Keystone XL Pipeline Lacks Foresight on Many Levels

By Andrea Luecke, Executive Director, The Solar Foundation

January 23, 2012 - Reposted from National Journal

The Keystone XL Final Assessment, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Policy and International Affairs by the consulting firm EnSys Energy, suggests President Obama’s denial of TransCanada’s permit for the pipeline will have almost no impact on U.S imports of Canadian crude oil. In its report, EnSys modeled imports under a number of scenarios, finding “almost identical” levels of imports whether or not the pipeline is built. If these results are surprising, it’s because of an oft-downplayed, yet key, aspect of the pipeline: that it is meant to transfer oil from the tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico for export to other markets, not to transport the oil for use in the U.S. Furthermore, a recent report by Cornell University Global Labor Institute suggests that, if anything, approval of the pipeline would have a negative impact on domestic oil prices, as some of the tar sands oil currently being transported to refineries in the Midwest would instead to shipped further south for export, increasing local gasoline and diesel prices by as much as twenty cents per gallon.  

Proponents of the pipeline’s construction are quick to point out the job creation potential of Keystone XL. In an era of consistently high unemployment, the 4,650 construction jobs that stand to be created if the pipeline is approved would be a welcome development for those seeking work, even if these jobs are but temporary in nature. However, approving an energy project solely on the basis of its job creation potential lacks foresight and represents a shirking of our responsibilities to our children and future generations. 

Pursuing renewable and efficiency-based solutions to our energy needs will contribute substantially to America’s economic recovery (providing 16.7 jobs per $1 million in investment, as opposed to the 5.3 jobs created per $1 million of investment in fossil fuels) and prevent us from becoming further locked into a fossil-fuel based economy that promotes geopolitical instability, threatens our national security, and exacerbates the impacts of global climate change. 

Accusations that the decision was the result of the President caving to political pressure from “extreme elements” are themselves political in nature. Factual inaccuracies and omissions (such as the suggestion that the oil transported through the pipeline will be consumed in the U.S.) found in these claims indicate that the petroleum industry has its own interests in mind, which, incidentally, are not those of the American people.   

Even if oil imports to the U.S. increased and prices fell, reliance on a friendly nation to meet our energy needs is still exactly that – reliance. The exploitation of domestic resources is the key to energy independence, the sustainability of which hinges directly on excluding or drastically limiting nonrenewable resources from the energy equation. Our wealth of homegrown renewable energy resources, along with the energy efficiency improvements waiting to be made in our homes and in the vehicles we drive, provide us with the means by which we can achieve long-term energy independence. 

Though we have a near infinite renewable energy supply, the time we have to use these resources to avert the worst of global climate change is finite. Keeping global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius requires that industrialized nations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. Instead of approving projects that will increase global emissions, we should focus our efforts on adopting and implementing policies that will ensure these targets are met. President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL permit can provide advocates of a clean energy economy with additional momentum to keep pushing for the policies and energy projects that will protect future generations and continue to push back against those that threaten them.