The Keystone XL Pipeline shows little sign of going away. Despite the Obama administration's decision to reject the first proposal, it is widely expected that TransCanada will submit a revised plan in the coming months. And in the meantime, the pipeline continues to attract powerful backers and opponents. Former President Bush has called it a "no-brainer" and Joe Nocera has written two columns defending the pipeline in the New York Times (column 1; column 2). Many have argued as vociferously against the pipeline, including environmentalist Bill McKibben (founder of 350.org) and a group of Nobel Peace Prize winners including the Dalai Lama.
I have already written that I agree with the pipeline's opponents. Given that pipelines are like marriages, I do not believe this is a good soul mate for America when the long-term implications are considered. But since we can expect these issues to be discussed repeatedly in coming months, it is worth taking the time to separate fact from fiction.
Fact: Stopping the Keystone Pipeline will not prevent global warming
Though the Keystone Pipeline is capable of transporting large quantities of oil -- up to 590,000 barrels per day -- and tar sand oil is more polluting than conventional crude, this pipeline is not the climate end game. The maximum capacity of the pipeline is only 3 percent of current U.S. consumption (roughly 19 million barrels per day) and 0.7 percent of global consumption (roughly 85 million barrels per day). This has a major carbon footprint but is only one among many of the climate challenges we face. In order to address climate change, we will need a wide-ranging response that addresses issues far beyond the Keystone Pipeline.
Fiction: America needs this oil
Americans waste a huge amount of oil. It has recently been estimated that 350 million barrels of oil (nearly a million barrels of oil a day -- a greater amount than the capacity of the Keystone Pipeline) is wasted on food that is thrown out (the oil is used in fertilizers, tractors, long-haul trucks, and by consumers to drive to grocery stores). American drivers waste an estimated 1.9 billion gallons of fuel (roughly equivalent to 45 million barrels of oil) in congested traffic every year. Simply making sure that all tires were properly inflated could save 1.2 billion gallons of fuel per year, another 28 million barrels. Efficiency improvements like better insulation and hybrid vehicles could achieve further savings while putting money back in people's pockets. We do not need more barrels of oil; we need to patch the leaks in the barrels we are using.
Fact: We can weaken OPEC by reducing consumption
One of the frequent defenses of the Keystone Pipeline is that it will prevent American dollars from flowing to the Middle East. The problem with this view is that oil is a fungible commodity. If the United States shifts its fuel mix to absorb less oil from OPEC and more from Canada, the extra oil from OPEC will be absorbed by international markets. OPEC nations will still continue to profit. As basic economics tells us, lowering consumption lowers the demand curve, thereby acting to decrease the market price of oil. This means that all OPEC nations will receive a lower price for their oil regardless of where it is purchased, arguably a better outcome for American foreign policy than simply shifting the fuel mix.
Fiction: Tar sand oil is not significantly worse for climate change than conventional oil
Some pipeline advocates are citing a recent IHS-CERA study that argues tar sand oil produces only 6 percent more carbon than conventional crude. This is an overly optimistic estimate from an industry-affiliated group that is not consistent with other findings. Tar sands must be mined with giant trucks and then heat is applied in order to separate the bitumen from the sands, thereby increasing the carbon footprint. A more reasonable estimate of 20-25% is found in a detailed analysis by Stanford Assistant Professor Adam Brandt. Moreover, a recent report notes that the overall impact may even be significantly worse than previously thought because tar sand companies are replacing boggy peat lands that absorb large amounts of carbon with dry forests when they are finished mining. We do not have determinative data yet to calculate the exact difference between tar sand oil and conventional crude, but there is little doubt that it is much higher than 6 percent.
Fact: We cannot prevent climate change if we cannot say no to projects like the Keystone Pipeline
Proponents of the Keystone Pipeline are correct to note that stopping its construction will not halt global warming. And the project does offer some virtues including job creation and increased energy security. But an inversion of this statement is also true. If we cannot agree to say no to projects that will entrench the use of fossil fuel energy -- even if they offer some short-term benefits -- we cannot hope to prevent global warming. Stopping the Keystone Pipeline, therefore, is important because it signals a willingness to make difficult decisions in the present that will have significant benefits in the future.
At the end of the day, we do not want more oil for its own sake -- we want it for the things it does for us. American consumers want convenient personal transport and warm homes, not oil. Politicians want to achieve energy security and less dependence on hostile governments. These goals can be achieved with less oil, and at less cost, through conservation. Rather than building the Keystone Pipeline, we will be better served by trimming the fat from our current energy system.
Chris Mooney: The Science of Truthiness: Why Conservatives Deny Global Warming
Frances Beinecke: New Limits on Carbon Pollution Will Help Usher in a Clean, Healthier Future
An issue environmentlist sweep under the rug!
http://www.tnonline.com/2012/mar/10/our-country-downward-spiral
Approval of the pipeline should require that the oil be used in the US.
1.) You state that reduced demand will reduce prices. The demand is presently down in the U.S. yet prices are continually going up. That argument doesn't hold water. In case you have forgotten this is a global economy and global quest for oil. In addition, how does the U.S. or the Huffington Post plan on reducing demand in China and India to effect a reduction in price ?
Not a well thought out argument once again.
2.) You speak about the energy used to produce oil from sand tars, etc. Have you looked at the energy used and costs to commodities of ethanol. Ethanol is a net loss in energy and most everyone acknowledges that now. So, why are you still defending ethanol and not mentioning the
subsidies and costs to the American Public of the leftists ethanol agenda ?
I just love it when people express ideology rather than deal with facts.
I think most people will do what is right if given the unfiltered facts rather than a spin on such.
Sounds like an inside deal to make some people even richer with no benefit to the American public.
Make them guarantee that 50% or more of the oil will be kept in America and then see if they still want to built it.
Top Contributors, 2011-2012Contributor Amount
Exxon Mobil $992,573
Koch Industries $872,912
Oxbow Carbon & Minerals $750,250
Top Recipients, 2011-2012Candidate Office Amount
Perry, Rick (R) $833,674
Dewhurst, David H (R-TX) $650,850
Romney, Mitt (R) $597,950
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Senate $264,700
Barrasso, John A (R-WY) Senate $225,400
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01
Chesapeake Energy $669,251
Chevron Corp $619,266
Occidental Petroleum $520,098
Energy Transfer Partners $365,650
Crownquest Operating $358,500
Valero Energy $335,887
Well, he would know.
Now get the EPA out of the way, eliminate the ridiculous EPA CNG conversion licensing hurdles, and mandate that all car manufactures to offer the same Tri-Fuel (Gasoline, Pure Ethanol, Compressed Natural Gas) engines here that are sold in Brazil.
In the immortal words of Ross Perot- "Problem Solved!"
The problem with tri-fuel and dual fuel vehicles for that matter is the difference in amount of power generated between the different fuels in a engine designed primarily for a single fuel source. Although I've yet to read anything on any country that has tri-fueled vehicles. Several auto makers have developed engines that offer 100% the power of gasoline fueled by ethanol or by CNG. However, that level of power changes if your engines operate on multiple fuels. And by the way, to my knowledge Brazil has never used pure ethanol as automotive fuel. They've varied the mixtures over the past decades because of changes in prices drops in the past. These have included what we call E85, 60-40, 70-30 and several other alternatives. And the problem with mandating something is who's going to pay for it and who's going to pay for the infrastructure required to make CNG and ethanol (not to mention electric) available to the masses. Until that's done do you really think the automakers are going to build a car where only a small percentage of the population has access to refueling stations?
Many Americans DO have access to CNG and/or can fill up at home. Ethanol really makes no sense in the USA because we use corn to mek it.
Apparently, that was a problem 30 years ago. The tri-fuel cars in Brazil work great. The computer chip in the car switches between CNG and gasoline as needed on the fly. If you run out of gasoline before you run out of CNG, then the car will become "underpowered", but it will still get you to the nearest gas station.
"And by the way, to my knowledge Brazil has never used pure ethanol as automotive fuel. "
umm, you've never heard of E100? Of neat ethanol vehicles?
You're full of misinformation here. Try googling the Nissan Siena Tetra Fuel for a modern "Tri-Fuel" vehicle (they call it Tetra Fuel for marketing purposes) and E100 Brazil.
One near the Canada border and one a little farther south so that the fuel produced can be used in the US.
RT video. Just thought I'd let you know...
Vehicles, although vastly improved since 1995 (with the advent of electronic controls called OB 2) are still the main culprit. Have you seen the tiny, one passenger German car that uses 1 gallon of diesel per 258 miles? They are kinka like an enclosed motorcycle. They cost $600 (Yea, six hundred dollars) and will be available soon. I'd pay for one today if I knew where to put in my order. Damn clever, them Krauts (I can say that 'cause I am one).
The VOLT's lack of sales stem from questions raised about it's safety. Electric vehicles will never become more than the localized commuter vehicle unless something changes. Besides being limited in driving distance, the refueling/recharging time needed further limits their use. I've often wondered if they shouldn't create a standardized battery system so once you needed recharging you simply pulled into a recharging center, swapped your battery pack for a newly charged pack then on your way again. We already do that everyday with these portable propane bottles hooked up to gas grills!
VW also has an electric car (same price range) that has the passenger sitting behind the driver and will charge off of standard house-hold current in about 3 hours.
I agree that most will be commuter vehicles ONLY and GREAT idea for battery swaps.
I just don't want to be in one of those things when a semi goes by at 75 mph.
It was, however, the only one that Limbaugh was largely responsible for, with his relentless bogus attacks on the vehicle. The man is beyond comprehension.
Ah yes.. but haven't we been trying conservation for a number of decades now? And look, here we are today. It hasn't worked.
Oh, it's not so cheap anymore. But who cares so long as we can defeat Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
Oh, our oil dollars go to support Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah, as well as the Iranian bomb.
So maybe we need to find a way around using so much oil? Like maybe using more mass transit?