tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/keystone-xl-6406/articlesKeystone XL – The Conversation2021-07-20T12:15:12Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1617292021-07-20T12:15:12Z2021-07-20T12:15:12ZEnergy pipelines are controversial now, but one of the first big ones helped win World War II<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411565/original/file-20210715-23-j920co.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C3%2C2568%2C1902&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The "Big Inch" oil pipeline at Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, around 1943. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/phoenixville-pa-a-congressional-committee-was-told-that-news-photo/515185136">Betttman via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Oil and gas pipelines have become flashpoints in discussions of climate change. From the <a href="https://atlanticcoastpipeline.com/">Atlantic coast</a> to the <a href="https://www.daplpipelinefacts.com/">Dakotas</a>, pipelines that would deliver fossil fuels to customers have sparked protests and legal challenges. The <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004908006/developer-abandons-keystone-xl-pipeline-project-ending-decade-long-battle">Keystone XL pipeline</a>, which was designed to carry oil from Alberta tar sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55773243">roiled U.S.-Canadian relations for a decade</a> before it was finally canceled in 2021. </p>
<p>Amid these debates, it’s easy to forget how heavily the U.S. economy relies on existing energy pipelines. In 2020 some 84,000 miles (135,000 kilometers) of <a href="https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/annual-report-mileage-hazardous-liquid-or-carbon-dioxide-systems">long-distance pipelines</a> carried crude oil, while another 64,000 miles (103,000 kilometers) of pipe moved refined products, including gasoline and jet fuel. </p>
<p>These systems typically draw attention only when they <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/30-years-of-oil-and-gas-pipeline-spills-mapped?sref=Hjm5biAW">leak</a> or are damaged. For example, in May 2021 <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/22428774/ransomeware-pipeline-colonial-darkside-gas-prices">the Colonial Pipeline</a> made headlines when a cyberattack shut it down, interrupting gasoline supplies along the East Coast.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411566/original/file-20210715-32735-1jwuuf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="vintage poster depicts World War II fighter pilots and urges Americans to conserve fuel." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411566/original/file-20210715-32735-1jwuuf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411566/original/file-20210715-32735-1jwuuf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=794&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411566/original/file-20210715-32735-1jwuuf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=794&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411566/original/file-20210715-32735-1jwuuf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=794&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411566/original/file-20210715-32735-1jwuuf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=998&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411566/original/file-20210715-32735-1jwuuf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=998&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411566/original/file-20210715-32735-1jwuuf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=998&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">World War II poster produced by the Petroleum Industry War Council.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/world-war-ii-era-poster-features-a-bomber-crew-in-flight-news-photo/120207965">Photo Quest via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ironically, this network originated as the solution to a pressing energy problem and was initiated over objections from the oil industry. In 1942 Germany’s U-boats <a href="https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/ed-offley/the-burning-shore/9780465029617/">brought World War II to the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts</a>, sinking dozens of merchant ships, including oil tankers. That damage spurred construction of the first large U.S. pipelines, which fueled the Allied war effort.</p>
<h2>Tankers at risk</h2>
<p>Petroleum currently supplies <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/">about one-third of U.S. energy consumption</a>. Much of it is delivered by pipeline. It would take at least <a href="https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/faqs/general-pipeline-faqs">750 tanker trucks per day</a>, loading up and moving out every two minutes, working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to carry as much oil as even a modest pipeline. </p>
<p>In the 1800s much U.S.-produced oil came from wells in Pennsylvania and Ohio. However, when prospectors struck oil in <a href="https://www.lamar.edu/spindletop-gladys-city/spindletop-history.html">Spindletop, Texas, in 1901</a>, the industry shifted to the Lone Star State. </p>
<p>These fields produced much of the gasoline that fueled the automobile revolution, using <a href="https://www.kunc.org/business/2014-08-05/the-strange-history-of-the-american-pipeline">narrow-bore</a> pipes to move crude over distances of a few miles from wells to refineries or railroads. To get oil to big refineries in the Northeast, Texas companies relied on tankers that sailed through the Gulf of Mexico and up the Atlantic coast. By the late 1930s these ships transported <a href="https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/big-inch-fueling-americas-wwii-war-effort">95% of American petroleum products</a>. </p>
<p>Nazi strategists knew that sinking ships directly off the coast would terrify many Americans. Immediately after the U.S. entered World War II in December 1941, U-boats launched attacks on American coastal shipping. In February 1942 alone, <a href="https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/big-inch-fueling-americas-wwii-war-effort">Nazi subs sank 12 tankers off the East Coast</a>.</p>
<p>To avoid the U-boats, oil companies tried moving crude by rail and barge. This limited delivery to 140,000 barrels a day, less than half of the 300,000 barrels needed to meet wartime demand at East coast refineries.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m0fyIvLhe54?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">German submarines sank more than 50 U.S. ships in the Gulf of Mexico during World War II, seeking to disrupt shipments to Allied nations in Europe.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Piping replaces shipping</h2>
<p>In the spring of 1942, Interior Secretary Harold Ickes proposed <a href="http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/tx/tx0900/tx0944/data/tx0944data.pdf">constructing a large-diameter war emergency pipeline</a>. The oil industry balked: It cost 16 cents a barrel to send oil by sea from Texas to New York, and executives argued that building pipelines would <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1941/07/23/archives/oil-pipeline-now-is-urged-by-ickes-70000000-system-to-bring-250000.html?searchResultPosition=1">double the cost</a>. When industrial and military needs for petroleum grew desperate, the companies relented, partnering with the government to build the new pipeline.</p>
<p>Engineers designed a giant conduit capable of supplying oil needed for the war effort, far larger than existing 8-inch lines. Workers dubbed the 24-inch-diameter pipeline the “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Inch#cite_note-Klein_2013_499-25">Big Inch</a>.” </p>
<p>Construction began in June 1942. Government officials chose an inland route, avoiding coastal states that might be vulnerable to enemy air attacks. The Big Inch was constructed in two sections: one north from Texas to Illinois and another from Indiana eastward. A second, 20-inch-diameter line, the “Little Big Inch,” was added in 1943.</p>
<p>These became the world’s longest pipelines, snaking across 1,340 miles (2,150 kilometers). The US$146 million project was <a href="http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,779839,00.html">one of the most expensive initiatives</a> underwritten by the federal government during World War II. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411336/original/file-20210714-15-a6k834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411336/original/file-20210714-15-a6k834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411336/original/file-20210714-15-a6k834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411336/original/file-20210714-15-a6k834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411336/original/file-20210714-15-a6k834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411336/original/file-20210714-15-a6k834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=594&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411336/original/file-20210714-15-a6k834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=594&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411336/original/file-20210714-15-a6k834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=594&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ralph K. Davies, George Hull, W. Alton Jones and Burt Hull at the Big Inch opening, Feb. 19, 1943. All four men were oil industry executives who took on roles with the federal government during World War II.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:“Big_Inch”_opening.jpg#/media/File:“Big_Inch”_opening.jpg">Petroleum Administration for War</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Oil began flowing in August 1943. Over the next two years, these two lines delivered 300,000 gallons of oil per day to refineries in New Jersey and Philadelphia, which was then shipped overseas. The U.S. ultimately supplied <a href="http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/339">6 billion of the 7 billion barrels of oil</a> used by Allied forces during the war. In 1945 Ickes called the Big Inch one of the country’s “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1945/01/27/archives/little-big-inch-one-year-old.html?searchResultPosition=1">most potent weapons of war</a>.”</p>
<p>The Big Inch was featured in <a href="http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/tx/tx0900/tx0944/data/tx0944data.pdf">newsreel shorts</a> with titles such as “Pipe Dream Comes True – Oil!” and “Oil is Blood.” But although it demonstrated that large volumes of oil could be moved cross-country, it didn’t capture the public imagination like the atomic bomb, radar or penicillin. </p>
<p>In 1947 the federal government sold the pipeline to the Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation. It <a href="https://www.kunc.org/business/2014-08-05/the-strange-history-of-the-american-pipeline">still carries natural gas</a> from Texas to the Northeast.</p>
<p>Long-distance pipeline construction <a href="https://www.api.org/%7E/media/files/oil-and-natural-gas/ppts/other-files/decadefinal.pdf?la=en">accelerated in the 1950s and 1960s</a> as the technology improved and oil demand grew. More than half the existing U.S. fuel pipeline network was <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/aging-pipelines-raise-concerns-1478128942">built before 1970</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411337/original/file-20210714-19-oq39nb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Map showing pipelines from Texas to mid-Atlantic coast." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411337/original/file-20210714-19-oq39nb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411337/original/file-20210714-19-oq39nb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411337/original/file-20210714-19-oq39nb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411337/original/file-20210714-19-oq39nb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411337/original/file-20210714-19-oq39nb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411337/original/file-20210714-19-oq39nb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/411337/original/file-20210714-19-oq39nb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Big Inch and Little Inch pipelines.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/tx/tx0900/tx0944/data/tx0944data.pdf">Historic American Engineering Record/National Park Service</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Climate change, the next target</h2>
<p>Today the enemy is climate change, and pipelines are in the crosshairs as part of the fossil fuel production and delivery system. Pipeline projects also are more controversial because they now are subject to <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-proposal-to-weaken-project-reviews-threatens-the-magna-carta-of-environmental-law-93258">environmental impact assessments</a>. These reviews analyze how building the pipelines could affect local water supplies, wildlife, nearby historic sites nearby and other facets of the communities they pass through. </p>
<p>Debate over the Keystone XL pipeline shows how the framework for considering pipeline projects has expanded. <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004908006/developer-abandons-keystone-xl-pipeline-project-ending-decade-long-battle">Opposition</a> to the $8 billion, 1,200-mile pipeline focused on safety concerns, its route across Indigenous lands, destruction of boreal forest and the large carbon footprint of oil from tar sands. </p>
<p>The latest controversial project is the <a href="https://www.enbridge.com/projects-and-infrastructure/public-awareness/minnesota-projects/line-3-replacement-project">Enbridge Pipeline 3 replacement</a>, which would replace 337 miles of an existing pipeline running through Minnesota. Opponents argue that the project, which would double the old line’s capacity to carry tar sands oil from Alberta to the U.S., threatens Minnesota wetlands, violates the treaty rights of Indigenous people in its path and will help <a href="https://www.stopline3.org/#intro">perpetuate tar sand extraction.</a></p>
<p>The Big Inch and its successors were 20th-century technological accomplishments, but addressing climate change means turning America’s engineering talents to equally ambitious renewable energy projects. As a <a href="https://engineering.virginia.edu/faculty/w-bernard-carlson">historian of technology</a>, I look forward to seeing new solutions emerge. What equivalents of the Big Inch will help win the war against climate change?</p>
<p>[<em>Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-understand">Subscribe to The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161729/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>W. Bernard Carlson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Proposals for new oil and gas pipelines can generate intense debate today, but during World War II the US built an oil pipeline more than 1,300 miles long in less than a year.W. Bernard Carlson, Professor of Humanities and Chair of the Department of Engineering and Society, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1552762021-03-10T17:32:11Z2021-03-10T17:32:11Z‘Blockadia’ helped cancel the Keystone XL pipeline — and could change mainstream environmentalism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388831/original/file-20210310-14-xe73jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=251%2C99%2C3631%2C1757&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The direct confrontational tactics adopted by environmental activists over the past decade have transformed the global climate movement.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recent comment that Canada and the United States <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-meet-the-press-vaccines-saudi-arabia-keystone-1.5931364">will move forward after the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline project</a>, the public debate on the fate of Alberta’s troubled bitumen sector still burns. </p>
<p>Back on Jan. 20, U.S. President Joe Biden <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/">reversed the approval of the project</a>, fulfilling one of his election promises. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney called the decision a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/27/alberta-leader-says-bidens-move-to-cancel-keystone-pipeline-a-gut-punch">gut punch</a>.”</p>
<p>For environmental groups, the cancellation of Keystone XL reset American climate policy that had been hit hard by the Trump administration. More crucially, it was a “<a href="https://350.org/press-release/biden-to-stop-keystone-xl/">people-powered victory</a>” following more than 10 years of grassroots action that drew on economic and legal means to stop the pipeline. </p>
<p>Their <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/environmental-groups-keep-fighting-kxl-despite-biden-s-promise-to-block-pipeline-1.5221397">sustained political pressure</a> was a notable contributing factor to Biden’s decision. Many members of the coalition against Keystone XL opted for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-015-9289-0">direct confrontational tactics, such as marches, mass arrests, lockdowns and blockades</a> that went beyond the strategies typically used by environmental groups. </p>
<p>Known as “blockadia,” these tactics have transformed the global climate movement in substantive ways — and it may surge once again after COVID-19 lockdowns are relaxed and lifted. </p>
<h2>The rise of blockadia</h2>
<p>Naomi Klein popularized the term “blockadia” in her book <a href="https://naomiklein.org/this-changes-everything/"><em>This Changes Everything</em></a>. She writes that blockadia is the “roving transnational conflict zone […] where ‘regular’ people […] are trying to stop this era of extreme extraction with their bodies or in the courts.” </p>
<p>Beginning with a series of small direct actions that put emphasis on social justice to the environmental movement, <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2013/01/12/welcome-to-blockadia-enbridge-transcanada-tar-sands/">Blockadia was a “web of campaigns” local activists launched against oilsands pipelines, including Keystone XL and the Northern Gateway</a> in the early 2010s. </p>
<p>At the time, other social movements such as <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/democracy/2013/01/11/idle-no-more-rises-to-defend-ancestral-lands-and-fight-climate-change-bill-mckibben/">Idle No More</a> were also using confrontational tactics to stop the flow of fossil fuels and disrupt the business-as-usual mode preferred by many big corporations. The movement established a new paradigm in mainstream North American environmentalism. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A large group of people gather in the snow holding the flags of Indigenous nations." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388825/original/file-20210310-19-1qb4gxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388825/original/file-20210310-19-1qb4gxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388825/original/file-20210310-19-1qb4gxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388825/original/file-20210310-19-1qb4gxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388825/original/file-20210310-19-1qb4gxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388825/original/file-20210310-19-1qb4gxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388825/original/file-20210310-19-1qb4gxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Military veterans and Indigenous elders stop for a ceremonial prayer during a march to a spot near the Dakota Access oil pipeline site in Cannon Ball, N.D., in December 2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/David Goldman)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Conventional environmental campaigns are marked by eye-catching celebrity environmentalism, advocacy activities targeting law makers and “not in my backyard” movements motivated by local concerns. Although blockadia has incorporated these strategies, the spread and success of it indicates three major developments. </p>
<p>First, participants of blockadia think more in terms of <a href="https://eeb.org/blockadia-map-reveals-global-rise-of-anti-fossil-fuel-blockades/">what is legitimate than what is legal</a>. Consequently, confrontational tactics and civil disobedience actions are legitimized by an “us versus them” framing. Blockadia is mobilized by a sense of planetary emergency, further radicalizing environmentalism.</p>
<p>Second, blockadia strives to combine environmental and social justice concerns. This is arguably why movements under this umbrella term have led to the formation of unexpected political coalitions. Consider, for instance, the <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/cowboy-indian-solidarity-challenges-the-keystone-xl/">alliance of ranchers and Indigenous communities formed during the fight against Keystone XL</a>, as well as the solidarity with the Idle No More movement <a href="https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2015v40n4a2958">non-Indigenous peoples have expressed on social media</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fridaysforfuture-when-youth-push-the-environmental-movement-towards-climate-justice-115694">#Fridaysforfuture: When youth push the environmental movement towards climate justice</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Third, blockadia is decentralized. Despite outspoken activists like Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben, small local organizations brought together by shared environmental concerns drive the success of blockadia. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1105177">Social media</a> played a crucial role in coalition-building among these organizations. </p>
<p>In the case of transnational resistance to Keystone XL, organizations such as <a href="https://actionnetwork.org/groups/nokxl-promise-to-protect">the Promise to Protect coalition</a> are fighting together for globally minded local concerns. Their opposition is motivated by a range of things, from the threat of potential spills or the risk to local waterways, but they are all aware of the global implications of their local actions. In the words of environmental researcher <a href="https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/8982818">Meike Vedder</a>, the rise of blockadia indicates a shift from “not in my backyard” to “not on my planet.” </p>
<h2>The future of environmental activism</h2>
<p>The collective efforts of diverse groups have not only contributed to the delays and cancellations of high-profile pipeline projects like Keystone XL and Northern Gateway, they have been growing around the globe as well. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381818/original/file-20210201-13-1g0n3ld.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381818/original/file-20210201-13-1g0n3ld.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381818/original/file-20210201-13-1g0n3ld.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381818/original/file-20210201-13-1g0n3ld.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381818/original/file-20210201-13-1g0n3ld.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381818/original/file-20210201-13-1g0n3ld.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381818/original/file-20210201-13-1g0n3ld.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://theconversation.com/ca/podcasts">Click here to listen to Don’t Call Me Resilient</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://ejatlas.org/">The Environmental Justice Atlas project</a>, launched in 2015, has documented over 3,000 environmental conflicts around the globe. Many of them echo blockadia’s populist, pro-democractic push for fossil fuel divestment and a “just transition.” </p>
<p>Whether blockadia is able to fundamentally shift the dynamics of mainstream environmentalism remains uncertain. It will depend on the ability of blockadia-inspired actions to transform local concerns into broader quests for environmental and social justice. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-build-support-for-ambitious-climate-action-in-4-steps-155636">How to build support for ambitious climate action in 4 steps</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18922-7">temporarily decreased global carbon dioxide emissions</a> and prompted ongoing public conversations on “<a href="https://www.resilientrecovery.ca/">resilient recovery</a>.” Blockadia could bounce back when lockdown measures are lifted. </p>
<p>The key lesson offered by the Keystone XL cancellation to Canadian energy politics is: if policies won’t address populist demands for radical departure from subsidizing the oil and gas sector, the public anger on climate inaction will carry on. Although blockadia began as an anti-Keystone XL campaign, it is likely to continue to disrupt the established policy discussions on Canada’s commitment to taking action on climate change. </p>
<iframe height="200px" width="100%" frameborder="no" scrolling="no" seamless="" src="https://player.simplecast.com/65e610f9-842e-4091-b314-c985dc941f17?dark=true"></iframe>
<p><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/dont-call-me-resilient/id1549798876"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/321534/original/file-20200319-22606-q84y3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=182&fit=crop&dpr=1" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="268" height="68"></a>
<a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/37tK4zmjWvq2Sh6jLIpzp7"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/321535/original/file-20200319-22606-1l4copl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=183&fit=crop&dpr=1" width="268" height="70"></a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155276/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sibo Chen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A web of local environmental action campaigns launched against oilsands pipelines a decade ago helped bring an end to Keystone XL.Sibo Chen, Assistant Professor, School of Professional Communication, Toronto Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1538142021-01-26T14:42:11Z2021-01-26T14:42:11ZKeystone XL legal risks highlight dangers of putting investors before climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380675/original/file-20210126-19-vnh4oo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=297%2C45%2C4705%2C3277&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline demonstrate in Omaha, Neb., on Nov. 1, 2017. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP/Nati Harnik)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The chickens have come home to roost for Alberta Premier Jason Kenney. Kenney bet <a href="https://theenergymix.com/2021/01/22/humiliated-kenney-demands-trade-sanctions-could-sell-pipeline-for-scrap-as-tc-shuts-down-keystone-construction/">around $1.5 billion of public money on a very risky prospect</a> — the highly controversial Keystone XL pipeline. </p>
<p>U.S. President Joe Biden, to the surprise of no one but Kenney, followed through on an election promise and <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/">cancelled a key permit for the pipeline</a> on the first day of his administration. Now the premier is scrambling for a way to recoup some of Alberta’s losses, <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenney-trudeau-letter-keystone-xl-1.5883751">and he sees a trade agreement as offering some hope</a>.</p>
<p>The former North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) contained a chapter on investment that allowed foreign investors to sue governments in international arbitration. The owner of Keystone XL — TC Energy (previously TransCanada) — <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-25/transcanada-files-15b-nafta-claim-on-keystone-xl-rejection">used NAFTA to launch a US$15 billion lawsuit</a> in 2016 after President Barack Obama cancelled the project. </p>
<p>At the time, some legal experts thought the company had a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/01/08/transcanada-is-suing-the-u-s-over-obamas-rejection-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-the-u-s-might-lose/">reasonable chance of winning</a>. We will never know, because the <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/transcanada-nafta-lawsuit-suspended-1.4003525">case was dropped</a> when President Donald Trump indicated he was willing to let the project proceed. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Donald Trump flanked by other lawmakers in the Oval Office of the White House." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380550/original/file-20210125-21-wibiib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380550/original/file-20210125-21-wibiib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380550/original/file-20210125-21-wibiib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380550/original/file-20210125-21-wibiib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380550/original/file-20210125-21-wibiib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380550/original/file-20210125-21-wibiib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380550/original/file-20210125-21-wibiib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Donald Trump approves a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline on Mar. 24, 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This time may be different if TC Energy chooses to proceed with a claim. NAFTA has been replaced by a new agreement — the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Unlike NAFTA, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2019.100004">USMCA does not permit Canadian investors to sue the U.S. government</a> (or American investors to sue the Canadian government). </p>
<p>Legacy claims for investments that had occurred prior to the USMCA coming into force are permitted until 2023. But TC Energy’s <a href="https://financialpost.com/commodities/tc-energy-and-alberta-face-long-odds-if-they-sue-u-s-government-over-cancelled-keystone-xl">claim may now be weaker</a> because the permit issued by the Trump administration explicitly stated that it could be rescinded, essentially at the president’s whim. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, many investors have proceeded with claims on the basis of much weaker cases. Investors bet on positive outcomes in arbitration, as much as they bet on governments not taking action to halt catastrophic climate change. This is because the anticipated rewards, in both instances, are high.</p>
<h2>Risky business</h2>
<p>One example of an incredibly dubious investor claim is the one launched by <a href="https://icsid.worldbank.org/cases/case-database/case-detail?CaseNo=UNCT/20/3">Westmoreland Mining Holdings against Canada</a> in 2018. Ironically, this case concerns action that the previous Alberta government took to address climate change. </p>
<p>Alberta’s <a href="https://www.alberta.ca/climate-coal-electricity.aspx">2015 Climate Leadership Plan included a provincial phaseout of coal power</a>, which left Westmoreland — an American coal mining firm — without a future market for its coal. <a href="http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/ICSIDBLOBS/OnlineAwards/C8473/DS14132_En.pdf">The company is arguing</a> that Alberta’s failure to provide Westmoreland with “transition payments,” like those that power companies received, is a breach of NAFTA. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-fossil-fuel-era-is-coming-to-an-end-but-the-lawsuits-are-just-beginning-107512">The fossil fuel era is coming to an end, but the lawsuits are just beginning</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The case is ongoing and outcomes of arbitration are very difficult to predict. But it demonstrates a concerning trend, as do <a href="https://www.ejiltalk.org/risky-business-unipers-potential-investor-state-dispute-against-the-dutch-coal-ban/">other cases that have emerged in Europe</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://exxonknew.org">Fossil fuel companies have been well aware</a> of the damage their industry causes for decades, yet they have <a href="https://desmog.co.uk/2021/01/15/api-american-petroleum-institute-oil-industry-public-climate-denial-campaign-1980">exerted substantial efforts to try to slow climate action</a>. They have taken bets on risky investments in the hopes that governments would continue to dither as the planet burns. Now that climate action is starting to ramp up, they want to be “compensated” for their losses. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A news conference in the Roosevelt Room of the White House" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380560/original/file-20210125-23-nq4ag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380560/original/file-20210125-23-nq4ag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380560/original/file-20210125-23-nq4ag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380560/original/file-20210125-23-nq4ag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380560/original/file-20210125-23-nq4ag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380560/original/file-20210125-23-nq4ag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380560/original/file-20210125-23-nq4ag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Barack Obama, accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, announces he’s rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline because he does not believe it serves the national interest, on Nov. 6, 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A global problem</h2>
<p>Climate activists may be tempted to dismiss the threat that investment treaties pose to action on climate change. After all, the Canadian and U.S. governments have the resources to rigorously defend themselves in arbitration and they often win. Indeed, the U.S. has never lost a case. Furthermore, governments already subsidize the industry to the tune of <a href="https://www.iisd.org/publications/g20-scorecard">hundreds of billions of dollars per year</a>, so is a few more billion in “compensation” really going to make much of a difference?</p>
<p>The problem is that climate change is a global issue and so too is the <a href="https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements">coverage of investment treaties</a>. Many of the fossil fuel reserves that need to <a href="https://carbontracker.org/terms/unburnable-carbon/">stay in the ground</a> and assets that need to be <a href="https://carbontracker.org/terms/stranded-assets/">stranded</a> in order for us to remain below 1.5C of warming are <a href="https://energymonitor.ai/policy/international-treaties/why-investor-lawsuits-could-slow-the-energy-transition">in the Global South</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380562/original/file-20210125-19-11gxy3j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380562/original/file-20210125-19-11gxy3j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380562/original/file-20210125-19-11gxy3j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380562/original/file-20210125-19-11gxy3j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380562/original/file-20210125-19-11gxy3j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=697&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380562/original/file-20210125-19-11gxy3j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=697&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380562/original/file-20210125-19-11gxy3j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=697&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Number and percentage of foreign-owned coal plants protected by at least one treaty with investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in place, by host state.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/17660IIED.pdf">(Kyla Tienhaara and Lorenzo Cotula)</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, a large number of planned and newly operating <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants">coal-fired power plants</a> are in countries like Indonesia and Vietnam. A <a href="https://www.iied.org/international-treaties-threaten-affordability-climate-action-new-report">recent study</a> found that many of these plants are protected by investment treaties. These countries have fewer resources for fighting claims and a much poorer record of success in arbitration. </p>
<p>A real concern is that even the threat of a big investor claim <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/transnational-environmental-law/article/regulatory-chill-in-a-warming-world-the-threat-to-climate-policy-posed-by-investorstate-dispute-settlement/C1103F92D8A9386D33679A649FEF7C84">could be enough to dissuade</a> one of these governments from taking action to phase out coal.</p>
<h2>A global solution</h2>
<p>We need climate action to happen everywhere, not just in the countries where governments can afford to fight legal challenges. This is one of the reasons why many are calling for radical reform or complete abolition of international investment treaties. </p>
<p>In Europe, campaigners are making headway on efforts <a href="https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/10/28/eu-tries-stop-fossil-fuel-companies-suing-states-climate-action/">to remove protection for fossil fuel investments from the Energy Charter Treaty</a>. Countries like <a href="https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V19/072/51/PDF/V1907251.pdf?OpenElement">South Africa</a> are pushing for investment treaties to be aligned with the Paris Agreement and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Researchers have also suggested that the problems with investment treaties could be addressed with a <a href="https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/green-new-deal-ten-year-window-to-reshape-international-economic-law/">Global Green New Deal</a>.</p>
<p>In the meantime, the Canadian public should make it clear to TC Energy and Jason Kenney that they should drop any plans to pursue a legal challenge, and own up to the fact that they alone are responsible for their own poor investment decisions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153814/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kyla Tienhaara receives funding from the Government of Canada through the Canada Research Chair Program and through SSHRC. She occasionally collaborates on research projects with non-profit environmental organizations. </span></em></p>The threat of a large lawsuit could be enough to discourage some countries from taking action on climate change.Kyla Tienhaara, Canada Research Chair in Economy and Environment, Queen's University, OntarioLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1536152021-01-21T21:48:31Z2021-01-21T21:48:31ZBiden’s Keystone XL death sentence requires Canada’s oil sector to innovate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380028/original/file-20210121-19-ofokjt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C556%2C5973%2C3242&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">U.S. President Joe Biden signs his first executive order in the Oval Office of the White House on Jan. 20, 2021, in Washington. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In one of his first acts of office, U.S. President Joe Biden has issued an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/">executive order</a> that effectively kills the Keystone XL pipeline project. </p>
<p>The order states that the pipeline “disserves the U.S. national interest” and that approving it would be inconsistent with his campaign climate pledges. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380020/original/file-20210121-23-1hy7ruu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Jason Kenney in front of a Canadian flag." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380020/original/file-20210121-23-1hy7ruu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380020/original/file-20210121-23-1hy7ruu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380020/original/file-20210121-23-1hy7ruu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380020/original/file-20210121-23-1hy7ruu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380020/original/file-20210121-23-1hy7ruu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380020/original/file-20210121-23-1hy7ruu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380020/original/file-20210121-23-1hy7ruu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kenney calls the Keystone XL decision a ‘gut punch’ — but it’s one that’s been telegraphed for months.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Todd Korol</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Alberta Premier Jason Kenney called the move a “<a href="https://globalnews.ca/video/7589874/alberta-premier-jason-kenney-blasts-president-biden-on-revoked-keystone-xl-permit">gut punch</a>” and an “<a href="https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/kenney-calls-biden-s-keystone-xl-decision-an-insult-1.1551507">insult</a>” and has threatened <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenney-urges-us-canada-talks-on-keystone-xl-1.5877784">legal action</a> to recoup Alberta’s <a href="https://www.alberta.ca/investing-in-keystone-xl-pipeline.aspx">$1.5 billion investment</a> in the project. </p>
<p>Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a statement that <a href="https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2021/01/20/statement-prime-minister-canada-united-states-decision-keystone-xl">expressed disappointment</a>, but struck a far more conciliatory tone. He signalled a desire to work with the Biden administration and implicitly conceded that the pipeline won’t be resurrected again.</p>
<p>While the reaction from Alberta implies Biden’s move came as a shock, the truth is that cancelling Keystone XL was a <a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/biden-unveils-2t-climate-infrastructure-plan-targeting-carbon-free-power-sector-by-2035/">key part of Biden’s election platform</a> and was <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/7/14/biden-unveils-climate-plan-that-promises-millions-of-new-us-jobs">telegraphed clearly</a> throughout the campaign. </p>
<h2>Obama’s rejection</h2>
<p>It’s worth remembering that Keystone XL was rejected previously by Barack Obama’s administration in 2015, after <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/timeline-keystone-xl-pipeline-1.5877117">several years of controversy</a>, and that the environmental concerns used to justify that decision have not gone away. This decision should have been expected and planned for. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380022/original/file-20210121-19-1ny131n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Stephen Harper talks to Barack Obama." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380022/original/file-20210121-19-1ny131n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380022/original/file-20210121-19-1ny131n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380022/original/file-20210121-19-1ny131n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380022/original/file-20210121-19-1ny131n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380022/original/file-20210121-19-1ny131n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380022/original/file-20210121-19-1ny131n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380022/original/file-20210121-19-1ny131n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former prime minister Stephen Harper speaks with Obama at a G20 Summit in Cannes, France, in November 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But it would seem that both Alberta and TC Energy (formerly TransCanada) felt that there was a good chance the project would proceed despite Biden’s election win. Early in January 2021, TC Energy <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7558818/keystone-pipeline-capacity-bids-open/#:%7E:text=Keystone%20XL%20is%20designed%20to,U.S.%20Midwest%20and%20Gulf%20Coast.">opened bidding on existing pipeline space</a> expected to be freed up by the construction of the new line. </p>
<p>The Keystone XL cancellation will significantly impact Canada and Alberta. TC Energy has estimated that Canada would have added <a href="https://www.keystonexl.com/employment/">2,800 jobs directly associated with this project</a>, mostly in Alberta, and contends the United States would have seen 10,400 new positions. </p>
<p>Let’s put that in perspective: in 2020, it was estimated that <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-oil-and-gas-jobs-1.5619621#:%7E:text=PetroLMI%20reports%20that%20while%20the,and%20Atlantic%20Canada%20(7%2C680).">total oil and gas employment in Alberta was 128,180</a>, and thus the number of lost jobs represents 2.2 per cent of the total sector employment in the province — a very significant proportion for a single project. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A row of rust-coloured pipes" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380034/original/file-20210121-19-bzzi80.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380034/original/file-20210121-19-bzzi80.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380034/original/file-20210121-19-bzzi80.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380034/original/file-20210121-19-bzzi80.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380034/original/file-20210121-19-bzzi80.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380034/original/file-20210121-19-bzzi80.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380034/original/file-20210121-19-bzzi80.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pipes intended for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline are shown in Gascoyne, N.D. in April 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Alex Panetta</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The loss of Keystone XL also will impact future projects in the province’s oilsands. We know that one of the reasons that companies are reducing investments in the oilsands is that there is a <a href="https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2018/1/4/pipeline-transportation-bottlenecks-causing-lower-/">transport bottleneck</a> that affects the ability to get new product to market. </p>
<p>Keystone XL would have been able to move <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline">830,000 barrels per day</a>. Total Canadian oilsands production is only <a href="https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/data-analysis/energy-data-analysis/energy-facts/crude-oil-facts/20064">2.9 million barrels per day</a>, so adding Keystone XL may have attracted new investment to the oilsands to take advantage of this transportation capacity, which in turn would have meant <a href="https://www.alberta.ca/royalty-oil-sands.aspx">billions in royalties</a> to the province. GDP growth resulting from this investment would have <a href="https://www.capp.ca/economy/canadian-economic-contribution/#:%7E:text=Canadian%20oil%20and%20natural%20gas,the%20period%202017%20to%202019.">benefited all of Canada</a>. </p>
<p>The cancellation of Keystone XL could leave Alberta out-of-pocket for the <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/analysis-alberta-invests-in-keystone-1.5516144">$1.5 billion invested by the government</a> earlier this year. This investment — almost $400 for each individual in the province — may be recouped through legal means or reinvested by the company, or simply written off. </p>
<p>The province also made <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trans-mountain-keystone-pipeline-trudeau-kenney-1.5877983">$6 billion in loan guarantees</a> that may be recovered. Overall, however, the province will likely lose money on this deal — and the voters ultimately will decide the price.</p>
<h2>Energy East born again?</h2>
<p>So what’s next? </p>
<p>There have been reports that some of the pipe and materials may be <a href="https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/keystone-xl-may-be-sold-for-scrap-if-biden-moves-to-kill-project">sold for scrap</a> if Keystone XL can’t move forward. In reality, the majority of the actual pipe has <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7584155/keystone-xl-pipeline-expansion-oil-dependency/">not yet been laid</a>, meaning pipes could easily be repurposed for other projects. So some investment may be recovered over an extended time. </p>
<p>Indeed, TC Energy may look to the past when figuring out its next move.</p>
<p>One option that might be explored is revisiting Energy East, a pipeline that would have seen 1.1 million barrels per day of Alberta oil travel over 3,000 kilometres to reach tidewater at Saint John, N.B. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/applications-hearings/view-applications-projects/energy-east/index.html">Energy East was arguably the most complicated infrastructure project ever imagined in Canada</a>, involving the federal government, six provincial legislatures, hundreds of municipalities and 180 traditional Indigenous territories. The project would have crossed thousands of waterways ranging from streams to major waterways including the South Saskatchewan, Red, Ottawa, and St. Lawrence rivers. </p>
<p>The project was <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/timeline-transcanada-s-controversial-energy-east-pipeline-1.3621145">hugely controversial</a>, and was <a href="https://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/transcanada-cancels-energy-east-pipeline-project">cancelled in 2017</a> — partly because former president Donald Trump had <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-trump-approve/index.html">re-approved Keystone XL</a> earlier that year.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Security guards manhandle a shouting protester." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380036/original/file-20210121-23-1bqffen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380036/original/file-20210121-23-1bqffen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380036/original/file-20210121-23-1bqffen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380036/original/file-20210121-23-1bqffen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380036/original/file-20210121-23-1bqffen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380036/original/file-20210121-23-1bqffen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380036/original/file-20210121-23-1bqffen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Security guards try to restrain a demonstrator from interrupting the National Energy Board public hearing into the ultimately doomed Energy East pipeline project in August 2016 in Montréal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Paul Chiasson</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Rethinking pipelines</h2>
<p>But before backing yet another pipeline project, Alberta and all of Canada ultimately need to decide if more pipeline capacity is really needed. </p>
<p>Keystone XL <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-3-billion-spent-keystone-xl-cant-get-oil-companies-to-sign-on-1498734002">struggled to find investors</a> prior to Alberta’s decision to provide funds. The frequently cited “<a href="https://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/market-insights/crude-oil-pricing-differentials-why-alberta-crude-sells-at-deep-discount-to-wti">Canadian discount</a>” in oil prices, which entails Canadian oil being sold at lower prices than the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) index, <a href="https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/257">has in recent months been reduced</a> as oil prices have begun to recover. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/net-zero-emissions-1.5807877">Ottawa</a> and in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/biden-climate-environment/">Washington</a>, policies to address the climate emergency have taken precedence over new investment in conventional, fossil fuel-based industries. </p>
<p>The future of Canada’s oil sector may not be in volume, but in value. </p>
<p>Consider that <a href="https://www.breakthroughfuel.com/blog/crude-oil-barrel/">four to five per cent of the volume of oil</a> becomes high-value products like plastics, rubber and chemicals; these products can account for 40 per cent or more of the value derived from a barrel of oil.</p>
<p><a href="https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/future-oil-chemicals-fuels/97/i8">New refineries are being designed</a> that focus on these <a href="https://www.futurebridge.com/blog/crude-oil-to-chemicals-future-of-refinery/">value-added products</a> and minimize bulk fuel products; these new facilities may be smaller and require far less in terms of input, reducing the need for new pipelines. </p>
<p>The death of Keystone XL is a wake-up call for the oil sector. The old way of doing business is fading away, and it must innovate to survive.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153615/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Warren Mabee receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs foundation and from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.</span></em></p>President Joe Biden’s executive order could be fatal to the Keystone XL pipeline. The Canadian oil sector now has no choice but to innovate to survive.Warren Mabee, Director, Queen's Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy, Queen's University, OntarioLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/843432017-09-20T15:13:43Z2017-09-20T15:13:43ZNative Americans won a vital battle at UN 40 years ago – they need help again<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186811/original/file-20170920-900-1a36wff.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Delegates entering the Geneva conference. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Native Americans secured an important victory in Geneva in September 1977. The United Nations held a <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AWWXnQEACAAJ&dq=Conference+on+Discrimination+Against+Indigenous+Populations+in+the+Americas&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y">Conference on Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations in the Americas</a>, which succeeded in pressuring the US and other governments to recognise these peoples’ special status. </p>
<p>This led to a global regime of indigenous human rights that drew a line under a period of overt discrimination against Native Americans in the US – even if the results were far from perfect. Forty years on, Indian rights are once again backsliding alarmingly and there is again a need for international help. </p>
<p>In the 1970s, Native Americans were staring cultural death in the face. The US government’s <a href="http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1511">termination policy</a> of the 1950s had sought to disband the reservation system and force Indians to become part of modern society. </p>
<p>The government had ended federal protection over more than 100 Native nations, removed their tax-exempt status, withdrew financial assistance and scrapped services like education and health. Reservation land was reduced in size and cut up into individual parcels that could be bought and sold. </p>
<p>Thousands of Indian families who moved to big cities with the government’s relocation programme received too little assistance, and experienced discrimination in housing, the job market and the justice system. As a result, many sank into poverty, crime and disease. </p>
<h2>Fightback</h2>
<p>Many Indians fought termination in the federal courts, and President Nixon <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2573">announced</a> a change in policy towards self-determination for Indian tribes in 1970s. Yet a cohort from the 1960s <a href="http://www.culturequest.us/munoz/redpower.htm">Red Power movement</a> believed their peoples’ plight still needed a forum above the level of national government. This was because, they argued, their problems arose out of centuries of colonisation by settlers from European nations. </p>
<p>These activists wanted the UN to recognise their right to “decolonisation”. Had they succeeded, some Native American reservations would be independent countries today. But the UN said that these issues were a domestic matter and refused to intervene. </p>
<p>The only other avenue available was to advocate Native American sovereignty as a human right. To do this, both the Canadian National Indian Brotherhood and the US-based International Indian Treaty Council secured NGO status in the UN’s Economic and Social Council in the mid-1970s. This came at a price: they had to reassure the UN they were not seeking full independence but would focus on indigenous human rights instead. </p>
<p>They then managed to convince various international organisations to sponsor a conference for 1977. An unprecedented mixture of participants came together, including the UN’s major agencies, 33 national governments, 38 international organisations, and indigenous delegates from 14 countries in the Americas. </p>
<p>At the forefront were representatives of the <a href="http://www.sioux.org">Lakota Nation</a>, a Sioux people concentrated in the Dakotas. They recommended to take to the UN Committee on Decolonisation the issues of “the status of American Indians under international law, violations of United Nations covenants and agreements, treaty recognition by the United Nations, land reform, autonomy and increased land base”. </p>
<p>They recommended the US government be censured for genocide and forced to ratify the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CrimeOfGenocide.aspx">1948 Genocide Convention</a>. They wanted the nation states to recognise treaties signed by Indian peoples as international law – thereby allowing them to contest subsequent violations – and for the UN to call an international convention on Indian rights for 1978. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186806/original/file-20170920-920-fsz8es.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186806/original/file-20170920-920-fsz8es.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186806/original/file-20170920-920-fsz8es.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186806/original/file-20170920-920-fsz8es.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186806/original/file-20170920-920-fsz8es.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186806/original/file-20170920-920-fsz8es.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186806/original/file-20170920-920-fsz8es.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186806/original/file-20170920-920-fsz8es.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Leading activist Winona LaDuke addressing the 1977 conference.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/jimmy-carter">Carter administration</a> vehemently rejected suggestions of genocide, while pointing to its recent efforts to improve conditions for Indians. It said it was handling Indian issues within the framework of the nation state and rejected any attempts to leverage them as transnational issues or matters of international law. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, the Indians were able to use the conference to help develop a supranational monitoring and advisory mechanism for protecting indigenous human rights. As a result, the UN now receives and acts on reports of rights issues. It advises national governments and other entities on best practice and calls them out on violations. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, since the shift towards self-determination, the US government has recognised Native American sovereignty in areas like education, cultural affairs, health services, religion and law. Some Indian nations have used casino licensing rights to raise funding for revitalisation projects, albeit their situation remains a long way from perfect. Many are still struggling with poor public health, addiction, depression and suicide, and their treaty rights are still not fully recognised or enforced. </p>
<h2>Recent issues</h2>
<p>The UN has continued to put some pressure on the US in recent years. In 2012, James Anaya, the body’s then Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, went on the first fact-finding tour of native communities in the US. </p>
<p>He subsequently <a href="http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/statements/united-states-un-expert-calls-for-consultations-with-indigenous-peoples-over-private-land-sale-in-black-hills-south-dakota">called on</a> the Obama administration to return to the Sioux peoples their sacred lands in the Black Hills in South Dakota, which were confiscated for gold mining in the 1870s. This, he said, would be a “step towards addressing systemic discrimination against Native Americans that continues to this day”. So far, however, efforts by the Sioux <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/sioux-tribes-bid-for-return-of-black-hills-fails/">have been</a> unsuccessful. </p>
<p>The environment has also become a major battleground – particularly <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30103078">Keystone XL</a>, a 1,179 pipeline to transport petroleum from the tar sands of Alberta in Canada to Nebraska, via Saskatchewan, Montana and South Dakota. </p>
<p>Originally authorised by the US and Canadian governments, indigenous and allied activists in both countries have protested vehemently. They fear that any accidents will poison water, land and food sources; and devastate the Indian way of life and the environment of the whole region. </p>
<p>After a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/cowboys-and-indians-ride-through-dc-to-protest-keystone-xl-pipeline/">march on Washington</a> by the Cowboys and Indians Coalition in 2014, the Obama administration <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/06/obama-rejects-keystone-xl-pipeline">withdrew its support</a> for the project the following November. The incoming Trudeau government in Canada expressed disappointment, but <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-afn-indigenous-aboriginal-people-1.3354747">pledged to</a> observe the rights of its indigenous population.</p>
<p>Yet things have changed for the worse under Donald Trump. He has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39381324">reauthorised</a> the project and greenlit its US wing, the Dakota Access Pipeline, despite desperate <a href="http://sacredstonecamp.org">resistance</a> by the Sioux and their allies. </p>
<p>A fitting way to honour the anniversary of the arrival of the Native American nations into the UN would be for the body to apply more pressure on these issues. It can’t strong-arm governments to reverse policies, but it can still make such matters embarrassing and prominent. </p>
<p>Environmental challenges and indigenous rights are international issues that need international protection. The UN should redouble its efforts to convince the governments and corporations involved to act responsibly and do what is right by the people who were there first.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84343/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gyorgy Toth does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>America’s indigenous tribes put themselves on the map in 1977. Now they’ve got Donald Trump to contend with.Gyorgy Toth, Lecturer, Post-1945 US History and Transatlantic Relations, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/504352015-11-09T19:45:41Z2015-11-09T19:45:41ZIf the US had price on carbon, would Keystone XL have made sense?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101314/original/image-20151109-29317-1sd9xnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What would an environmental economist do? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iip-photo-archive/18269677504/in/photolist-tQqSBJ-hBesnP-hBeev7-hBkkUP-hBmjxh-hBkUbx-hBeJVQ-hBjU3Y-hBhSXf-hBhTG3-hBgVsi-hBgaXT-hBgq1F-hBeVEq-hBfQ31-hBibqy-hBd6Ui-qfbFX-2muVMK-stVpJr-8o5tCJ-kTdV5-kJKrM-uMG4wX-kJKi1-kJKb8-qKn1r5-pQDNFd-sLnVUF-kJKyp-kTdTn-7GpFSF-6vTU5h-aD1Cnj-7M25wZ-aBg51p-stMRWb-4XQqJm-qMDgYT-qv5adJ-9YQ4u9-4XRxEo-6Btp8j-hWfQUC-hWgdVk-4XQFWf-4XLuGD-4XL7RD-4XLseT-4XL9ND">iip-photo-archive/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In announcing the State Department’s decision to reject the permit application for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama focused on how this decision fits into the broader context of international negotiations on climate change. </p>
<p>With this decision made, it is useful to step back from the hyperbole that characterized the debate and look at the KXL decision from the perspective of environmental economics. </p>
<p>One way to do that is to factor in the cost of carbon emissions to society. If the US and Canada had a price for carbon, how would it have affected the pipeline project and other decisions like it? Since I was a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers in 2013 and 2014, it’s something I’ve thought about.</p>
<h2>‘Externalities’</h2>
<p>The starting point of environmental economics is that pollution creates negative externalities – that is, polluting imposes harm on others in a way not reflected in its price. </p>
<p>The textbook approach to address this problem is to “internalize” the externality by adjusting the price of the polluting activity to reflect the monetary value of that externality. In theory, the polluter is discouraged from polluting because those external costs are now figured into its operations. </p>
<p>In the case of climate change, this approach entails placing a price on greenhouse gas emissions. With a carbon price, some fossil fuels would continue to be extracted because it would still be cost-effective to do so: the market would decide efficiently which energy sources to use, where energy can be saved through energy efficiency improvements, and which fossil fuels to leave in the ground. That is why economists across the political spectrum support an efficient market-based solution that would impose an economy-wide price on carbon dioxide emissions. </p>
<p>Although the United States does not have an economy-wide carbon price, this “first-best” – or the most economically efficient – solution provides a useful framework for climate policy decisions. </p>
<p>To this end, the Office of Management and Budget has adopted an estimate of the externality cost imposed by an additional ton of CO2 emissions on current and future generations when analyzing the costs and benefits of proposed regulations. Called the <a href="http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html">social cost of carbon</a> (SCC), it is currently estimated to be in the range of US$12-$120 per metric ton of CO2, with a central estimate of $40 per ton. </p>
<p>The SCC is a starting point for estimating the carbon price that would apply in an economy-wide carbon price mechanism, such as a carbon tax.</p>
<h2>Calculating Keystone’s carbon surcharge</h2>
<p>Because different fossil fuels have different CO2 intensities – that is, produce differing amounts of CO2 per unit of energy produced – the externality value varies across fuels and so does the carbon price that would apply. </p>
<p>Coal is more carbon-intensive than oil, and oil more so than natural gas, so the carbon price per unit of energy would be highest for coal, next for oil, and lowest for natural gas. </p>
<p>Fuels within the broad classes of coal and oil are not homogeneous, and different ranks of coal and grades of oil have different carbon intensities and thus different carbon prices.</p>
<p>Within oil, some crudes are more energy-intensive to extract and to process and thus have larger “well-to-wheel” carbon emissions. The oil that would have flowed through the Keystone pipeline, extracted from a large sedimentary basin that includes the well-known oil sands of Alberta, has a higher carbon footprint than other, lighter crude.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101317/original/image-20151109-29312-1tfjb63.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101317/original/image-20151109-29312-1tfjb63.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101317/original/image-20151109-29312-1tfjb63.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101317/original/image-20151109-29312-1tfjb63.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101317/original/image-20151109-29312-1tfjb63.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101317/original/image-20151109-29312-1tfjb63.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=541&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101317/original/image-20151109-29312-1tfjb63.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=541&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101317/original/image-20151109-29312-1tfjb63.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=541&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Not all oils are created – or produced – equally. This chart shows the relative greenhouse gas footprint of different sources of crude. WCSB oil sands represents oil that would have been transported via the Keystone XL pipeline.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221190.pdf">National Energy Technology Laboratory</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The carbon surcharge, in other words, would vary across types of oil if there was an economy-wide carbon price, with more energy-intensive oils paying a higher tax. </p>
<p>How much greater would the carbon surcharge be for oil sands oil? The State Department estimates that oil sands oil has <a href="http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/">17% greater well-to-wheel CO2 emissions</a> than average US crude, which corresponds to approximately <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/energy/ghg-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references">200 additional pounds of CO2 emissions per barrel</a> relative to average US crude.</p>
<p>Assessed using the $40 per ton central estimate of the SCC, the carbon charge on oil sands crude would be about $4 per barrel higher than the carbon charge on average US crude. Using the OMB’s full range of SCC values of $12-$120/ton CO2, the additional carbon charge would be between $1-$11/barrel. </p>
<p>Said differently, a barrel of oil sands oil would face a market disadvantage of $1-$11, compared with average US crude, simply because of its higher well-to-wheel carbon footprint.</p>
<h2>Rejection as surcharge</h2>
<p>But transporting oil from western Canada by pipeline is less expensive than shipping by rail, which requires specialized cars and/or specialized handling because of the very high viscosity of oil sands oil. So how does a carbon price affect this factor? </p>
<p>The State Department’s <a href="http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/finalseis/index.htm">Final Environmental Impact Statement</a> estimates that it costs between $3 to $9 per barrel more to transport by rail than by pipeline. This cost in the same range of a carbon surcharge for crude from western Alberta ($1-$11 per barrel) were the United States and Canada to have an economy-wide carbon price valued at the SCC.</p>
<p>But what shape does a carbon price take? The first-best way to impose a “carbon adder” is through an economy-wide explicit price. A second-best way is to increase the cost of delivering oil to market by the same amount – something accomplished by denying the pipeline application. </p>
<p>This analysis has focused on the climate costs and benefits, but as with all decisions, there are other costs and benefits to be considered. In the case of Keystone, these include the safety of rail versus pipeline transport, local environmental effects, and America’s position in international climate negotiations. </p>
<p>But this one consideration – the damages associated with the additional carbon emissions of oil sands oil – is effectively accomplished by denying the pipeline application.</p>
<p>Some commentators on the Keystone decision have <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-keystone-xl-pipeline-debate-is-over-but-our-infrastructure-needs-are-not-50358">noted</a> that, at sub-$50 oil, the prospects for new oil sands development are slim, pipeline or not. </p>
<p>But as the past 18 months (and indeed the past 10 years) have taught us, oil prices can have large and persistent swings, and oil prices could well rise into the $60-$80 range that would justify development of so-called unconventional oil sources, such as the oil sands in Canada. </p>
<p>Yet now that the pipeline application has been denied, the additional cost of transporting oil by rail costs would come into play. In the plausible scenario of $60-$80 oil, this added transportation cost differential would mean that less oil sands resources would be developed. </p>
<p>That is the outcome that would be achieved with an economy-wide carbon price, and absent that price, that is the outcome the State Department achieved by denying the pipeline.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50435/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James H. Stock does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Environmental economists have long argued a carbon price is the best way to factor in the social cost of climate change. Did Obama effectively use a carbon price to nix the Keystone XL pipeline?James H. Stock, Professor of Political Economy, Harvard Kennedy SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/503572015-11-07T02:02:35Z2015-11-07T02:02:35ZThe activists’ playbook behind Obama’s Keystone rejection<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101118/original/image-20151106-16239-1x2u2cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Getting out the message: environmental activists seized on the Keystone XL pipeline as a symbol. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/40969298@N05/12871846055/in/photolist-kBrzog-dgjHyf-dVNmmS-kF6zVy-dVHyjF-dVHFjV-dVPcDE-dVHv8p-dVHBhk-dVHFx6-dVPfLu-dVPm47-dVHJ4P-dVPsZL-dVHNtP-dVHJyR-dVPfWb-dVHSga-dVHGp2-dVHGKX-dVPf21-dVPhZ1-dVHNWn-dVPiPW-dVHMFM-dVPmGu-dVHJhx-dVHS4H-dVP6W7-dVHL5p-dVHQrz-dVPjsb-dVPe2Q-dVHvGk-dVP6hs-dVHwR6-dVHyHt-dVPfBE-dVHzmD-dVHQ5R-dVPeCL-dVHDd6-dVPct1-dVPcPL-dVHuvv-dVHRq6-dVPjEd-dVHQSt-dVPff5-dVPqQh">Light Brigading/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Contrary to predictions from energy industry insiders, President Obama has rejected TransCanada’s application to build the Keystone XL pipeline across the United States-Canada border. </p>
<p>The president <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/06/statement-president-keystone-xl-pipeline">downplayed</a> the pipeline’s contribution to carbon emissions, but he did say that approving it would have undercut America’s role as the “global leader” on tackling climate change. This makes Keystone XL the first major transnational fossil fuel extraction project to be rejected expressly on climate-related grounds.</p>
<p>Although no one factor is likely responsible for the president’s decision, the climate change activists who mobilized grassroots opposition to the pipeline can rightfully take some credit for it. </p>
<p>According to my research into climate change activism, <a href="http://www.350.org">350.org</a> – an advocacy organization cofounded by environmental author Bill McKibben – and its allies employed a number of communication tactics to achieve what is one of the biggest symbolic victories for the US climate movement to date. </p>
<p>Specifically, climate activists embraced the following strategies to scuttle the pipeline: shifting the final decision from the State Department to the White House; effectively counter-framing pro-pipeline arguments; and successfully combining digital organizing with offline actions. </p>
<p>In some ways, however, these successful tactics in influencing the public discussion on Keystone may have hurt activists’ cause by further polarizing the climate movement. </p>
<h2>From State to the White House</h2>
<p>After prominent climate scientist Dr James Hansen declared that allowing the Keystone XL project to proceed would mean “<a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110826/james-hansen-nasa-climate-change-scientist-keystone-xl-oil-sands-pipeline-protests-mckibben-white-house">game over</a>” for the planet in terms of carbon emissions, 350.org and its allies decided to try to stop the pipeline. </p>
<p>But although the president took center stage in announcing the pipeline’s demise, the decision technically resided with the State Department, as it does with similar transnational infrastructure projects. Presidents then usually just affirm their agencies’ decisions. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101131/original/image-20151107-16258-1xw60tz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101131/original/image-20151107-16258-1xw60tz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101131/original/image-20151107-16258-1xw60tz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101131/original/image-20151107-16258-1xw60tz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101131/original/image-20151107-16258-1xw60tz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101131/original/image-20151107-16258-1xw60tz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101131/original/image-20151107-16258-1xw60tz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101131/original/image-20151107-16258-1xw60tz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Old school: activists combined digital communication with traditional offline protesting techniques, such as organizing mass arrests like this one in 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/chesapeakeclimate/6065727569/in/photolist-af4gty-aeLoX5-af1tct-aAGrNL-aADGjp-aADHFZ-aAGsyJ-af1tHk-af4god-af5aCt-af1rtP">chesapeakeclimate/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This presented a challenge for climate activists: unlike the presidency and Congress, which are heavily politicized arenas of public contention that receive plenty of attention and media coverage, few people follow the ins and outs of federal regulatory decisions and even fewer journalists cover them beyond the specialized press. </p>
<p>The solution: place the decision squarely on the president’s shoulders. Activists targeted the president as the final decision-maker, which politicized the issues and brought public attention to it. For example, activists staged a massive civil disobedience campaign in 2011, during which more than 900 people were arrested in front of the White House.</p>
<h2>Digital activism</h2>
<p>Before 350.org and its allies began its campaign, supporters framed Keystone as a job-creation engine and a tool for US energy independence. The climate movement instead emphasized the potentially catastrophic consequences of extracting oil from Canada’s tar sands, a more carbon-intensive source of oil than conventional wells. Activists referred to Keystone as a “carbon bomb” and incessantly repeated Dr Hansen’s “game over” assertion, even as they downplayed Keystone’s job-creating potential.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101130/original/image-20151107-24388-216o0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101130/original/image-20151107-24388-216o0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101130/original/image-20151107-24388-216o0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101130/original/image-20151107-24388-216o0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101130/original/image-20151107-24388-216o0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101130/original/image-20151107-24388-216o0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101130/original/image-20151107-24388-216o0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101130/original/image-20151107-24388-216o0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protesters specifically targeted Obama and his promises to promote clean energy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ari/9046513765/in/photolist-eMpKng-aCvEi2-dVHKgv-aCvHPr-eMB6RA-eMpQ9c-eMB7ms-eMpNYp-eMpJwk-eMpJXF-eMB9gG-eMB8k7-eMBet5-eMBcM9-eMpLMB-eMB7SC-eMB4Mw-eMBeQN-eMpNz8-eMB8KG-eMpEGg-eMpLnF-eMBdg1-eMpE4D-eMBcnY-eMBfB3-eMpKUa-eMB6my-dVPbeN-aCyngd-aCykzU-fhZP6q-dVnX4W-aAGsyJ-aADFRV-aADHFZ-aADGjp-aAGrNL-aADGH8-edxmFq-edxfG3-edrGig-edrDet-edxkim-edxgVG-edxjus-edxiN7-edxfkG-edrAZe-edrDZ6">Steve Rhodes/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Activists also framed Keystone XL as a question of public accountability for the president. As they saw it, Obama had promised to fight climate change and support clean energy – and they expected him to keep his word. This call to hold the president accountable for his campaign promises was even echoed in the signs that some activists brought to the Keystone demonstrations. Protesters were often seen with signs that said “NOXL,” in which the letter “O” consisted of the well-known Obama campaign logo.</p>
<p>Although 350.org is well versed in the latest social media-based forms of activism, it did not rely solely on these tools to campaign against Keystone. Instead, the group used technology to support and augment the power of the offline actions that were the centerpieces of its campaign: civil disobedience and rallies. </p>
<p>350.org relied heavily on digital technology to recruit volunteers to get arrested in front of the White House and others who could support it in various ways: spreading word about the arrests online, helping with bail, etc. The group also circulated videos and photos of the arrests through digital platforms to demonstrate the extent of opposition to the pipeline and raise morale within the movement.</p>
<h2>Hollow victory?</h2>
<p>This victory will embolden the climate movement as we approach the Paris climate talks which start later this month. </p>
<p>Unlike 2009, when activists went to Copenhagen dejected from the United States’ failure to enact comprehensive climate legislation, this time they will head to the UN climate talks with a win under their belts. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"662694322899406848"}"></div></p>
<p>The most vocal elements of the movement will point to Keystone as a demonstration that their demand to keep as much fossil fuel as possible “in the ground” can work, and will push for this approach in Paris. Activists will also use this victory to bolster their calls for various institutions to divest from all their fossil fuel holdings. </p>
<p>The legacy of the Keystone campaign in US politics, however, is more uncertain and, perhaps, less positive. </p>
<p>By overtly politicizing the issue, the activists may have further polarized attitudes about climate change and moved the country closer to a scenario in which climate change is considered a Democratic issue, while opposition to climate-friendly policies becomes a litmus test for Republicans.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50357/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luis Hestres worked as an online organizer at various nonprofits, including the 1Sky climate campaign, which merged with 350.org. </span></em></p>Activists can rightfully claim some credit for the Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. How did they do it?Luis Hestres, Assistant Professor of Digital Communication, The University of Texas at San AntonioLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/503582015-11-06T22:17:47Z2015-11-06T22:17:47ZThe Keystone XL pipeline debate is over, but our infrastructure needs are not<p>President Barack Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline was virtually a foregone conclusion well before he announced it. </p>
<p>Just as the prolonged debate about the pipeline was far more a matter of symbolism than substance, so too are the likely consequences of this decision.</p>
<p>At the same time, investment in energy infrastructure of all kinds remains a critical need. Reducing the environmental and climate impacts from energy will require significant investment in fossil fuel and carbon-free energy sources. </p>
<p>The rejection of this pipeline should not obscure the fact that in order to address climate change, our country needs to greatly upgrade the infrastructure behind the energy that fuels our society.</p>
<h2>Market had spoken</h2>
<p>In view of the dramatic increase of US production of oil from shale and tight formations by hydraulic fracturing, the oil sands liquids from Canada that Keystone XL would have transported are certainly not the first choice for supplying America’s petroleum needs. </p>
<p>The environmental consequences and CO2 footprint, both of production from the oil sands and of subsequent processing and utilization of the product, are <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-should-we-calculate-the-co2-impact-of-the-keystone-pipeline-proposal-36099">somewhat worse</a> than those of the lighter crudes being produced as a result of the US shale revolution. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the incremental impact of the oil to be moved through the Keystone XL on US greenhouse gas emissions would have been marginal at best. </p>
<p>It’s also worth noting that the presidential rejection of the pipeline is no guarantee that these resources will not be developed by Canada, nor that they will not be transported to the US by other routes or by l<a href="https://theconversation.com/shipping-oil-by-rail-is-booming-technology-can-make-it-safer-39165">ess desirable means such as railcars</a>. </p>
<h2>Not either-or</h2>
<p>There are those who believe that we need to get off fossil fuels cold turkey in order to combat climate change. A portion of their strategy is to block the development of any new infrastructure that would enable continued use of fossil fuels. </p>
<p>Keystone XL took on iconic meaning as part of that strategy as well as for broader concerns about the environmental consequences of fossil fuel production, transportation and use. </p>
<p>The danger of the president’s rejection of Keystone XL is that it will be taken as a rejection of investment in the infrastructure of fossil energy. </p>
<p>Now that the overblown debate about Keystone XL is over, we need to return the discussion to the substantive ways that we can meet our energy needs while addressing daunting emissions and climate challenges. </p>
<p>Make no mistake, we need to move aggressively to reduce carbon emissions from both stationary power generation and from transportation, the dominant contributor to our oil consumption. The Clean Power Plan, which regulates CO2 emissions from power plants, and the higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks championed by the Obama administration are vital steps. </p>
<p>Both recognize the reality, however, that we will continue to use fossil fuels for decades to come. Investment in energy infrastructure is not an either/or proposition of fossil versus renewables. We need both. </p>
<h2>Natural gas infrastructure</h2>
<p>Investment in natural gas power plants and pipelines is a good example. Switching from coal to natural gas will be critical to meeting the goals of the Clean Power Plan for many states, but will in many cases require the construction of new power plants rather than retrofitting old ones. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101128/original/image-20151106-16249-usllxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101128/original/image-20151106-16249-usllxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101128/original/image-20151106-16249-usllxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101128/original/image-20151106-16249-usllxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101128/original/image-20151106-16249-usllxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101128/original/image-20151106-16249-usllxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101128/original/image-20151106-16249-usllxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101128/original/image-20151106-16249-usllxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">To move to a lower-carbon energy system, the US will need to invest in more natural gas infrastructure.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">pipeline via www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We also need to invest in the gas pipeline infrastructure, both to fix the leaks in the existing infrastructure that release methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and to expand our pipeline network for wider use of natural gas in electricity and heat generation. </p>
<p>It would be a capital error if the Keystone XL decision were to become a rallying point for rejection of all further fossil resource and infrastructure development.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50358/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Barteau does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Climate advocates are cheering rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, but both our fossil fuel and renewable energy infrastructure badly needs upgrading to tackle climate change.Mark Barteau, Director, University of Michigan Energy Institute, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/501942015-11-04T19:46:36Z2015-11-04T19:46:36ZDelayed or killed, Keystone pipeline will live on as political touchstone<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100790/original/image-20151104-29065-12olnbd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Road to nowhere?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/shannonpatrick17/5100962376/in/photolist-8LKLpb-6ZTg2X-aeLoX5-bf2kBB-dVP993-af4gty-hUvnp1-aCyoBm-dVHwrV-dVHKgv-aCypxU-aCvEi2-dVPbeN-aCvHPr-aCyngd-aCyn9s-g7koxV-aCyoV5-edJ9rW-raDzLa-aCMtoL-aCvF9K-jKE69y-bJGuJB-dgjFZg-jKBPJk-dgjHnw-dVJc5Y-aCykzU-aCvHLD-dVPp8G-jKBNuB-jKCFPD-jKE5wb-jKBPAp-jKESP3-jKCEZn-jKCE7R-jKCEVV-jKCFDi-jKBQ6x-jKE5Qh-jKERzQ-jKCEK4-jKET2N-atRGLm-jKCEpV-dVHStr-dVGHJn-r2P69j">shannonpatrick17/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The TransCanada Corporation <a href="http://www.transcanada.com/news-releases-article.html?id=1998318&t=">requested</a> on November 2 that the US State Department suspend consideration of its permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline, which would transport crude oil extracted from the Albertan tar sands to US refineries in the Midwest and Gulf Coast, has been languishing under review in the Obama administration since 2008.</p>
<p>The Keystone XL pipeline is unlikely to be a pivotal issue in the 2016 presidential election, but it also will not go away, regardless of how the Obama administration handles TransCanada’s move this week. </p>
<p>The pipeline has taken on enormous political significance for organized interests in the United States, a key front in the ongoing fight between the fossil fuel industry and environmentalists about the economy, energy, and climate change. </p>
<p>For this reason, the presidential candidates of both parties are likely to continue to voice their support or opposition to the project. </p>
<h2>Obama unmoved</h2>
<p>Ostensibly the reason for TransCanada’s request is that the company continues to face hurdles in establishing a route for the pipeline through Nebraska. The company now says it might take up to another a year to work out a resolution with state government officials there. </p>
<p>Speculation, though, runs rampant that the move is a thinly veiled effort to find a more supportive president in 2016 and head off what most expect to be a decision by President Obama to deny the Keystone XL permit altogether.</p>
<p>President Obama could in fact make such a decision soon. With the United Nations climate summit occurring next month in Paris, he may announce the rejection of the pipeline as a way to signal a strong US commitment to dealing with climate change. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100803/original/image-20151104-29082-2tm3lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100803/original/image-20151104-29082-2tm3lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100803/original/image-20151104-29082-2tm3lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100803/original/image-20151104-29082-2tm3lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100803/original/image-20151104-29082-2tm3lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100803/original/image-20151104-29082-2tm3lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100803/original/image-20151104-29082-2tm3lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100803/original/image-20151104-29082-2tm3lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Obama making an address on the Keystone XL pipeline in 2012. His public comments have appeared to be more negative over the years.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/qodio/albums/72157629282753730">qodio/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>TransCanada also faces a less supportive political climate at home, following Canada’s national elections last month. </p>
<p>Although newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly supports the pipeline, Canadians’ rejection last month of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper would seem to signal a weakening of <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-lagging-on-climate-change-a-political-liability-49574">domestic support for the pipeline</a>. There is <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34705609">growing sentiment</a> that Trudeau would not fight a decision by the Obama administration to deny the permit. </p>
<p>A day after TransCanada’s request for a delay, the Obama administration <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-will-decide-on-keystone-pipeline-before-he-leaves-office/2015/11/03/fb4904f4-7f10-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html">indicated</a> that the request would not impact the timing of any decision. In this way, TransCanada’s latest move does not appreciably move the policy needle on the pipeline, one way or the other. </p>
<h2>Election 2016 spillover</h2>
<p>Of course, the Keystone XL pipeline debate has not really been about policy for some time. Instead, it has become a largely a political battle that has taken on more symbolic than substantive importance. </p>
<p>On one side are supporters, particularly the oil and gas industry, congressional Republicans and some moderate Democrats. They point to the pipeline’s economic benefits and its potential to enhance US energy security.</p>
<p>Keystone XL’s detractors include environmental and climate activists and most congressional Democrats who argue that tar sands oil must remain in the ground because of its large carbon footprint. </p>
<p>The issue came to an apex earlier this year when the president <a href="https://theconversation.com/keystone-pipeline-veto-politics-or-real-policy-38079">vetoed</a> legislation that would have forced the US State Department to approve TransCanada’s permit. But, this veto – just the third of Obama’s presidency – by no means resolved the controversy, and the dispute has already spilled over into the 2016 presidential election.</p>
<p>In September, <a href="https://theconversation.com/clinton-stance-on-xl-pipeline-reflects-muscle-of-climate-activists-48131%5D">Hillary Clinton publicly announced her opposition</a> to the Keystone XL pipeline, a position shared by all of her Democratic primary opponents. </p>
<p>For their part, all of the Republican candidates seem to support the project, pointing specifically to the jobs that would be created by building it. </p>
<p>Democratic and Republican candidates each appear to think they have the public on their side, pointing to <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm">competing survey results</a>. Republicans highlight surveys that consistently show that a strong majority of Americans support the Keystone XL pipeline, while Democrats point to polls indicating that the American public wants to move the country away from the use of dirty fossil fuels and toward cleaner energy sources.</p>
<p>Like “<a href="https://theconversation.com/can-americans-have-both-environmental-preservation-and-expanded-oil-drilling-36874">ANWR</a>” and “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/specialreports/solyndra-scandal/">Solyndra</a>” before it, the Keystone XL pipeline has entered the lexicon of contemporary environmental politics. </p>
<p>The mere mentioning of the pipeline has become the proverbial “red meat” for the strong partisans on each side of the issue, providing candidates with the opportunity to strengthen their bona fides with their key political constituencies. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=315&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=315&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=315&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.utenergypoll.com/">University of Texas Austin.</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The issue itself, however, is unlikely to engender much attention from average voters. </p>
<p>An April 2014 <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/29/keystone-xl-poll_n_7173488.html%5D">poll</a> conducted by researchers at the University of Texas, Austin found that just over 40% of the public was even familiar with the Keystone XL pipeline. This lack of public attention might surprise ardent proponents and opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline who have been engaged in bitter political fighting on the issue for much of this decade. </p>
<p>The poll also suggests that, despite all of the attention and contention that Keystone XL has created, it is still a marginal issue for most voters. But because of the sharp ideological lines it draws, politicians will be compelled to take a position on it – regardless of Obama’s final decision.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50194/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Konisky receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p>Obama will decide on the Keystone pipeline before he leaves office, but despite marginal voter interest, it’s an issue politicians on all sides will not let die.David Konisky, Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/422832015-05-26T10:06:49Z2015-05-26T10:06:49ZDespite rhetoric, climate change ranks low in public’s Keystone pipeline worries<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82734/original/image-20150522-32575-1o3gx5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Stuck in transit: The Keystone Pipeline proposal has become a symbol for politicians and environmentalists. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/shannonpatrick17/5100962376/in/photolist-8LKLpb-6ZTg2X-af4gty-bg6vWP-edJ9rW-raDzLa-aeLoX5-8paNG7-dVP993-bf2kBB-hUvnp1-aCyoBm-dVHwrV-dVHKgv-aCypxU-aCvEi2-dVPbeN-aCvHPr-aCyngd-aCyn9s-aCyoPL-aCyoHm-aCyoV5-bJGuJB-aCvF9K-aCMtoL-jKE69y-dgjFZg-jKBPJk-dgjHnw-dVJc5Y-aCykzU-aCvHLD-dVPp8G-jKBNuB-jKBPAp-jKESP3-jKE5wb-jKCFPD-jKCE7R-jKCEZn-jKBQ6x-jKERzQ-jKCEVV-jKCFDi-jKCEK4-jKET2N-jKE5Qh-atRGLm-r2P69j/">Shannon Ramos/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A big battle over the Keystone XL pipeline is under way in Washington, DC. But, it’s mostly fought on terms that don’t matter to the American people.</p>
<p>Less than half of Americans (42%) are familiar with – or have even heard of – the Keystone XL pipeline according to the latest University of Texas at Austin <a href="http://www.utenergypoll.com">Energy Poll</a>, a biannual national survey of Americans’ consumer attitudes and perspectives on energy. Yet it remains a thorny political issue at the national level, as heated arguments seem to define the pipeline as a magic boundary between economic glory or devastating climate change.</p>
<p>While the environmental arguments hinge on the pipeline’s carbon risk, just 6% of those familiar with the pipeline who are opposed to its construction say climate change is a top concern. The public is far more likely to cite environmental degradation (36%), water contamination (14%) or hazardous chemicals (10%) as main reasons for opposing the project. Two thousand and seventy-eight people responded to the survey earlier this year.</p>
<p>The conversations happening on Capitol Hill, which center on climate change, do not reflect attitudes across the nation and mostly ignore the nuances of this now symbolic and partisan issue.</p>
<h2>Safety, emissions</h2>
<p>It’s true that like other pipelines, Keystone XL puts ecosystems at risk, including our water supplies. Threats of leakage into US water bodies like the Ogallala aquifer are serious, but it’s important to remember that there are already tens of thousands of miles of pipelines transporting oil and gas across the country, including over sensitive aquifers. This pipeline would not introduce a new problem, and therefore, doesn’t significantly increase our risk of water contamination. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=315&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=315&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=315&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.utenergypoll.com/">University of Texas Austin</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A serious water vulnerability from a pipeline could occur at any time, so we should be focused on working to take strong precautions in order to keep sensitive aquifers safe from all of them, rather than oppose a specific, single project. This means raising standards for safety inspections and pipeline integrity – not just for Keystone XL, but all pipelines in the ground. A fee imposed on operators would help to fund regular inspections throughout the lifetime of this pipeline and others as well.</p>
<p>What about greenhouse gases? Oil sands production is more carbon-intensive than conventional petroleum production, so the Keystone XL pipeline will increase carbon emissions, which contribute to climate change. </p>
<p>While producing energy from these kinds of deposits is not desirable from an environmental standpoint, consider the alternative options. If Canada’s oil sands are produced and shipped overseas to China, the trip would require more energy input than transport by pipeline to Texas. </p>
<p>On top of that, refineries in Texas are cleaner and more efficient than in developing countries where air quality standards are not as stringent as the US. If the economic incentive to develop the oil sands is strong enough, the US market will provide a cleaner, less carbon-intensive alternative to locations around the world where the air quality rules aren’t as strict. Instead of halting the pipeline, approving it – together with a carbon tax – might be the grand bargain that we need to get these policies moving forward again.</p>
<h2>Measuring trade-offs</h2>
<p>But why support Keystone XL at all? Polling reveals that proponents for the construction of the pipeline are most likely to mention energy independence (26%), lower energy prices (25%) or job creation (25%) as reasons why they are in favor of the project. While it’s not clear that imports of Canadian oil would improve energy independence, we know that domestic energy consumers have national security and the economy on their minds.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Taking it to the streets to fight the Keystone pipeline proposal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tarsandsaction/6320925438/in/photolist-aCyoV5-bJGuJB-aCvF9K-aCMtoL-jKE69y-dgjFZg-jKBPJk-dgjHnw-dVJc5Y-aCykzU-aCvHLD-dVPp8G-jKBNuB-jKBPAp-jKESP3-jKE5wb-jKCFPD-jKCE7R-jKCEZn-jKBQ6x-jKERzQ-jKCEVV-jKCFDi-jKCEK4-jKET2N-jKE5Qh-atRGLm-r2P69j-dKrsr1-jKCEpV-dVHStr-dVGHJn-dgjF4t-kGdi7o-g7kWDZ-af1tct-nn2DHG-nnxe9K-e3VC7d-dVGHh6-nw64HL-dgjGTG-dgjF1H-dgjFkp-dgjGxG-dgjGob-dgjFaz-dgjGGq-jJKSDr-85WG7t">tarsandsaction/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Increasing energy consumption from North American sources means that the US would become less dependent on petroleum from the Middle East and other, less stable countries like Nigeria and Venezuela.</p>
<p>This is good economically. When Canada, our largest trading partner, prospers, Canadians are likely to buy more goods from the US. They are also neighbors who share similar governing philosophies on democracy to our own – including attitudes on women’s rights and freedom. By contrast, petrodollars to the Middle East can create funding streams for activities that endanger America and its allies. That means the Keystone XL pipeline aligns well with our national security priorities.</p>
<p>It’s clear that political volleying on Capitol Hill and in the media has not reflected public attitudes regarding construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Rather than present the proposal in black and white terms, we should recognize how it represents a combination of trade-offs, pitting potential economic and security benefits against environmental concerns. Smart policies would prioritize safety while investing to mitigate the downside risks through regular inspections and carbon prices.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42283/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sheril Kirshenbaum is executive director of ScienceDebate.org, a nonpartisan, non-profit initiative working to raise the profile of science and technology policy issues before the 2016 U.S. presidential election.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael E Webber is affiliated as a board member with the Fuel Freedom Foundation, a non-profit that seeks to reduce dependence in the USA on oil from the Middle East by using substitutes such as methanol, natural gas, or biofuels. The point of the op-ed is not aligned with the Fuel Freedom Foundation's mission.</span></em></p>Public opinion poll on Keystone pipeline shows more people are concerned with local issues – including the impact of spills on environment and aquifers – than with global warming.Sheril Kirshenbaum, Director of the Energy Poll, The University of Texas at AustinMichael E. Webber, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at AustinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/380792015-02-26T14:10:29Z2015-02-26T14:10:29ZKeystone pipeline veto: politics or real policy?<p><em>Editor’s note: In only his third veto, President Obama this week vetoed a bill approving construction of the Keystone XL, which would bring oil from Canada to Texas. He said in his <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/24/veto-message-senate-s-1-keystone-xl-pipeline-approval-act">message</a> to the Senate that he rejected the bill because it “conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest – including our security, safety, and environment.”</em></p>
<p><em>But the Keystone XL pipeline is much more than an infrastructure project. Environmental groups have chosen the pipeline, which would transport oil from the tar sands of Canada, as a symbol for taking action to slow greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. Republican lawmakers, in taking control of Congress, made it one of their first orders of business to underscore a commitment to North American oil production and the economy. Meanwhile, the plunging price of oil has significantly changed the economics behind the project, which was first proposed six years ago.</em> </p>
<p><em>Our experts weigh in on the significance of the Obama veto and the Keystone XL pipeline.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Time to modernize US infrastructure</h2>
<p><strong>Mark Barteau, Director of the University of Michigan Energy Institute</strong></p>
<p>President Obama this week vetoed the Keystone Pipeline bill. It’s an action one would expect from a serious Constitutional scholar of any political stripe; the bill is an attempt by the Legislative branch to encroach on the powers of the Executive. </p>
<p>But what should he do next? Approve the pipeline.</p>
<p>Greatly exaggerated claims from both sides of the discussion have prolonged the process to near Dickensian Bleak House lengths. Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline is neither the “Game Over for the Climate” that opponents have contended, nor the jobs bonanza that supporters have touted. While no pipeline operates without risk, Keystone is an important addition to our energy supply infrastructure for the next several decades.</p>
<p>Invisible to most Americans is the vast infrastructure – pipelines, and increasingly, rail transportation – that moves crude oil. That infrastructure becomes far more visible when there are accidents or problems. Accidents such as the major oil pipeline leaks at Marshall, Michigan in 2010 and at Mayflower, Arkansas in 2013 rightfully attract public attention, outrage, and regulatory review.</p>
<p>Almost invisible to the public are the less dramatic – but very real – risks to our ability to take energy supplies for granted because of bottlenecks created by inadequate infrastructure. For example, insufficient natural gas pipelines to New England have pushed up prices, and increasing competition for rail capacity between coal and oil shipments have created coal shortages at power plants in the Midwest.</p>
<p>Oil is going to move into and around the United States whether we build new pipelines or not, but approving Keystone allows this still-necessary energy source to arrive at its destination as efficiently and safely as possible.</p>
<p>Meeting the future energy needs of the US by pursuing an “all of the above” energy strategy while trying to reduce environmental and climate impacts will require significant capital investments in infrastructure, both for traditional energy sources and for vitally important renewable and carbon-free energy sources. Much of this investment must come from the private sector, with government investing in the research, development and deployment of new technologies and encouraging industry to invest in these as well. </p>
<p>It’s time to get going on modernizing our energy infrastructure across the board. With the congressional tug of war now past, President Obama should give approval for Keystone XL to proceed. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Not the end of Keystone debate</h2>
<p><strong>David Konisky, Associate Professor of Public Policy at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University</strong></p>
<p>President Obama’s veto of legislation to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline marks the latest development in the now more than six-year effort by TransCanada to gain approval for its project. </p>
<p>The merits and demerits of the Keystone XL pipeline are hotly debated and there remain legitimate questions about both the pipeline’s economic benefits touted by its proponents and the environmental impacts of the pipeline emphasized by its detractors.<br>
Regardless, there is no questioning Keystone XL’s political importance. The project has become one of the key symbols of the environmental community’s efforts to push the Administration on climate change. And, for their part, the fossil fuel industry and its political supporters, including most Republicans and many Democrats, see Keystone XL as integral to energy independence and a test of President Obama’s commitment to an “all of the above” energy strategy. </p>
<p>To this point, President Obama has sided with environmental interests, in what can only objectively be characterized as a major, at least short-term, political victory for the environmental advocacy organizations that have made Keystone XL a legacy issue for the President.</p>
<p>But, this week’s veto is not the end. Keystone XL will remain a front-burner issue for the Republican-controlled Congress and President Obama will continue to face intense pressure from both sides. And, for better or worse, the debate is certain to spill over into the 2016 presidential election.</p>
<hr>
<h2>The economics of the pipeline</h2>
<p><strong>Seth Blumsack, Assistant Professor of Energy and Mineral Engineering at Pennsylvania State University</strong></p>
<p>While the latest veto action by President Obama clearly seems a political move (just as political as the bill that landed on his desk, simply begging for a veto), it is worth thinking about the economic claims that have been made by both sides.</p>
<p>Opponents of the pipeline have claimed that it would render the world awash in carbon- and energy-intensive oil produced in Alberta by providing an easy route for the oil-sands production to reach global oil markets (see this <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-should-we-calculate-the-co2-impact-of-the-keystone-pipeline-proposal-36099">recent Conversation article</a>). </p>
<p>The reality is that unlike natural gas, oil is a much easier commodity to transport. If the price on the world market is high enough and if the pipeline is not built, production from the oil sands can be taken to refineries via train, truck or barge – which is basically what happens now. </p>
<p>The Keystone XL would reduce transportation costs. But the global price for oil — whether it’s $50 or $100 a barrel — is what drives more production from the oil sands or any other source, not a single pipeline project. </p>
<p>It is also unlikely, because the US restrict oil exports, that construction of the pipeline would mean that crude from the oil sands would flood the world market. What it would do is allow refineries on the US Gulf Coast to more cheaply import heavy crude oil from Canada instead of other countries – primarily South American and Middle Eastern nations as well as Russia. The US is already the world’s largest exporter of refined petroleum products like gasoline and the Keystone XL pipeline would probably not change that.</p>
<p>Proponents of the pipeline have claimed that it would represent an economic windfall in the form of construction jobs and ancillary benefits to those in other industries, such as trucking or even retail stores. This is a more difficult claim to evaluate since it can be tricky to estimate how the construction jobs directly attributable to the pipeline will eventually spill over to other sectors of the economy or where.</p>
<p>Pipelines themselves do take a lot of people and materials to build. My colleagues and I recently estimated that completion of a natural gas pipeline in Pennsylvania, which is around one-tenth the length of Keystone XL, would directly involve more than 2,000 construction workers and engineers. But the construction process typically does not take that long. And once the pipeline is in the ground, surprisingly little labor is required for pipeline operations and maintenance. In the Pennsylvania gas pipeline, we estimated that the long-term workforce to run the pipeline was around 1% to 2% of the construction workforce.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38079/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Konisky receives funding from the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Seth Blumsack receives funding from the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, electric utility companies and natural gas companies.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Barteau does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A roundtable of energy experts weigh in on the significance of Obama’s veto — the economics, the politics and the environmental — as well as what’s next.Mark Barteau, Director, University of Michigan Energy Institute, University of MichiganDavid Konisky, Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana UniversitySeth Blumsack, Associate Professor, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/360992015-01-14T10:29:19Z2015-01-14T10:29:19ZHow should we calculate the CO2 impact of the Keystone pipeline proposal?<p>Big energy infrastructure projects – power plants, coal mines, long distance transmission lines – take time, resources and, typically, some political muscle. They create highly visible if short-lived construction jobs, and can spark polarizing debates about land use and other short- and long-term environmental impacts.</p>
<p>The Keystone XL pipeline, intended to carry crude oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, presents the most hotly debated infrastructure decision in recent US history. </p>
<p>Much of the discussion has focused on the immediate direct impacts. The pipeline would create jobs, at least in the short term. It would provide a nearby source of oil – at least to the extent it’s refined locally. It could also affect local habitats and communities.</p>
<p>President Obama, who holds the ultimate decision (current legislative action notwithstanding), has offered another yardstick: the pipeline would need to be “on net, something that <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/05/remarks-president-press-conference">doesn’t increase climate change</a>” and that does not “significantly exacerbate the problem of <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change">carbon pollution</a>.” </p>
<p>How should one measure that? There are many ways the pipeline might contribute (or even reduce) carbon pollution, or carbon dioxide emissions. </p>
<p>There are the direct, immediate, impacts, such as how many tons of CO2 are released in building the thing. But there are other, less-immediate effects, too, related to the pipeline doing its job in the long term – its job being to move about 830,000 barrels of crude oil every day to markets more cheaply, and more reliably, than would other routes. </p>
<p>And then there are the impacts its installation would have long after the current battles have faded. Would the pipeline (or the high-profile decision about it) lead to or enable broader changes in the economy, and in oil use?</p>
<h2>Obama’s yardstick</h2>
<p>At the <a href="http://www.sei-international.org/">Stockholm Environment Institute</a>, we’ve started to <a href="http://www.sei-international.org/projects?prid=2055">look hard</a> at fossil fuel supply infrastructure, including pipelines. </p>
<p>KXL makes an interesting place to start, given the recent debate and Obama’s statements. We mapped out what the various CO2 impacts might be, from extracting and processing oil sands, to constructing and operating the pipeline, as well as any end market effects on overall oil consumption (for which we used a simple, and common, economic model). </p>
<p>Our research, published in a <a href="http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2335">Nature Climate Change paper</a> last year, found that KXL’s biggest impact likely hinges on whether it enables the Canadian oil sands to expand faster than they otherwise would and, in turn, whether more oil ends up flowing to global oil markets, and being consumed, than otherwise would.</p>
<p>Investment in infrastructure to transport fossil fuels can especially affect markets where there are bottlenecks or supply constraints. For example, absent expanded coal terminals along the North American west coast, vast coal deposits in Wyoming could be largely landlocked and shut off from global markets. Or in this case, without a reliable way to reach global markets, production of crude oil from the oil sands deep in Canada would be limited. </p>
<p>Obama’s remarks at George Washington University in December suggest he’s thinking about this too: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“This is Canadian oil passing through the United States to be sold on the world market…We’ve got to measure [the pipeline’s benefit] against whether or not it’s going to contribute to an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/09/obama-criticizes-keystone-xl-on-the-colbert-report/">overall warming of the planet</a>.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The debate over whether Keystone may enable expanded oil sands expansion has been brought into an even sharper light by the drop in oil prices in recent months. It’s a development that, on balance, would seem to increase the likelihood that KXL will increase and hasten oil sands flows, since building KXL would lock in a low-cost route to market that may not be otherwise available. Even the US State Department <a href="http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/finalseis/index.htm">acknowledged</a> that at lower prices (between $65 and $75/barrel), KXL could expand oil sands production by as much as its full capacity. This cost range may have since shifted due to <a href="http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/just-how-much-is-the-oil-price-drop-hurting-oil-sands-projects/">other economic factors</a> (e.g., exchange rates), yet it is the <a href="http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2015/01/07/what-low-oil-prices-mean-for-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/">long-term price expectations</a> that matter most.</p>
<h2>Indirect effects</h2>
<p>We found that to the extent KXL does increase oil sands production, global oil consumption would increase 0.1 to 0.8 barrels for every barrel increase in oil sands production. If access to the pipeline enables production to increase by KXL’s full capacity, global emissions of heat-trapping gases could increase by 40 to 140 million tons CO2e annually, significantly greater than the State Department’s upper-end estimate (27 million tons CO2e).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68916/original/image-20150113-28431-1o8n6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68916/original/image-20150113-28431-1o8n6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68916/original/image-20150113-28431-1o8n6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68916/original/image-20150113-28431-1o8n6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68916/original/image-20150113-28431-1o8n6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68916/original/image-20150113-28431-1o8n6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68916/original/image-20150113-28431-1o8n6go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Marchers at Tar Sands Action protest from 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tarsandsaction/6336876630/in/photostream/">Josh Lopez</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The only difference between our method and that of the State Department is that we accounted for the possible indirect effects in oil markets. That is, increasing the supply of oil to world markets would lead to more oil consumption in other parts of the world, particularly countries now consuming at growing rates.</p>
<p>To date, this kind of global market analysis has rarely been conducted for large infrastructure investments. However, that could soon change. </p>
<p>Draft guidance from the White House Council on Environmental Quality in late 2014, for example, makes it clear that greenhouse gas analysis of federal actions should include “downstream” emissions associated with combustion of new fossil fuel supplies <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nepa_revised_draft_ghg_guidance.pdf">enabled by the action</a>,“ and that it is not acceptable to take a ”<a href="http://www.sei-international.org/publications?pid=2384">fatalist</a>“ approach that assumes the same amount will be consumed no matter what the government does.</p>
<p>Such a change could help to bridge the gap between our national climate policy that has focused on using less fossil fuels and on our energy supply policy that has focused on producing more.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36099/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors' work on evaluating the carbon emissions implications of fossil fuel infrastructure has been funded through SEI programme support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.</span></em></p>Big energy infrastructure projects – power plants, coal mines, long distance transmission lines – take time, resources and, typically, some political muscle. They create highly visible if short-lived construction…Peter Erickson, Senior Scientist, Stockholm Environment InstituteMichael Lazarus, Senior Scientist, Stockholm Environment InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/329292014-10-22T09:42:12Z2014-10-22T09:42:12ZKeystone XL debate: how pipeline politics divide Nebraska<p>In Nebraska, the intensity of the Keystone XL debate is second only to that over the chance that the <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/107775/nebraska-may-give-the-big-ten-its-best-shot">Nebraska Cornhuskers</a> will win the Big Ten football championship. Raging for several years now, controversy over the pipeline has bounced from the governor to the legislature, the state Supreme Court and back again, with the final decision <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/al-gore-keystone-pipeline-obama-107998.html">going to President Obama</a> who has not yet announced a decision. In the end, all the Nebraska politics and posturing may be for nothing.</p>
<p>Proposed in September 2008, the pipeline would start in Alberta, Canada, enter the United States in Montana and link with an existing pipeline at Steele City, Nebraska. It would carry 830,000 barrels a day of diluted bitumen (a semisolid petroleum product combined with natural gas) across 275 miles of Nebraska farm and ranch land, traversing more than 500 private properties. The bitumen’ destination is the refineries of the Texas and Louisiana gulf coast, where it will be transformed into refined products to meet US demand.</p>
<h2>Strange bedfellows</h2>
<p>The politics of Nebraska, a deep red state, have been temporally scrambled by the unusual coalitions formed to support or oppose the pipeline. It is not a shock that the business community, Republican Governor Dave Heineman, and a majority of the legislature — officially nonpartisan but mostly Republican — have teamed up in support. What is surprising is the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/business/energy-environment/afl-cio-backs-keystone-oil-pipeline-if-indirectly.html?_r=0">addition of some labor unions</a> to this mix. Meanwhile, environmentalists and Democratic activists have joined with typically more conservative farmers and ranchers to oppose the pipeline.</p>
<p>This opposition, led by Nebraska political activist <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/jane-kleeb-vs-the-keystone-pipeline.html">Jane Kleeb</a>, relies on a populist approach that mixes reasonable concerns, such as possible pollution of the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/keystone-xl-pipeline-may-threaten-aquifer-that-irrigates-much-of-the-central-us/2012/08/06/7bf0215c-d4db-11e1-a9e3-c5249ea531ca_story.html">Ogallala aquifer</a>, alongside disregard of landowner concerns, with bombastic arguments that are a stretch at best. For example, at a public meeting last winter, a feedlot owner asked the crowd what they thought he should do with 10,000 dead cows, which he apparently believes could result from constructing the pipeline next to his property. This even though Nebraska already has <a href="https://theconversation.com/my-college-classroom-crusade-to-teach-marvel-to-undergrads-32200">15,000 miles of hazardous materials</a> pipeline under the aquifer, including two delivering diluted bitumen from Canada.</p>
<p>Proponents believe the pipeline will <a href="http://keystone-xl.com/about/jobs-and-economic-benefits/">create jobs</a> and improve American energy security by easing the flow of oil from a friendly neighbor. They note that the Alberta deposits have an estimated <a href="http://oilsands.alberta.ca/resource.html">170 billion barrels of oil</a>, enough to satisfy US demand for at least 30 years.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62096/original/gqz8z4yd-1413555886.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62096/original/gqz8z4yd-1413555886.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62096/original/gqz8z4yd-1413555886.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62096/original/gqz8z4yd-1413555886.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62096/original/gqz8z4yd-1413555886.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62096/original/gqz8z4yd-1413555886.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/62096/original/gqz8z4yd-1413555886.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">All quiet at the Nebraska State Capitol.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The issue now finds itself in the <a href="http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/102/PDF/Slip/LB1161.pdf">Nebraska Supreme Court</a>, where Justices recently heard arguments on the constitutionality of the pipeline. The bill, passed in 2012, gave the governor, rather than the Public Service Commission, authority to approve the pipeline. Pipeline proponents applaud this, while opponents believe the commission has jurisdiction and the law is improper.</p>
<h2>Impact at the ballot box</h2>
<p>Those on both sides of the pipeline battle have gone toe to toe for several years. For all the acrimony, though, the issue is having little impact on politics.</p>
<p>Political positions in the top two state races, both open seats, break along predictable lines, with the Republican candidates for Governor (<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-30/buffetts-v-ricketts-in-nebraska-billionaire-backed-race.html">Pete Ricketts</a>) and US senator (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/05/13/14-things-to-know-about-ben-sasse-nebraskas-next-senator/">Ben Sasse</a>) supporting the pipeline and the Democrats (<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/09/05/can_democrat_chuck_hassebrook_win_neb_governor_race_123865.html">Chuck Hassebrook</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/13/dave-domina-primary_n_5320260.html">Dave Domina</a>) opposed. </p>
<p>In the campaign for the house seat that represents Omaha, located far from the pipeline route, both candidates support construction, as do a majority of Omahans. And just last spring, 29 of the 49 members of the Nebraska Legislature, including a mix of Democrats and Republican, <a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1057486/keystone-letter.txt">signed a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry</a> stating, “We support the project and urge approval of the pending permit application for an international border crossing for the pipeline.”</p>
<p>So while the coalitions of both sides on the issue have been interesting and sometimes unusual, the impact on key elections is negligible.</p>
<p>And will there be any impact on President Obama, who has the final say? Probably not. He is a lame duck who will shortly enter his final two years in office. Nebraska is a small, red state where the president has a low approval rating, making it less likely he will be concerned about opposition. In Omaha, the only part of the state where he and his fellow Democrats enjoy any substantial support, pipeline construction is relatively popular.</p>
<p>After all is said and done, the Nebraska fight over the Keystone Pipeline will have been thought provoking, but it will have little long-term impact on Nebraska politics. It will continue on for a while after a final decision, bringing lawsuits over construction, land prices, and the like. But in the end, the politicians, corporations, unions, non-profits, trade associations, and lobbyists will move on, prepared to fight another day for another cause.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32929/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Landow received a U.S. Department of Education grant (2009) and a grant from Sherwood Foundation (Susie Buffett) (2012) to fund the Nebraska Civic Leadership Program, which allows Omaha high school students to study political science and go to Washington DC every summer
He is a current Board Member, Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska; former Executive Director, Nebraska Democratic Party; former staff member to a U.S. Member of Congress; former Chief of Staff to the Mayor of Omaha.
</span></em></p>In Nebraska, the intensity of the Keystone XL debate is second only to that over the chance that the Nebraska Cornhuskers will win the Big Ten football championship. Raging for several years now, controversy…Paul Landow, Professor of Political Science, University of Nebraska OmahaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/159712013-07-11T13:27:47Z2013-07-11T13:27:47ZAfter Quebec, what’s the future for Keystone XL?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/27251/original/gzsjq9cj-1373472859.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Grangemouth refinery: keeping the home fire burning.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Andrew MillJigan/PA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The runaway train of 73 oil tankers that derailed and exploded in the small town of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23250358">Lac-Megantic</a> in Quebec, Canada last week left 15 dead, around 50 missing, and shows how dangerous transporting oil can be.</p>
<p>An alternative to rail transport is the proposed, highly contested <a href="http://keystone-xl.com/">Keystone XL pipeline</a> which would transport oil derived from Canadian tar sands in Alberta to refineries along the US Gulf Coast. The Obama administration has yet to decide whether to approve it.</p>
<p>That pipeline could reduce US dependence on foreign oil. But tar sands are a particularly carbon-intensive source of fuel, with the potential for leaks and spills from the pipeline along its proposed route through the heart of the US. Any decision will create winners and losers – either in the oil industry or environmental interests.</p>
<p>This whole debate would be unnecessary under a carbon tax or cap-and-trade policy that put a proper price on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. If oil companies had to pay the true social costs of producing gasoline, then they would have to charge a price high enough to cover not only production but also environmental costs. Then if consumers are willing to pay for that gasoline, they’re welcome to it. Each ton of carbon dioxide emissions is estimated to impose about $20 of costs on the rest of society, which would raise the cost of conventional gasoline by about twenty US cents per gallon.</p>
<p>The Keystone project to transport tar sands oil by pipeline means overcoming three problems. Because it is thick and viscous, the tar sand oil must first be diluted to a liquid before it can be transported. This requires additional energy and generates about 12% more CO<sub>2</sub> emissions than conventional petrol. Second, this process generates huge amounts of semi-solid waste for which disposal is uncertain. Additionally, spills from the pipeline might damage ecosystems along its route - with particular concerns about pollution of Nebraska’s vast <a href="http://www.hpwd.com/aquifers/ogallala-aquifer">Ogallala Aquifer</a>, an important water source.</p>
<p>Without paying these pollution costs, oil companies can make huge profits if the Keystone pipeline is built; environmentalists get a windfall if the Keystone is cancelled. It’s “winner take all”. But if oil companies did have to pay environmental costs, then Obama could just leave it up to oil companies: make them pay for all that pollution and then let them choose whether and how to use the tar sands. But without those payments to cover the environmental costs, we can’t really know if it’s a good idea or not.</p>
<p>Three recent events have raised the stakes. President Obama’s “Climate Action Plan” <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/06/analysis_of_obama_s_climate_plan_carbon_dioxide_soot_coal_and_keystone_xl.html">speech</a> includes imposing emissions limits on power plants. Mentioning Keystone XL by name, Obama linked the pipeline not just to the environmental problems on its route but also to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. But while <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change">he stated</a> the project would not go ahead if it could be shown that greenhouse gas emissions would rise, he was vague about the “burden of proof” required.</p>
<p>Proponents say Obama’s requirement has already been met. Seeing, they argue, as tar sands will definitely be used one way or the other rather than left in the ground, pipeline transportation via Keystone will be the most carbon-effective method. Thus, according to them, the Keystone reduces emissions.</p>
<p>Just days after Obama’s speech came a decision in British Columbia on Canada’s west coast to reject the “<a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/bc-says-no-to-northern-gateway-on-concerns-over-oil-spills/article12288098/">Northern Gateway</a>” pipeline, which would have provided an alternative to Keystone and brought tar sands oil from Alberta to the Pacific Ocean. That plan was scuttled by concerns about oil spills through the pristine British Columbian forests, the problems of building an oil tanker port on the beautiful Pacific coastline, and other subsequent problems.</p>
<p>The third event, of course, is the tragedy in Quebec. Railroad transport of oil hardly seems better than pipeline transport. Another alternative now drawing attention is to build a pipeline all the way <a href="http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/alberta-premier-touts-west-east-pipeline-project-in-new-brunswick-1.1315319">from Alberta to the Atlantic</a>. You have to give those Alberta oil interests some credit for persistence.</p>
<p>Ultimately, those tar sands can stay in the ground. After all, one policy to reduce global warming is to “sequester” atmospheric carbon by locking it into growing trees, reducing deforestation, or using <a href="http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/CCS/home.html">carbon capture technology</a> to store it deep underground. A shortcut route to sequestering carbon deep underground is to leave it there in the first place. Technology may advance fast enough to provide cleaner alternative fuels anyway, and the future introduction of a carbon tax or permit system might make tar sands too expensive to be viable.</p>
<p>Until we price the true cost of carbon and pollutants into our economy with a carbon price-per-ton, we prevent the market from doing what it does best. Without that, we allow gross profiteering in the oil and gas industry while leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/15971/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Don Fullerton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The runaway train of 73 oil tankers that derailed and exploded in the small town of Lac-Megantic in Quebec, Canada last week left 15 dead, around 50 missing, and shows how dangerous transporting oil can…Don Fullerton, Gutsgell Professor of Finance, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.