Turning the tide

Posted 8/21/12

I felt relief and gratitude last Friday when President Obama rejected the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. After years of debate about TransCanada’s proposed 1,179 mile pipeline to carry …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Turning the tide

Posted

I felt relief and gratitude last Friday when President Obama rejected the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. After years of debate about TransCanada’s proposed 1,179 mile pipeline to carry Canadian tar sands oil (also called bitumen or heavy sour crude) from Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast, the President stated decisively that the project was not in the best interests of the U.S., either economically or environmentally.

Alberta tar sands oil requires extremely energy intensive processes to extract and refine, has a higher carbon footprint than conventional oil at every stage of development and use, and leaves environmental devastation in its wake. Nevertheless, the industry argued persistently for approval, claiming the project would create U.S. jobs, promote economic development along the pipeline route, and support the U.S. steel industry. As far back as 2011, a report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute* effectively debunked these claims, especially the bloated job estimates. The study uncovered fatal flaws in TransCanada’s methodology and concluded that most of the jobs would be temporary and non-local. It showed that most of the steel for the pipeline would come from India, South Korea, and Russian-owned factories in Canada through contracts already negotiated, that refining of tar sands sour crude releases more toxic chemicals into the environment than conventional oil, and that this pollution would contribute significantly to health care costs for workers and communities near the refineries.

For me the most cynical and deceptive ploy was the industry’s claim that Keystone would foster energy independence. They even coined a term, “ethical oil,” to invoke our patriotism and exploit concerns about importing oil from Saudi Arabia, conveniently failing to mention that the entire project was fueled by multinational investment, that the refined oil was destined for export to Asian markets, and that the Port Arthur refinery was half-owned by the Saudi state-owned oil company, Aramco.

The patriotism argument is a particularly powerful trigger designed to silence deeper questions about environmental responsibility and economic equity. We’ve heard it throughout the fracking debate, as communities are urged to become environmental “sacrifice zones” to serve an illusory greater good. But the ground shifted as the debate wore on. The “boom-and-bust” roller coaster came full circle, illustrating the disastrous down side of extreme extraction. Environmentalists and ranchers joined forces to protect the Ogallala Aquifer and protest the improper use of eminent domain to take land for what was so clearly a private enterprise for private gain. New studies demonstrated that the renewable energy industry generates more jobs with better rates of pay than the entire fossil fuel sector, and climate scientists and high-profile activists waged a well-publicized campaign, mobilizing thousands of protesters and enduring multiple arrests to make the point that Keystone XL would worsen global warming. They’re the real patriots in this story, they and the millions of citizens who have awakened to the real threat of climate change and the clear path to clean energy and true energy independence from renewable sources. Bravo, and thank you.

*“Pipe dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL,” www.ilr.cornell.edu/sites/ilr.cornell.edu/files/GLI_keystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here