Opinions

Climate change is biggest reason to oppose Keystone pipeline

Not all pipelines are the same; not all oil projects are good energy projects. Yet we tend to associate any North American oil project with greater energy security/stability and thousands of jobs. While there is no polling data to confirm it, I think this is why a majority of Americans say "yes" when asked a simple question about supporting the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. They might answer differently if they knew that the Keystone XL pipeline will only transport oil to Gulf Coast refineries for export. No oil comes to the U.S.

In its draft environmental review, the U.S. State Department found that the project will not increase U.S. energy security at all.

When it comes to job creation, the State Department concluded that building the Keystone XL pipeline will create 42,000 temporary jobs over its two-year construction period, but only 35 permanent jobs that will last into the future. Some independent analyses even show the number of construction jobs to be far less. Nonetheless, it is safe to say that the Keystone pipeline is not really a major jobs issue.

Since Keystone doesn't help at all with energy security, and provides almost no jobs after the first two years, the question of support comes down to whether the environmental risks are acceptable. Unfortunately, when it comes to oil projects, most Americans don't pay as much attention to the environmental risks as they do to economic factors. If they did, they might think differently about the Keystone pipeline, because here, unlike the benefits side of the equation, the risks are sizeable.

While the risk of oil spills and groundwater contamination are well known to those living along the route, I want to focus on the biggest risk of all: exacerbating climate change. For those less familiar with the Keystone pipeline, it's easy to think Canada will develop the tar sands oil regardless of what the U.S. does. This is not the case. The alternative Canadian pipeline routes face regulatory hurdles and strong opposition from indigenous groups (over 100 First Nations entities are posing legal challenges) and communities along the proposed routes, making the route through the U.S. the only feasible option. Instead of transiting the U.S. by pipeline, the oil could be moved by rail cars. How much tar sands oil could be moved by rail? This is a question not resolved. However, there are analyses that intimate that the expanded tar sands production is only profitable at volumes deliverable by a pipeline.

Analysis from the Canadian think tank Pembina Institute shows that construction of the Keystone XL is the "key driver for oil sands growth." Canadian economist and petroleum consultant Ralph Glass noted, "Unless we get increased market access, like Keystone XL, we're going to be stuck." Even before the collapse in oil prices, energy experts were concluding that "weak prices will make the economics of future oil sands projects questionable" (New York Times, February 2013). Now with the collapse in oil prices, the likelihood is even stronger that without the Keystone XL pipeline, the expanded production of the Alberta tar sands will not occur and that significant amounts of bitumen and carbon would end up staying in the ground if the pipeline was denied. Since this is a likely scenario, climate change does come into play as touted by groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

Here is what Michelle Robinson, director of the Clean Vehicles Program at UCS, has to say about Congress's current action on the Keystone pipeline: "We have the technology to cut our projected oil use in half over the next 20 years, with stronger efficiency standards, better fuels and a bigger market for electric vehicles. Congressional leaders should be putting time and effort into advancing those policies. Instead, they're focused on helping a Canadian oil company extract and sell tar sands diluted bitumen -- a fuel source considerably dirtier than conventional crude oil, as extracting and refining it creates up to three times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional crude. The benefits are minimal, and the cost to the climate is real. At a time when we need to confront climate change and encourage innovation in energy, this bill takes us in exactly the opposite direction."

ADVERTISEMENT

Now that the connection to climate change is on the table, one might ask, "Where are we on this front?" How close are we to keeping global temperatures from exceeding the 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, a safety limit set by the world's nations, a threshold beyond which scientists argue severe drought, rising seas and supercharged storms become routine challenges? David Victor, a professor of international relations and an expert on climate change policy at USC, San Diego notes, "the trajectory on emissions right now is way above 2 degrees." (NBC News, November 2014) While this is only one metric, suffice it to say we're painfully behind the curve and it is apparent to all engaged countries that some oil must remain in the ground if we are to have any chance of keeping below the 2 degree Celsius limit.

A new tool created by the University College of London evaluates which oil reserves to burn and which to keep in the ground to help get the world back on track. "We've now got tangible figures of the quantities and locations of fossil fuels that should remain unused in trying to keep within the 2C temperature limit," says Christophe McGlade, who led the new research just published in the scientific journal Nature (January 2015). "The work, using detailed data and well-established economic models, assumed cost effective climate policies would use the cheapest fossil fuels first, with more expensive fuels priced out of a world in which carbon emissions were strictly limited. For example, the model predicts that significant cheap-to-produce conventional oil would be burned but that the carbon limit would be reached before more expensive tar sands oil could be used." So from an economic standpoint as well as from an emissions standpoint, Canadian tar sands oil is a reserve of oil that should stay in the ground.

With so little economic upside (except for Koch Industries, which is part owner of the tar sands) for the U.S. -- no difference in energy security and a limited number of jobs for just two years -- why not take responsibility for limiting climate change? The need is more urgent than ever. This is why up to 400,000 people participated in the People's Climate March last September in New York City.

The world's nations will come together in Paris at the end of 2015 to seal a global climate deal. Pope Francis is about to issue an encyclical on climate change. The world is calling out for U.S. leadership on climate change. Yet, the Republican-controlled Congress will likely do the bidding of big oil and the Koch brothers to not only push the Keystone project, but seek to tear apart the president's initiative to put rules in place for coal power plants. Congress will not provide any leadership in combating climate change. It will be up to President Barack Obama again. Because there is so much at stake for a world pressing up against 2 degrees Celsius, the president is right to scrutinize the Keystone XL pipeline.

Kate Troll was appointed by former Gov. Sarah Palin to serve on the state Mitigation Advisory Board on Climate Change. She is a former executive director of United Fishermen of Alaska and serves on the City and Borough of Juneau Assembly.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.

Kate Troll

Kate Troll, a longtime Alaskan, has over 22 years experience in coastal management, fisheries and energy policy and is a former executive director for United Fishermen of Alaska and the Alaska Conservation Voters. She's been elected to local office twice, written two books and resides in Douglas.

ADVERTISEMENT