These WI/MN pipelines have been at a low burn for months or years; they make regular if unspectacular appearances on the AP wire, and I'm sure they are widely ignored by all readers save those already emotionally invested in the issue of pipelines. And even those readers likely give the issue short shrift when compared with the granddaddy of all pipeline issues: Keystone XL.
Keystone XL, of course, has been all over the news for years, and is hotly opposed by environmentalists and conservationalists across the country. Here is just one of the many articles, op-eds and treatises written to express that opposition. And I will admit that for a long time, I reflexively agreed with them, on the general assumption that oil is bad, oil companies are bad, we should fight them on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets. I've been thinking more about it, a process catalyzed by the AP story I came across at work, and I'm no longer sure that's the case.
My thinking goes like this: global warming is bad. Global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore, burning fossil fuels is bad and should be avoided as much as possible. No arguments from me on any of this. But it seems to me that there are a couple of valid ways to accomplish this. You can attack the supply, by declaring certain regions or methodoligies of extracting fossil fuels off-limits. For example, the fuel locked up in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge or the ongoing fracas regarding frak sand mining, both of which are great examples of ways to reduce the supply available to be burned. You can attack the demand, by such measures as setting new emission limits for power plants and new mpg standards for automobiles; also a great and necessary thing to be doing.
But what's going on here, with Keystone XL, is that opponents are going after the transport of fossil fuels. And there, I admit, I don't see the logic.
As long as the demand remains for fossil fuels, they will continue to come out of the ground. And one way or another, said fuels will be transported to market. Opponents cite the nastiness of the particular variety of oil - Canadian tar sands - and the environmental fragility of the central U.S. through which the pipeline would pass. But tar sands will just be as environmentally dangerous no matter how transported, and while the pipeline could conceivably introduce contamination into the Ogallala reservoir, as opponents fear, there will be similarly fragile ecosystems no matter where you run the pipe. Unless you can make a compelling case that the environmental harm to one location would be less than it would be to another - and good luck with that! - what such arguments amount to is Not In My Backyard, a classic argument with which I have very little patience. Since nobody anywhere wants an oil pipeline in their district, we can take that to be a wash.
The questions that should be asked here are, is it necessary to extract this oil to meet demand? The unfortunate answer is yes. While America is taking it's first doddering steps towards controlling carbon emissions, developing nations like India and - especially - China are ramping up their local industries like it's 1885. So there is a market for this fuel, and since Canada's government is in favor of extracting it, there's no obstacle there either. The next question is, given that this oil is going to be extracted, processed, and eventually burned, what is the safest and most efficient way to transport it? And the answer there, I think, is probably a pipeline. Certainly every other possible method - which would be, I don't know, railroad? - will have it's own record of safety malfunctions (like burning down entire towns in Quebec), and will likely expend more energy in transit, to boot.
Of course, even if we could get everyone to agree that a pipeline was in order (which we won't), the question remains, a pipeline to where? The refineries in Texas for which this oil is intended are not the only option, and the one argument against the pipeline that I think holds water is that by running this potentially ecologically devastating pipeline from Canada to Texas, wherefrom the oil will mostly be shipped overseas, the United States is assuming the majority of the risk for a very small slice of the reward. This Forbes article has the most lucid discussion I've found of the arguments for Canada just making their own damn pipeline to their own damn coast. Apparently this faces considerable opposition in Canada (NIMBY strikes again), and that may be the conversation that America needs to be having. But opposing Keystone XL because you oppose fossil fuels in general is pointless. We will continue to take steps to reduce our demand for fossil fuels; in the meantime, rather than fight tooth and nail against any expansion of the petroleum industry, we should be focused on guiding them to the safest and least compromising solutions for transport, storage and refining as possible. Mitigation, not prevention, is the most that environmentalists can reasonable hope for once the stuff is out of the ground.
***
And as long as I'm discussing Keystone XL, can I just say this? Mr. Obama, you've made multiple speeches in which you talked about 'not kicking the can further down the road' with regard to budget this or policy that. Where do you get off, then, repeatedly delaying your decision on Keystone? You're not waiting for more information - every agency and its second cousin have finished their reports by now - and we've not seen any sign that you're using the time to negotiate with Canada to build their own damn pipeline. All you're doing - and being blatantly obvious in doing so - is shuffling off the deadline to make a call until after the last election that matters to you. Come on. Put on your big boy pants, don your flak jacket and make a decision. I think you probably should approve it; failing that, I think you should turn it down and throw it back in Canada's lap. But the only reason to delay is to try to massage more votes in the 2014 midterms, and that's just cowardice. Say what you believe in a manner that bespeaks the determination with which you believe it, Mr. President.
No comments:
Post a Comment