Opinion: Oil pipeline debate -- more views
Workers wearing anti-OPEC shirts attend a State Department hearing for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline at the Port Arthur Civic Center in Port Arthur, Texas. The pipeline would connect TransCanada tar sands to refineries in Port Arthur and Houston (Sept. 26, 2011). Credit: AP
In his weasel-worded decision to block a perfectly harmless pipeline that would have provided America with jobs, energy and hope, President Barack Obama betrayed his country, lied and even welshed on a deal with Congress. I am sorry to say so, but it's true. Let's look at some history to get there.
Not so long ago, this country was in a terrible energy fix. Thanks largely to China and India, world demand for oil was going up while supplies remained limited, meaning prices were soaring as dependence on production in the volatile Middle East grew. However, owing in part to new technology, we found vast new possibilities to obtain oil and gas in the United States, and our neighbors were discovering new resources, too.
Canadian tar sands, it turns out, hold 100 billion barrels of obtainable oil, which is to say, we have Saudi Arabia II sitting right next door. Stretching a pipeline from Canada to Texas refineries is no big deal in a country with 2 million miles of pipeline already. Building it would create thousands of jobs, there could be another 85,000 jobs created once the project has been going for a while and experts note that a pipeline is far cheaper and safer than other modes of transportation, especially shipping it across the ocean.
The Keystone XL pipeline, in short, would assist in a $200 billion bonanza, but some environmentalists were unhappy because this tar-sands oil has a lot of carbon dioxide in it, and, by their calculations, would contribute to global warming. There were swift, decisive answers to their concerns. One was that if we don't use the oil, China will. China then gets all the advantages, and the global-warming risk is still there.
Of course, in a regulatory system that allows no one to sneeze without prior investigations of earthquake dangers, we still had to quadruple-check everything, including the laying of the pipeline itself, and so the State Department and 11 other agencies spent three years and endless scientific effort compiling eight volumes of evidence demonstrating there was nothing to worry about.
Because of the overly speedy process, he said, he could not be sure the pipeline was safe -- another lie -- and said we were meanwhile coming up with ways to increase our energy supplies without as much carbon-dioxide peril. That's true, but that still leaves us with energy deficiencies at present while the emissions reductions mean there's less to worry about in any emissions increases from the tar-sands oil.
He also said studies at the State Department would continue and he might have a different decision down the road, which is to say, he is back to where he was -- postponing anything decisive until after the election. That's a fraud, and it's a fraud that leaves this country wounded and bleeding. Presidents aren't supposed to do that.
Confronted with an arbitrary congressional mandate to rush a decision on the controversial Keystone oil pipeline, President Barack Obama made the only responsible call. At least for now, he says, the answer is "no."
There are just too many unresolved questions about the toll the project will inflict on the environment. It will take far more than the short 60-day limit Congress irresponsibly imposed for deciding whether some version of the project can be done without inflicting unacceptable and irreversible damage.
The pipeline developer, TransCanada, has already agreed to look for a new route in Nebraska. Intense opposition there, including from the state's Republican governor, demanded that the project stay out of the ecologically vulnerable Sandhill region.
A pipeline leak could contaminate the enormous Ogallala aquifer, an underground reservoir that irrigates $20 billion a year worth of agriculture from Texas to the Dakotas.
Beyond questions about a new route, the Keystone line poses a much more profound concern: Will it cause a huge spike in global warming by abetting development of the world's dirtiest source of oil -- Canadian tar sands?
Getting that oil requires massive strip mines, digging hundreds of feet into the earth across dozens of square miles. It takes huge amounts of energy to heat the sands and melt out the oil.
However, the project does offer a reliable supply of oil from a friendly nation. Canada seems determined to develop the dirty fuel, possibly shipping it to China if our country doesn't take it. And building the Keystone line would be a helpful economic stimulus during tough times.
The 60-day limit for deciding on Keystone was the price Republicans in Congress demanded for a two-month extension of President Obama's payroll-tax break. It was cynical political gamesmanship, designed to hurt the president by forcing him to choose between two powerful constituencies, unions and environmentalists.
