iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Burwell

GET UPDATES FROM David Burwell
 

Keystone XL: Danger Ahead

Posted: 12/15/11 02:45 PM ET

Will Rogers advised politicians to "never overlook a good opportunity to shut up." Congress should adopt his advice as it considers fast-tracking the Keystone XL pipeline -- keep quiet and let the permit review proceed at its own pace.

Keystone XL is more than a political bargaining chip. It is more than a $7 billion capital energy project. It is the Rubicon that scientists, energy analysts, and environmentalists say we must not cross if we are to keep global warming at or below 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial times. Build Keystone XL and we lock ourselves into reliance on "dirty" energy sources that will put us over the 2 degrees tipping point. It is "game over."

This 2 degrees limit is not a random number. It is the limit beyond which settled science says we risk a 50-50 chance of severe planetary harm. Imagine a world with 35 percent of all species going extinct; a sea level rise flooding natural and urban infrastructure alike; forced exodus of more than 500 million people from coastal areas; and a deadly migration of tropical diseases toward populations that have not built up resistance. All this within the lifetime of those we care about most deeply -- our children and grandchildren.

Energy analysts are increasingly alarmed at the rate that the world is getting "locked-in" to fossil fuels as its primary energy source. The International Energy Agency, in its annual World Energy Outlook 2011, estimates that we have only until 2017 -- just five years from now -- to fundamentally turn capital investments in energy assets away from fossil fuels if we are to stay within this limit. If not, the best we may be able to achieve is a 3.5 degrees increase. If we delay this shift until 2035, we will be on track for a 6 degrees increase, the consequences of which approach planetary suicide. If we continue to mine tar sands -- the unconventional oils Keystone XL will transport at a rate of up to 800,000 barrels a day -- the lock-in occurs even earlier.

The 2 percent limit is also a legal limit. At the UN climate change summit in Cancun one year ago conferees signed an accord to keep global temperature rise to below the 2 degrees threshold. This commitment was reconfirmed and strengthened at Durban last week. Keystone XL requires a permit from the U.S. state department -- the same agency that negotiated the Cancun and Durban agreements. Given the warnings that scientists, energy analysts, and even insurance company executives are now urgently urging policymakers to heed, the state department has a duty to assess permit issuance against its commitments.

With global consensus now consolidating around the 2 degrees limit, you would think both public and private sector leaders would act -- fast. Yet, as noted recently by Lord Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, major oil, gas, and coal companies proceed to extract these fossil fuels on a business as usual basis. Shareholders seem oblivious to the fact that conversion of resources into proven reserves increasingly relies on risky or destructive exploration in the Arctic, deep oceans, and sensitive ecosystems. Sir Nicholas' conclusion: "either the market has not thought hard enough about the issue or thinks that governments will not do very much."

Environmentalists, understanding that neither private markets nor the political system is capable of responding to the challenge posed by climate change, are determined to stop this pipeline using whatever legal tools are available. If markets, international accords, and public policy won't respond by developing a plan to keep fossil fuel emissions within safe limits, then these resources must simply stay in the ground until an enforceable plan is adopted. Unconventional oils are at the frontline of the fight and Keystone XL is the point of the bayonet. Environmentalists are preparing themselves for trench warfare.

Fast-tracking the Keystone XL decision may escalate campaigns to stop oil sands development entirely. Politicians should ponder hard the wisdom of Will Roger's advice.

David Burwell is the director of the climate and energy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

 
Will Rogers advised politicians to "never overlook a good opportunity to shut up." Congress should adopt his advice as it considers fast-tracking the Keystone XL pipeline -- keep quiet and let the per...
Will Rogers advised politicians to "never overlook a good opportunity to shut up." Congress should adopt his advice as it considers fast-tracking the Keystone XL pipeline -- keep quiet and let the per...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:31 PM on 12/18/2011
Responsibility is taking care of your own garbage. Its not patriotic to

poison your neighbors or the grand kids.

Dr James Hansen proposes using $25B Nuclear Waste Fund in accelerating

deployment of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor(LFTR) reactors.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081121_Obama.pdf

Lets do this the Real ole fashioned American way.

Use American R&D Tech Dr Alvin Weinberg engineered at Oak Ridge

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors and the http://www.coal2nuclear.com/

proposed designs to modify coal burners for an All American clean energy

TOUCHDOWN.

America Love her and leave her healthy for the Grand younguns!
11:39 PM on 12/17/2011
I'd like some honest answers and can't find them. Who's oil is this? Will it go to BP/Chevron/Exxon Mobil refineries? If so, why are we paying for it? Why do Tea Party and other republicans want government to have a bigger role in this, and at massive taxpayer expense? The pipeline will be owned by TransCanada, not a USA company. I guess it is another source of oil, but maybe the companies that will profit from it should fund it...?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:36 PM on 12/18/2011
{privatized}Public Option

Wall{ST} to Wall{ST}
photo
intolleft
ObamaTAX...getting you shovel ready
10:52 AM on 12/16/2011
Wow....just wow.
photo
Biminicat
Funny thing, I like to think for myself!
08:27 AM on 12/16/2011
Everyone who is supporting this pipeline swears up and down that the oil from this pipeline will not be exported and instead will be kept for domestic use. Why then is the pipeline being built all the way to the Gulf of Mexico? There are refineries much much closer that certainly could be retro-fitted to accomodate oil sands for a lot less money than bisecting the continent down to the Gulf. My guess......repayment for campaign financing.
09:40 AM on 12/16/2011
I always hear this idea. It would be great to build a big refinery in ND but there are obstacles. There has not been a significant refinery built in the US. This is mostly due to the substantial environmental hurdles that the EPA requires for new construction. As a result, it is nearly impossible to build a refinery. The other thing to consider is that a new large refinery would require the installation of substantial new pipelines to move the refiined products to market. Trucks are insufficient for the kind of volumes we are talking about. That refined product pipe infrastructure is already in place in the gulf coast.
photo
Biminicat
Funny thing, I like to think for myself!
01:27 PM on 12/16/2011
I was thinking more along the lines of an existing refinery that could be retrofitted for a lot less cost than constructing a pipeline for thousands and thousands of miles. I don't think any refineries have been built of late due to the cost of doing so and the profit never being realized to cover such costs.
photo
Lucile S
Lib and a truth lover.
06:38 AM on 12/16/2011
At least there is one thing which is certain: our reliance on fossil fuels will stop very soon. Simply because they are fossil and their reserve will be run out. Thus their emissions are inevitably going to drop under safe limits. But yes maybe it will be too late.
03:53 AM on 12/16/2011
Yeah right a few million extra barrels a day in a world that burns a lot of coal and 80 million barrels a day of oil is going to destroy the planet. Get real!
10:42 PM on 12/15/2011
US failure to approve the pipeline will only mean the oil will go to China. It will not it slow down, just redirect the jobs to areas that care less about the environment.
photo
Lucile S
Lib and a truth lover.
06:45 AM on 12/16/2011
Firstly Keystone XL is an export pipeline. Its oil will go to China in any case. Secondly if department state doesn't approve it no oil will be produced. Even not slow down, but just stop it.
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
07:28 PM on 12/15/2011
I agree that Keystone is the tip of the bayonet. Not just for climate change, but for all our major social and economic ills, since they all at some level hinge on the oil industry, the highest earning and most influential industry of all. If progressives do nothing more than stop Keystone in its tracks they will change the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
05:19 PM on 12/15/2011
Keystone XL will hurt not help job creation in America.... False job creation numbers are being used to promote an anti-environmental rider in Congress in the payroll tax-cut legislation that would short-circuit a badly needed environmental review process for the pipeline....The truth is the pipeline would likely cost jobs from a significant oil spill that would cause widespread contamination of agricultural lands and water.

The Republican party, TransCanada, and the oil industry have been promoting the Keystone XL pipeline promising jobs....In some cases, TransCanada has claimed a staggering 250,000 jobs permanent will be created. These jobs benefits have been significantly exaggerated – and discredited.

Independent studies by the University of Cornell Labor Institute and the State Department further confirmed by the Washington Post report that actual job creation numbers are much much lower.

The number of temporary construction jobs created over the two year period the pipeline will be built will be no more than 6,000 jobs according to the Secretary of State. The Cornell Labor Institute puts that temporary construction job figure to be closer to 2,500-4,650 jobs.

The number of permanent jobs created by the pipeline are as low as 20 according to the State Department. Even the pipeline company TransCanada has admitted the pipeline will only create “hundreds” of permanent jobs....

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddroitsch/keystone_xl_will_hurt_not_help.html
03:30 PM on 12/15/2011
Approve this job or lose the backbone of the democratic party.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:18 PM on 12/15/2011
Then the so-called backbone of the Democratic party would have us all be party to opening up a toxic hole in the Earth, in North America, unlike anything here-to-fore seen - just so we Americans can have a few more years of denial before the bottom drops out of fossil fuels entirely. A few ten-thousand jobs lasting as long as it takes to build the pipeline, and then back on unemployment. A pipeline, so oligarchs are free to ship that damn oil to whatever world market will pay the most.

Blessings to you. I'm sure you mean well. But are we really going to tear out all of the last of the Earth's resources, to turn them into money, very little of which you and yours are going to get? If this pipeline is built, my heart will be broken, that my country will finally have sold it's soul.

www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
03:29 PM on 12/15/2011
Happily ever after fails
And you've been poisoned by Koch Tea faily tails
spill workers try to hide all details
since crude began to leak...