Skip to main content

View Diary: Keystone Isn't Any Normal Pipeline (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My comment, for what it's worth (12+ / 0-)

    There are many reasons to reject Canada's request to transport tar sands oil across the U.S. I will focus only on one: the assumption in the State Department's study that asserts that the tar sands oil would be excavated, refined, and burned into the atmosphere regardless of the decision on the TransCanada Keystone pipeline.

    This assumption is economically absurd. Facilitating the export of the tar sands product with a new pipeline will make it less costly and thus more economical to excavate and export more tar sands oil. If it were more costly to transport, Canada would excavate and transport less of it. It really is that simple. Starting with the assumption that the oil would be burned regardless of the pipeline is not just inaccurate, it produces an enormous bias.

    The U.S. should begin leading by example, and quit using public resources and lands to subsidize petrochemical production, and by extension CO2 and other greenhouse gas pollution. Global warming is that greatest threat to the U.S. geopolitical security in the century to come, and we must start getting used to the idea that the key to our security and prosperity will be leaving most fossil fuel reserves safely sequestered in the ground. And at the very least, we should stop subsidizing greenhouse gas emissions.

    Greenbelt MD

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site