Nine Nobel Laureates - including the Dalai Lama and Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu - urge President to deny permit for tar sands pipeline

 “It is your decision to make”

That is how the strongly worded letter to the President from nine Nobel Laureates starts.  The letter urges the President to deny the permit for a massive tar sands pipeline that would run from Alberta to Texas and over one of the nation’s largest fresh water aquifers. 

The letter continues:

“The night you were nominated for president, you told the world that under your leadership – and working together – the rise of the oceans will begin to slow and the planet will begin to heal.  You spoke of a clean energy economy.  This is a critical moment to make good on that pledge, and make a lasting contribution to the health and well being of everyone of this planet.”

The letter refers to a major decision that the President will make to approve or disapprove of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, which would expand U.S. reliance on the dirtiest oil on the planet at a time when we should be committing ourselves, as the President said, to working together to slow climate change. 

That the letter is addressed to a Nobel Laureate is also significant. When the Nobel Committee announced  the President’s Nobel Prize, the Committee said, “Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.”  In his speech upon learning he’d won the prize, the President said:

“We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children -- sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities.  And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.”

But will he accept the responsibility to transform the way we use energy?  The opening salvo - “It is your decision to make” - reflects the fact that this decision will be his and only his to make. Congress, for a change, has no say in whether the pipeline is approved.  Or will he, in the words of his chief climatologist, James Hansen, “choose the dirty needle with no real intention of solving the addiction.”

Recently, James Hansen said that approval of Keystone XL would lead to more exploitation of tar sands oil, which would mean “it is essentially game over” for the climate.  That is because the tar sands reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia. Current production is now at 1.79 million barrels per day.  Projects that have been approved will increase production to nearly 4 million day, and, if all those projects seeking approval or announced by oil companies go forward, production will more than quadruple from today’s levels to over 7 million barrels a day.  

And how does this impact the climate? According to the EPA, the emissions impact of the Keystone XL pipeline would be roughly 27 million metric tons of carbon (above emissions from the equivalent amount of conventional oil). This is equal to emissions from 7 coal fired power plants, putting 5 million more cars on the road, or eliminating the emissions savings for EPA’s recent truck efficiency rule towards the end of this decade.  If the oil industry is able to expand tar sands production to as much as 7.6 million barrels per day, and using the same methodology EPA used for Keystone XL, the emissions created from producing this much tar sands would be as much as 228 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually.

The U.S. is the only major customer outside of Canada for tar sands oil. To sell all this oil, the industry needs access to an international port. Due to signficant opposition, no pipelines have been approved to Canada’s east or west coasts.  Sadly, both the Administration, in its flawed review of the pipeline, and certain analysts, have blithely accepted the premise –peddled ferociously by the Canadian political leaders (all from Calgary, it should be noted) – that the tar sands oil will be developed regardless of whether Keystone XL goes forward.  This premise falls apart when you dig a little deeper and read the industry’s own appeals for approval of the pipeline. Keystone XL is the only viable prospect for moving tar sands oil into the global market.  Without this market for the land-locked tar sands, most of these expansions would be unlikely to occur.

Expansion of the tar sands ultimately means expansion of the oil industry’s power over our political process.  The same forces pushing for the pipeline are also busy attacking the very policies that will reduce carbon in our fuels and our dependence on oil.  In spite of their claims that this pipeline will deliver “energy security from a friendly neighbor,” Canada does not give the U.S. a break when prices are high. True energy security comes from reducing our demand for oil and that will put money back in the pockets of average Americans faster than any tar sands pipeline.

So when the President sits down to consider whether this pipeline is “in the national interest”, he’ll have to decide whose side he is on.  And as he considers a response to this letter, he might think back to his own statements as a Nobel Laureate, and ask how he can best play that “constructive role” envisioned for him by a hopeful Nobel Committee back in the heady days of 2009.