Refuting the Rationale for Approving the Keystone XL

There is evidence to suggest that the Keystone XL will be
approved and this article reviews ten reasons put forth for moving
forward with the pipeline as well as counterpoints.

Despite all of the efforts being made to resist the construction of the Keystone XL,
it will likely gain the approval of U.S. President Barack Obama.
Supporting evidence for the notion that we will move ahead with the
Keystone XL comes from the corporate sector. Powerful corporate
interests have considerable resources that often enable them to
ascertain the outcome of political decisions well ahead of the general
public. Berkshire Hathaway has made a move that indicates that they
believe the pipeline will be approved. Berkshire controls BNSF which is
comprised of nearly 400 different railroad lines that merged or were
acquired. Despite its rail holdings, since the end of 2013, Berkshire
has been greedily buying shares of Phillips 66 Pipeline Flow Improver in a stock deal valued at about $1.4 billion.

The logic to move forward will be based primarily on ten major points, here are those points and the reasons why the rationale of these arguments is flawed:

First is the way the question was framed in the State Department’s
most recent report. When faced with the choice between pipe and rail,
the former is the better option from a total carbon emission point of
view. Rail takes far more energy to move oil compared to a pipeline. Oil
moved by rail increases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 27.8 – 39
percent and if the oil is transported to the Gulf of Mexico, GHG
emissions would rise to about 41.2 percent. What this assessment does
not factor is that regardless of the transportation medium, the emissions profile of tar sands oil is far worse than conventional crude.

The second issue concerns safety and when presented with the false
dichotomy between pipe and rail, the former is once again the better
option. As explained by the Manhattan Institute,
pipe is the safest way to move oil. While pipe is superior from an
environmental safety point of view, this is another false choice, as moving oil by any means is not safe.

Third is the economic argument which encompasses both cost effectiveness and jobs. While it is true that moving oil through a pipeline is more
cost effective than rail the jobs argument is a ruse. The State Department has indicated that there
will be as many as 42,100 (direct, indirect and induced) jobs from the
construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. However, a number of
independent analysis, including one from Cornell University, have refuted this number. The President himself has rebuffed the economic and jobs benefits
of the Keystone XL and he stated that very few permanent jobs would be
created. Some have even suggested that the pipeline will have a harmful
economic impact due to increased fuel costs. In the final analysis, the costs of climate change will utterly eclipse any short term economic gain.

The fourth rational has to do with domestic political considerations. The
Keystone has been a fund raising bonanza for pro-oil Republicans and
some Democrats, so this issue is at the forefront of their midterm
campaign strategies. As we head into the 2014 midterms, polls are already suggesting that the Democrats are in trouble. Denying the
Keystone could undermine many Democrats up for
reelection. Despite the President’s go it alone strategy, there
is only so much he can do with Executive Orders. He cannot afford to
lose control of the Senate or lose ground in the House. However, there
are times when a President must lead the nation in a new direction, rather than succumb to the the
short-sighted math of political equations.

A fifth reason is President Obama’s “all of the above” energy
strategy which he reiterated in his most recent State of the Union
address. The President has repeatedly stated that he seeks energy
independence and the Keystone XL can be construed as a means of
achieving this objective. Those concerned about our climate see this as myopic, they would like the President to
abandon his all of the above strategy in favor of a “best of the above” approach.

The sixth reason is the demand for oil and heavy bituminous oil in
particular. Heavy bituminous oil is critical for operations at U.S.
refineries because light crude does not have the carbon content to make
anything other than diesel and gasoline. Bituminous oil is used to make a
far larger number of products. Currently, heavy oil is being shipped to
the U.S. from Venezuela, but those reserves are expected to be depleted
in the next five years. What this argument does not address is the fact that demand for tar sands oil needs to be
curtailed and replaced with alternatives rather than expanded.

A seventh reason arises from the claims that suggest if this oil is
not used by the U.S. it will be shipped to China. This is simply not true. The Canadian government has not been able to gain
approval for the Northern Gateway pipeline which would ferry the bitumen
to the west coast for transport to China. Further, the U.S. should not
be phased by investment groups invovled in Alberta’s tar sands as they
are driven by profits that will be generated from transporting the oil to
the U.S, not shipping the sands to China.

An eighth reason involves the fact that because oil is already being
moved by pipelines across the country, one more will not make a
difference, even if it traverses the Ogallala aquifer. Proponents of the
Keystone point to the pipelines, gas stations and chemical plants that
are already on top of the aquifer. What this assessment ignores is the
vast number of massive oil spills
that have occurred and the fact that pipelines inevitably spill oil. A
pipeline as large and as dangerous as the Keystone XL represents an
unacceptable level of risk. At a time when we should be scaling back
fossil fuel pipelines, we should not build another simply because this
is what we have done in the past.

A ninth factor and perhaps the most salient issue involves the fact
that shutting down the Keystone XL would be a blow to the fossil fuel
industry, the most powerful and lucrative industry on earth. We cannot allow our legislatures to be controlled by an industry that threatens to
destroy our civilization.

The tenth reason it that the Keystone XL will not increase GHGs. To meet the needs of the Keystone XL, the tar sands will need to be expanded, and no matter how you look at it this will increase emissions.

Whether or not he will admit it, the pipeline fails the
President’s own climate test, which he outlined in his speech at
Georgetown last year. If we are not be able to curb our consumption
of petrochemicals, we will not be able to reduce our GHGs. The result
will be runaway climate change. Simply put, we cannot afford to ramp up
oil production, particularly oil as destructive as that which comes from
the tar sands.

While it is tragically unfortunate, the Keystone will likely win
the approval of the President, albeit for all the wrong reasons.

As Bill McKibben pointed out early last year,

“Physics…takes the carbon dioxide we produce and
translates it into heat, which means into melting ice and rising oceans
and gathering storms. And unlike other problems, the less you do, the
worse it gets. Do nothing and you soon have a nightmare on your hands.
With climate change, unless we act fairly soon in response to the
timetable set by physics, there’s not much reason to act at all.”

McKibben concludes by saying that we cannot afford to wait for
President to reign in the fossil fuel industry, “we’re not waiting for
him. We can’t.”

The large body of climate science
clearly tells us that we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels and this is especially true of the tar
sands. It would be far better to shut down the Keystone XL and allow the
combination of government regulations and market forces to wean America
off of fossil fuels. This could in turn drive massive investment in
renewable energy which is both clean and abundant.