Pres. Barack Obama on February 24— , not because of and not because of the from the tar sands. Obama vetoed the pipeline bill “because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures.” In other words Obama used the third veto of his presidency to preserve the prerogatives of his office, in this case evaluating cross-border pipelines and the ever-vague “national interest.”
A map of Canada's network of pipelines to transport liquids, included diluted bitumen from Alberta's tar sands. The dotted blue line cutting diagonally down from Alberta to Oklahoma is the Keystone XL pipeline while the dotted blue line headed east is the leading alternative, known as Energy East. Courtesy of Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
Veto aside, the Obama administration still might find Keystone XL is in the national interest, once the Department of State completes its . Approval appears to hinge on whether the pipeline is judged to “,” as the president put it in a speech in 2013. State has said no it won’t in the past, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others, say .
There is little doubt that oil made from the buried beneath Alberta is among the . Interestingly, about the only worse type of petroleum is the heavy crude from Venezuela that refineries on the Texas coast already process—the same facilities that Keystone aims to reach. And that’s just the climate accounting, which leaves out very real and communities as well as the .
There is also little doubt that will find other ways out, whether other pipelines or by truck, railcar or barge. How much or how little depends on future oil price speculation, Canadian geopolitics and the inner machinations of oil companies. But there is little doubt that without Keystone XL, less tar sands oil will find its way out of the ground and, perhaps more importantly, will not be as cheap—and in a time of low oil prices that may prove to be the difference.
Already, projects to have been put on hold as the global price of oil approaches the cost of producing it from the sands. Canada-based Cenovus Energy as well as petroleum giants Shell, Total and others have all shelved planned developments in Alberta.
Still, the tar sands juggernaut rolls on like the giant trucks used to mine the stuff via existing projects, such as the North Steepbank mine or the Christina Lake Project, to . The Canadian government has proved more than willing to subsidize development of the oil sands in the face of low oil prices historically. Keystone XL is also just one pipeline and, as the president has also said time and time again, a nation’s energy strategy hinges on more than just one pipeline. That goes double for the globe: in Australia or limiting U.S. coal exports can do more to slow the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide than stopping Keystone XL.
Welding a pipeline closed. Courtesy of TransCanada
The goal is a shift away from more polluting sources of energy—oil, coal and even natural gas—toward those that add less CO2 to the atmosphere like renewables, nuclear or even fossil fuel–fired power plants outfitted with . Every bit of infrastructure must be accounted for in as either adding more or adding less CO2 while in use. Such but there are obvious swaps, like substituting anything for coal or using less of the tar sands.
A glimpse of the ultimate challenge can be seen right now, in . Low cost encourages more use, which in turn results in more pollution. As alternatives to fossil fuels grow, coal, oil and natural gas will likely become cheaper as demand shrinks, in turn tempting us to burn more again. To prevent catastrophic climate change, that carbon conundrum will need to be solved.
No comments:
Post a Comment