklahoma and Texas, has been a hugely divisive issue.
Environmentalists have vociferously opposed it, citing the extra greenhouse gas emissions from burning this kind of oil (just how much extra is unclear -- see here and here) and the potential to damage sensitive ecosystems from pipeline failures (see here, here, and here).
On the pro-pipeline side, energy industry folks claim that the oil from the pipeline is essential to secure America's energy future and would create a whole slew of new jobs (anywhere from 20,000 to 250,000), helping put our economy back on track.
It's been up to President Obama's administration, specifically the State Department, to decide whether the pipeline is in the national interest and thus can go forward, or is not and thus cannot.
The administration's handling of that decision has not been especially smooth, with fits and starts and even rumors of an all-but-done deal (see here and here).
Last November, the State Department announced that the proposed route through Nebraska's environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region required additional review, thus pushing the decision to 2013, conveniently after the 2012 presidential election.
That review notwithstanding, Congressional Republicans, presumably trying to force the president's hand on the matter, folded a provision into the completely unrelated payroll tax bill, which had that special, needs-to-be-passed-before-Christmas-break timing sauce. To get his desired tax holiday extension, the president had to agree to make a yay-or-nay decision on Keystone by Feb. 21, 2012. At the time it seemed like a gotcha moment for the Republicans.
But yesterday, in announcing his determination that the pipeline "would not serve the national interest," the president did a respectable job of finessing the trap laid for him. Basing his decision not on an assessment that the pipeline would be harmful but on the "insufficient" 60-day window afforded by the law passed in December, he said he was unable "to obtain and assess the necessary information" and thus had to rule without all the facts. In other words: don't blame me, blame the Republicans.
Now both sides of the issue are hyping the presidential decision as pivotal, with environmentalist Bill McKibben hailing it as "a brave decision" and Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, characterizing it as "a clear abdication of presidential leadership."
Then there's presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, who slammed both environmentalists and Obama in saying the decision amounted to "pandering to radical environmentalists who don't want energy production, who don't want us to burn more carbon." On the accuracy meter, I'd score that statement a 1 out of 3: right about burning less carbon, clearly wrong about not wanting to produce energy, and "radical" is a bit over the top, don't you think?
Let's try to deconstruct the hype to assess what the decision really means.
Foreign Oil and Energy Independence
Not surprisingly, some are characterizing the president's pipeline halt as a blow to our energy security and independence and a gift, in the form of petrodollars, to Middle East oil sheiks. Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, for example, said the decision shows that Obama isn't serious about "achieving energy independence." Such conclusions seem off the mark.
Environmental Protections
But even without the Obama decision the pressure against the proposed path for the Keystone XL pipeline was building. For example, Nebraska has stepped in and passed two laws: the first giving the state pipeline-siting authority, and the second requiring that the pipeline's path be altered to avoid environmentally sensitive areas (more on this here).
The Book Not Closed
Do not assume this decision marks the end of the Keystone XL saga. TransCanada has already announced plans to reapply for a permit (with a rejiggered route for the pipeline) and House Republicans are planning hearings on the decision. Even the president has indicated his decision may not be set in stone. Catch the subtle caveat in his statement: "[T]he Keystone XL pipeline project, as presented and analyzed at this time, would not serve the national interest" (emphasis mine).
Stay tuned.
This piece originally appeared on TheGreenGrok.com.
Follow Bill Chameides on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheGreenGrok
Renee Parsons: Keystone Pipeline Fight Is Not Over
Matt Price: A Pipeline to China Was Always Harper's Scheme
Andrew Weaver: Our New Study: Coal is 1500 Times Worse for the Environment than Oil Sands
The Keystone pipeline is about more than just politics, it is a vehicle through which americans can start to rebuild their lives and return to a more normal state. The promise of 20,000 jobs to blue collar and middle class Americans shouldn’t be a question of politics but rather policy that will aid us in making the speedy economic recovery that we need that will benefit us now and in the future (http://bit.ly/ytP77z). What this is about is really a lack of a decision and kicking the can further down the road on an issue that we have already been discussing for more than long enough. Let’s just decide a real course of action so we can get on our way in making a real economic recovery rather than a faux one.
In Obama's second term the permit will be granted because the study will have been completed - all will be satisfied except the oil industry & GOP. Somebody must take responsibility to try and keep our environment safe.
But Obama will get media lynched for going against the big bad Koch Bros, USA Chamber, and other the1% greedy dogs plus their GOP talking heads.
Obama's apparent change of heart in the matter of clean energy has, predictably, not found much support from special interest groups.
In August of last year, an independent panel of scientists from 22 universities and institutions sent Secretary of Energy David Chu an open letter urging him to modify the membership of the U.S. Energy Advisory Board committee
Dubbed the 'fracking panel', the Energy Advisory Board — which was appointed to study the effects of fracking on the environment — was openly criticized by environmental groups for consisting only of biased, pro-fossil fuel members who suppressed scientific testimony in an effort to block further scrutiny and potential regulation.
Critics claimed the fracking panel failed to invite any external reviewers or independent experts, and was openly accused of having strong financial and political ties to the gas industry.
"Although the pipeline, if approved, would increase the supply of oil reaching the U.S., a 2009 market analysis conducted by TransCanada, builder of the pipeline, forecast higher prices. The analysis, which TransCanada conducted as part of its Canadian permit application, projected that prices would increase about $3 per barrel as a result of the pipeline.
That would send at least an additional $2 billion from American consumers to Canadian and multinational oil interests, despite the increase in supply."
Now do you believe me? In addition to this fact, the project will greatly benefit the dastardly Koch Bros who own businesses that "already import and refine 25 percent of oil sands crude reaching the U.S." according to the same story in Reuters.
Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest and found that U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher if the pipeline goes through. At least $500 million of the added expense would come from the Canadian market manipulation. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/117832183.html
“» The construction of KXL will create far fewer jobs in the US than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates.
» The industry’s US job claims, and even the State Department’s analysis, are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget. However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion.
» The claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the US is unsubstantiated. There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the US
» The industry’s job projections fail to consider the large number of jobs that could be lost by construction of KXL. This includes jobs lost due to consumers in the Midwest paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs ($2 to $4 billion) will suppress other spending and cost jobs. Furthermore, pipeline spills, pollution and increased greenhouse gas emissions incur significant human health and economic costs, thus eliminating jobs.
Put simply, KXL’s job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project’s potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions.â€
No, more like 1/2 to 1/3rd of a percent. The US emits around 20 metric tons of CO2 per capita, or around 6 billion metric tons of CO2 total. The CO2 emitted by extracting the oil that would flow through the pipeline would be around 12 to 24 million metric tons. That works out to less than 0.4 percent.
Calling 0.4 percent "a few percent" is pretty misleading. You're off by a factor of 5 at least.