Bitumen being extracted from Canadian tar sands
In a wide-ranging
interview with
The New York Times published Saturday, President Barack Obama hinted once again that he might not approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The interview added to hopes of foes of the pipeline that he may say no when the environmental review and presidential permit process now under way for the pipeline are complete.
In the interview with Michael D. Shear and Jackie Calmes, the president said:
NYT: A couple other quick subjects that are economic-related. Keystone pipeline -- Republicans especially talk about that as a big job creator. You've said that you would approve it only if you could be assured it would not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon in the atmosphere. Is there anything that Canada could do or the oil companies could do to offset that as a way of helping you to reach that decision?
MR. OBAMA: Well, first of all, Michael, Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that’s true. And my hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline -- which might take a year or two -- and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 [chuckles] jobs in a economy of 150 million working people.
NYT: Yet there are a number of unions who want you to approve this.
MR. OBAMA: Well, look, they might like to see 2,000 jobs initially. But that is a blip relative to the need.
So what we also know is, is that that oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can’t ship some of that oil to world markets.
Now, having said that, there is a potential benefit for us integrating further with a reliable ally to the north our energy supplies. But I meant what I said; I'm going to evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release.
NYT: And if they did, could that offset the concerns about the pipeline itself?
MR. OBAMA: We haven't seen specific ideas or plans. But all of that will go into the mix in terms of John Kerry’s decision or recommendation on this issue.
Clearly, there's nothing in that to make people bet their life savings that Obama is definitely going to knock this project down. But it's encouraging that the president mocks Republicans on the grotesquely inflated claims of jobs that would be generated by the project. And that he reiterates the fact the oil refined from tar sands' bitumen transported by the pipeline will just be part of the world market and not bring down gasoline prices. Most of all, it matters that he repeats what he said previously that he will base his decision on whether the pipeline will contribute to global warming.
More on President Obama's talk about Keystone below the fold.
Those of us who hope he goes against our expectations and rejects the pipeline know full well that if the project is evaluated in isolation—just the pipeline alone—a case can be made that it won't exacerbate climate change. To be sure, it's a weak case, a case with all kinds of on-the-other-hands and some flim-flammery, but it's one that might convince many people who would otherwise oppose it.
The pipeline decision should not, however, be made solely on the impact of building that conduit from Alberta to Texas. Without it or an equivalent alternative, the dirty tar sands will not be developed as completely and as quickly as they otherwise would be.
There are "local" reasons for not going ahead as well, as the recent blowout at Cold Lake, Alberta, showed. And the possibility of cancer clusters. And the destruction of boreal forest and consumption and contamination of water in Canada and along the pipeline's route through the American heartland. But the key reason for opposition is carbon load and the message it would send about U.S. seriousness in dealing with climate change.
Rejecting the pipeline would be both a symbolic and an actual move that says the United States is not kidding about ending its dependency on fossil fuel. Approving it would not be merely a green-light for further development of the dirty tar sands in Canada. It would also encourage those who seek to develop tar sands in the United States and what is arguably an even dirtier source of petroleum—the oil shale kerogen in the Green River formation of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The latter would be a huge disaster, one that so far has been avoided because of technological inadequacies and, in the 1980s, a plunge in oil prices that made extracting the stuff uneconomic.
It's been argued by many that there is absolutely no doubt that President Obama will approve the northern leg of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Until recently, I've been about 90 percent in that camp myself.
Some proponents of this view say that, for one thing, Obama intentionally gave TransCanada a second chance—a wink and a nudge—when he rejected the pipeline route 18 months ago by saying the company was free to reapply without prejudgment. Some say the delay, even though it provided his Republican foes with ammunition against him, was merely a way for the president to shore up his shaky left—or green—flank for the 2012 election.
Then there is the fact that he went out of his way to show up and say good things about the southern leg of Keystone XL from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the refineries of the Texas Gulf Coast when he enthusiastically joined the ceremony announcing the go-ahead for the project in February 2012.
That announcement happened just five weeks after he got extensive kudos from anti-Keystone advocates with the credibility of Bill McKibben and Michael Brune of the Sierra Club for giving a temporary no to the northern route.
Of the southern route's approval, Brune said:
“TransCanada is hell bent on bringing tar sands, the world’s dirtiest oil, through America to reach foreign markets. They can’t wait for a fair, scientific environmental review they know their pipeline would fail. So we see dirty political tricks, dirty PR tricks, and, now, this dirty trick to build the pipeline piecemeal.”
It is clear that Obama's remarks to the
Times do not mean that all the unhappy predictions he will approve the pipeline are wrong. There is plenty of wiggle room in what he said. What does he mean by "significantly contribute to carbon"? What does he think adequate mitigation would be?
But his comments do show he's been listening to what opponents have to say and he agrees with some of our criticisms. Yet, has he truly heard us? Does he hear that what we are really saying isn't just that Keystone XL must be rejected, but that it is merely the first of a string of crucial rejections of new fossil fuel projects? Crucial if we are to have any hope of reducing the impact of global warming.
••• •• •••
ai002h has a diary discussion up here.
