 |
| SMOKE-> SMOG |
An expected decision from the Nebraska Supreme Court on the
controversial Keystone XL pipeline case has been delayed until next year, and
this gives everyone, pro and con the project, time to regroup. The arguments in
Congress have ranged from “wars could be prevented” (Joe Manchin, D-West
Virginia) to visions of Shanghai-like smog in the States (Barbara Boxer
D-California). One does not have to be as dramatic as Ms. Boxer to find that
this project has essentially everything wrong with it, both environmentally and
in human terms as well (not that the two are mutually independent). It is the
keystone of an outdated and harmful structure. Making a list, one comes up with
no fewer than 6 more arguments against this phase of the present Keystone
project, which will enable tar sands crude oil to be shipped from Canada to the
US Gulf Coast:
Keystone XL Tar sands
crude is notorious for containing more impurities and producing far more C02
than lighter oil. It is expected to displace the lightest crudes. Burning
this heavy crude will therefore increase air pollution, exacerbate global
warming and contribute significantly to climate-change related costs. The
Sierra Club has called it “the most toxic fossil fuel on the planet” (http://vault.sierraclub.org/dirtyfuels/tar-sands/).
 |
| BURST PIPE |
Then there are the
oil spills, inevitable in a pipeline system this enormous. Enormous also
would be the size of the spills, given that Keystone’s leak detection system is
apparently unable to detect leaks smaller than half a million gallons per day.
The project would mean that we will continue to use fossil fuels –
dirty ones at that - at a time when renewables should be taking the place of
these carbon-intensive fuels. It will keep the oil companies dominant in the
future fuel sector.
Our credibility in
international climate talks would be damaged. The US has pledged to lower
C02 emissions; not increase them.
 |
| OIL SPILL |
The pipeline would run through the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska,
one of the world’s largest aquifers and the provider of drinking and
agricultural water to the middle third of the country. The aquifer is already
being depleted by overuse. An oil spill in this remote area, which might go
undetected for days, could lead to disastrous contamination.
Keystone XL has enraged property owners in
Nebraska through whose land the pipeline would pass. Issues of eminent domain are involved and
the project is in limbo until a court decision is reached next year in
what has become a complex legal wrangle.
Meanwhile, the US
Senate rejected the project in December, but the Republicans, who will assume
control of both houses in January, have announced that a revote is at the top
of their agenda. Their arguments in favor of the proposition are not new:
energy independence, creation of new jobs, lower oil prices. It is interesting
to note that all of these arguments can also be used as reasons not to build the pipeline. Dependence on
homegrown, cleaner alternative energy sources would take care of the
independence. As these sources do not build and install themselves, new jobs
are created. Finally, it is argued that the project may actually increase gas prices. The pipeline would
bypass western refineries, thus pushing up the present very low price of their oil.
In short, it is
difficult to avoid the feeling that this fossil fuel project is a fossil in
more ways than one. It is yet one more Big Oil dinosaur trampling on both
ecological and human sensitivities, and those days should be over forever. It’s time to find a new keystone of a new
energy edifice.
