Keystone XL Pipeline More Muddled Energy Policy

Liz | 12/16 at 09:06 AM

Sometimes things seem clearer from far away. In the wake of the Fukashima disaster, the Socialist and Green party candidates in France are campaigning to cut back on nuclear power, which provides about 75% of that country’s electricity. President Sarkozy is   defending the nation’s reliance on its nuclear industry, which has long appeared an especially far-sighted 70s-era investment. He has pointed out that the combination of severe earthquake and monstrous tsunami that wreaked havoc in Japan is not likely to disrupt the Champs-Elysees. Most Americans would consider it completely fou to abandon a power grid relatively independent of the vagaries of the oil markets, inexpensive and environmentally-friendly to boot. 

While the logic of Sarkozy’s position seems crystal-clear from this side of the pond, nearly every aspect of U.S. energy policy appears muddled in the extreme.  One can only wonder what the world makes of our chest-beating over construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Attempting to win over disaffected environmentalists, President Obama has postponed making a go-no go decision over the project til after the 2012 election. His kowtowing to those peeved at his recent slapdown of EPA head Lisa Jackson’s aggressive stance on ozone levels has infuriated those eager for U.S. job creation and for a more diversified source of imported oil. 

Critics of the pipeline mock the tens of thousands of construction jobs at stake as “temporary.” Would that be “temporary” as in the construction of the Second Avenue subway in New York – a project initially conceived in 1920 and likely to continue for another decade? This is an absurd argument. All construction projects are temporary, but they put bread on the table for those employed. 

The environmental argument is also wobbly. Opposition to the pipeline stems primarily from two sources: concern over Canada’s extraction of oil from its vast tar sands deposits – a process which generates substantially more pollution than is created by most oil production— and worries that a rupture in the bitumen pipeline would taint drinking water and wildlife habitats in the U.S. The first concern is simply not an issue. If we don’t take this oil, China will. One way or another, the tar sands will be exploited. 

The second concern – a possible leak from the pipeline – should be, and has been, taken seriously. Working with the State Department and local authorities, TransCanada has agreed to reroute the pipeline so as to avoid the most fragile territories in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska. Complaints about the proposed pipeline’s materials have also been reviewed; certainly TransCanada must be required to take every precaution in order to prevent a mishap. Having been recently blessed by Montana’s Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer, the pipeline is now opposed solely by Nebraska. In explaining his support, Mr. Schweitzer commented that “This country needs conflict-free oil.” He is completely correct. Unhappily, at the moment we don’t have conflict-free anything.

 

 

Comments

obama obamacare health care wall street congress economics ceo fox news jimmy carter labor unions bets imf gordon gekko rush limbaugh nobel peace prize taxpayers goldman sachs budget deficit axelrod kennedy afghanistan greed maoist wal-mart aig census capitalism corporate rahm emanual indiana