With Keystone XL Pipeline Stalled, America Can Focus on Real Energy Solutions that Create Real Jobs
Posted November 11, 2011 in Moving Beyond Oil
On Thursday the State Department and the President announced they will conduct a new review of the Keystone XL pipeline. More time is needed to examine the pipeline’s impact on water, our climate, our health and safety. Congratulations Mr. President! As NRDC’s Frances Beinecke wrote on her blog yesterday, this is a major victory for clean energy and citizen action.
We’ll surely here shouts from the oil industry that this decision will hurt jobs. They claim the pipeline could have created up to 20,000 temporary (that’s the key word) jobs. (The State Department says that number is more like 5,000 to 6,000 jobs.) Let’s remember that either way, those figures pale by comparison to the number of jobs that have already been created by the clean car industry alone. More than 150,000 Americans are now working to build cleaner cars, thanks to strong new fuel economy standards.
This is not a projection, but a tally of actual jobs that didn't exist 10 years ago, making parts and infrastructure for clean vehicles. Just like the thousands of job postings included in Environmental Entrepreneurs weekly Clean Energy Jobs Newsletter are not forecasts, but actual opportunities available right now all around the country. Jobs like these will only continue to grow in number as we expand the clean energy economy and shift our focus away from oil.
There are a multitude of options to reduce the world’s dependence on oil. And as we shift to more stable, sustainable, and safe sources of energy, and use our energy much more efficiently, our economy, and the world’s economies, will be better off.
Consumers will be better off too. America's dependence on oil accounts for nearly one-third of our entire trade deficit in the latter part of the last decade. Importing fuel-efficient cars from overseas is another big part of that deficit. Between 1994 and 2009, cars and oil accounted for about two-thirds of our trade gap -- a breathtaking $4.7 trillion.
Imagine how that transfer of global wealth might have been shifted in our favor if we had learned the lessons from the oil shocks of the 1970s and gotten serious then about building more efficient cars in this country and reducing our reliance on oil.
Many leaders in Washington agree that we need to get serious, now, in order to break the stranglehold of the oil monopoly. Just last week, an influential military think tank, the CNA's Military Advisory Board, advised Congress to cut America's oil use by 30 percent in the next decade.
The board, a group of three- and four-star military officers, summarily dismissed the argument that importing oil from Canada or increasing domestic drilling would help protect Americans from oil price shocks, noting that a disruption of supplies anywhere in the world would drive up oil prices.
The unavoidable truth is that America cannot control the price of oil, no matter where it comes from. But achieving the 30 percent reduction in oil that the military advisers call for is entirely within our reach.
President Obama’s new clean car standards—which will cut our oil use by 3.1 million barrels per day by 2030—will help close our trade deficit gap and continue to boost a resurgent Detroit. Increasing the efficiency of our trucks, a project we’ve finally started on, will also help.
We can get there by reforming our transportation system and the shape of our communities. Shipping goods by rail or ship takes a small fraction of the oil – and emits a small fraction of the pollution – of shipping goods by truck. With better planning, rail freight can fit well with our fast-paced economy. And providing people with transportation options, so they don’t need to get in a car to do everything, is what people around the country are asking for. They want to get out of traffic and have a choice to walk, bike, or take transit. We can give them these options, and in the process further reduce our oil dependence and pollution.
We get there by bringing sustainable alternative fuels to market, such as more electric cars, and cars running on fuels other than oil. We can revamp our transportation network to include infrastructure for plug-in vehicles and other fuels.
The President broke a three-decade logjam and made our cars and trucks more efficient. Thursday he showed leadership again by putting the brakes on a project that would have locked us to decades of dirty fuels. Now it is time to move ahead with the many other smart solutions that will reduce our oil dependence and put Americans to work.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
brian McGinley — Nov 11 2011 12:52 PM
Peter, you are clueless on the 150,000 green jobs. Those come at the expense of 3X that number of jobs in other places and as well, at the tax payers expense...the people who pay taxes. Electric car sales are dismal and this industry should be self sustaining for those who wish to pay an extra 30% for a car. Cars with much higher milage are available yet sales are dismal. The largest increase in sales by a long shot is in SUVs and trucks. So we shouldn't do a pipeline in a location wherein there are already many other pipelines running without problems? We shouldn't expand oil and gas extraction in the USA. Trucking oil across the USA is safer and more environmentally sound? Not true! You want $100B trains that will be entirely underutilized in CA? WE have trains in CA and many of them have the least ridership in the country costing tax payers millions every year to subsidize with worse environmental results than using cars. So you want more Solyndras? Ha! This is a good example of how utterly stupid gov is in directing the private sector. I work in high tech and looked at their design 3 years ago ....my determination was they would go under within 3 years...voila! Companies are reaching grid parity with solar for distributed peak use. The subsidies given merely steal from some to transfer wealth to others......usually wealthy investors. The smartest thing to do for solar is put in a national fed in tariff at wholesale so as not to hurt energy producers and providers and tax payers and get out of the way. Solar will then be built out where it is appropriate. As well....the biggest road block ironically to solar generation facilities is the environmentalists......and I use that term loosely as I am an outdoor enthusiast who has helped in this area and these guys are throwbacks.....they say they want all these things but what they really want is to go back to living in caves....they cannot even agree with each other and they have no concept of what it takes to do any of this and the amount of money you need to steal from one party to give to another. The 150,000 supposed clean jobs also counts jobs which have nothing to do with being clean. And for every job, 2 or 3 others lost a job.
Shaun — Nov 11 2011 01:15 PM
20,000 temporary (that’s the key word) jobs.
A temporary job would be nice being I don't have one. At least i could pay my bills. But I am thankful for my 1 vote. It won't be wasted
c ritchie — Nov 11 2011 01:49 PM
sorry Peter.. you need your head examined..you know absolutely nothing about pipeline construction.. the amount of construction workers it takes to build one and the trickle down effect it has monetarily.Hey Pete.. along with the 20,000 or so jobs it creates, think of all the other small business owners who benefit. Hotels, Motels, Grocery Stores, Gas Stations, Clothing Stores. The list goes on and on there Big Pete. Everyone is a winner. Not to mention we will become more energy self sufficient. Won't have to deal with the camel jockeys buyin oil from them and shippin it over buy boat. The oil will flow freely down from our neighbor Canada and who knows.. price a gas might go down. Green Energy, what is that really Pete.. the wind.. the sun.. the color green. Ever been out to Palm Springs and view all those wind turbines just spinnin away. They don't spin Pete. How much power that producing. Let's get in involved with solar power. We can give a company like Solyndra 1/2 a TRILLION bucks of our tax payers money and watch em go bankrupt. Sounds like a great idea. You have solar panels in your home Pete.
Didn't think so.. cost to much and the savings are well.. Clean Car standards by 2030.. gimmee a break Pete.. 2030..we know this will not happen. You driving an electric vehicle Pete.. didn't think so. The delay of this Pipeline project is purely political. Obama and his team of tax cheats and cronies could care a less about jobs there buddy. It's all about VOTES and it is reported politically it will not get Obama one vote to approve this project, which if he approved, would be the only smart thing he has done to date as our President.
Matt — Nov 11 2011 02:34 PM
Brian --
Pleases cite your figures. You haven't provided any direct evidence for your claim that clean energy jobs will kill jobs.
The straw man argument of "hippies want us all to live in caves" is uninformed at its best. I've been involved in sustainability and clean energy efforts for years in various ways, and have yet to meet anyone who doesn't want see technology improved to be both cleaner (i.e. healthier) and more effective.
You're right that Solyndra was a hugely bad bet, and that the government didn't listen to analysts who recommended they pull the investment. That was incredibly stupid.
But the government directs the private sector all the time, and is currently providing far more money in subsidies to oil companies - which are profiting in the billions - than it is to renewable energy R&D. If you're arguing against renewables subsidies, would you also argue against oil subsidies?
Subsidies: http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/elisubsidygraph-791x1024.jpg
Oil company profits: http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2011/08/18/big-oil-sees-bigger-profits-yet-subsidies-remain.htm
Carol Buchfink — Nov 11 2011 03:46 PM
I can't thank Obama yet because he has a tendency to turn around. However, I live in Oklahoma and with the earthquakes we had last weekend, putting a pipeline through that area would be asking for trouble. The existing line from Kansas to Cushing has been there for a very long time. They want to extend in through the middle of the state where all the activity occurs. Doesn't make sense.
brian mcginley — Nov 11 2011 05:09 PM
To Matt C.
The cost of renewables alone not being market based is the first reason jobs are easily 3X if that money was invested in another area of the economy by private people not the government. It is widely known that a government job which is essentially what a "green" job is....reduces employment in the private sector. As a dollar spent by the gov runs a 2 to 3X multiple effect in the economy whereas a private dollar spent provides a multiplicative effect of 5 to 6X jn terms of GDP dollars. I don't wish to teach a course in econ here...but even a week ago on the news there was a story on the supposed 150K jobs wherein Obummer's admin was calling jobs that would have existed anyway as green because they dealt with a green company. I too am in the industry and I know exactly what the cost of a renewable kilowatt hour is vs. a natural gas kilowatt hour....and on average....its not even close yet. There is no admission of the facts by people whose only agenda is renewables. There are places for renewables and we should keep spending on them in the private sector. But idiot writings like the NRDF blog don't help a reasoned approach occur. Solar costs have come down dramatically but still install costs etc. are way too high. And ironically, environmentalists are the number one road block to building out power plants for solar. 2 projects are delayed in CA today of about 300MW! The Keystone project is going along a right of way where many pipelines already have existed for decades......gas etc......where are all the problems? Oil companies...ah yes...the big bad oil companies! A multi trillion dollar industry which gets about $5B/yr in subsidies mostly via capital investments depreciation allowances......and this great biz loses money in 5 of 10 years and makes a record profit of......9.5%! Yippee! It isn't a biz I would like to be in.....their market caps are about 1/4 of their revenues and people only buy their stock for dividends and in the up cycle. Obama has made a very good up cycle...I must say. So answer to your question...yes end all subsidies for all businesses.....they are other people's money who didn't agree to pay taxes for these things and are generally very bad for the economy. End this one too...it creates higher prices and lowers competition enriching mostly rich farmers. And it is the largest subsidy in America by far!! http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture
Brian Mcginley — Nov 11 2011 05:14 PM
to Matt from Obama
The president's own Council of Economic Advisors admitted recently that only 225,000 clean energy jobs were either created or saved and cost the tax payer $355,000 per job (assuming a low-ball estimate that $80 billion in economic stimulus went towards green jobs).
Brian McGinley — Nov 11 2011 05:15 PM
To Matt......$355K per job is 5X what the private sector average jobs costs
Josh Mogerman — Nov 11 2011 06:38 PM
c ritchie---the 20,000 job figure is direct employment. The trickle down numbers you mention were originally pegged at something around 250,000 by the pipeline proponents.
All of those numbers are myths.
They have been debunked by the Washington Post, by Cornell University, by noted economists and by the federal government (check out links from this post http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jmogerman/where_are_the_myth_busters_key.html).
Yet, people who should know better keep trotting them out. Preying on Americans desperate for work with puffed up job numbers is, at best, a cynical way to advance this dangerous project. And if they are willing to lie to Americans about this, why should we believe any of the pipeline apologists' claims about Keystone XL?
Norm Benson — Nov 11 2011 07:47 PM
@Matt,
This from Bloomberg News (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0):
"For every new position that depends on energy price supports [i.e. subsidized "green" jobs], at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid."
The reason? "[P]remiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.
Some figures other figures:
Prior to instituting the Global Warming Solutions Act (AKA - Assembly Bill 32, AB 32) which mandates greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020—through cap-and-trade and complementary measures, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) made some estimates as to the mandate's effect. For jobs, “green”and otherwise, the CARB’s best case analysis estimated that implementing the law would boost California’s employment by 10,000 extra jobs by 2020; its worst case projections identified 330,000 fewer jobs than there would otherwise have been by 2020. (Source: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/economics-sp/updated-analysis/updated_sp_analysis.pdf)
Josh Mogerman — Nov 11 2011 08:41 PM
Norm. Sorry, but the Spanish study you are referring to has been debunked by the government of Spain, our own government and even the Wall Street Journal which pointed out that it was largely funded by Exxon. Check in on Pete Altman 's blog here on Switchboard. He was all over the issue when it popped up a couple of years ago. they were bad studies then and have been shown to be even worse since.
Norm Benson — Nov 11 2011 10:38 PM
Josh. Sorry, but a blog doesn't cut it for me. What are the links to the government sites? Or Wall Streets, for that matter.
Norm benson — Nov 11 2011 11:38 PM
More figures:
"Consider the claims being made by the subsidy-dependent corn ethanol industry. Growth Energy, an industry lobby group, says increasing the percentage of ethanol blended into the U.S. gasoline supply would create 136,000 jobs.But an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that no more than 27,000 jobs would be created, and each one could cost taxpayers as much as $446,000 per year. Sure, the government can create more green jobs. But at what cost?"
Source: Robert Bryce (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042302220.html)
kat — Nov 11 2011 11:46 PM
I have some figures. If you look at the financial records of the NRDC - If you take the number of salary paid out and you divide it by the number of employees did you know the average salary of the "non profit organization" is a fat $85,000. Of course I know some people will make less and some will make moreeeeeee!1
kat — Nov 12 2011 12:08 AM
Plugging in a car to power which is coal driven is not a solution.
Oh and I don't think I will be biking or walking the ten miles to work everyday in a skirt.
And by the way Peter this was strictly a political decision due to the upcoming election. Any other reason is just a big fat lie. Don't deceive yourself.
Earl Richards — Nov 12 2011 10:12 AM
Google the "Global Oil Scam" by Phil Davis. Purchase solar panels.
kat — Nov 12 2011 10:15 AM
Obama has shown no leadership and a child could figure that out. You people needed to be hounded to quit spewing you fantasies and lies.
Electric cars are not the solution. And excuse me but what about all the other petroleum based products. So we the majority wag our tails for the minority as Obama would have us think. There are over 520000000 people in North America and you think we should all plug in.
I live in a climate where the temperature can get to -30. How would you have me heat my home. With solar panels. Ain't going to happen. Oh wait I was going to get my panels from California but they went belly up and ran away with millions. So oops - won't happen this year.
Earl Richards — Nov 12 2011 10:26 AM
America does not control the oil price, but Big Oil does, by controlling the crude oil futures markets in the NYMEX, in the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in Atlanta and in the ICE Futures Europe. The oil price is dictated by the fraudulent "round-trip" trades of the "dark pool" trading in the ICE. ICE Futures Europe is a subsidiary of ICE. The international Big Oil/big banking cabal, or an international gang of criminals, owns ICE. ICE operates outside of US law. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has no jurisdiction over ICE, influenced by Big Oil. ICE's energy traders and speculators can ratchet-up the oil price anytime they feel like it , for their own profits and on the behalf of Big Oil, through the use of "round-trip" trades. Google the "Global Oil Scam." "Paper oil" and the crude oil futures markets have to be done away with. Cash on the barrelhead. Over 75% of crude oil futures trading takes place in the ICE. ExxonMobil, Chevron and others are silent partners in the ICE. ICE is a super Enron. Oil is too critical a resource to be controlled and manipulated by greedy corporations, greedy speculators, greedy refiners and greedy traders. To obtain a fair oil price Senator Sanders and the Occupy Wall Streeters have to investigate ICE and seize immediately the trading records of ICE, before they are destroyed.
kat — Nov 12 2011 10:47 AM
Hey Earl I do not have the money to purchase solar panels.
You people are so short-sighted it is frightening!
mmfy — Nov 12 2011 02:11 PM
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=adams%20nrdc&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CEwQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.undueinfluence.com%2Fnrdc.htm&ei=Rb--TrDwKcXJiQKjudnyAg&usg=AFQjCNGxZQx74h_97IU7DI3rG65i5qZi6A&cad=rja
conusam — Nov 12 2011 02:21 PM
Hello!
Josh Mogerman — Nov 12 2011 02:35 PM
Norm, the blog had direct links. Here are a few with excerpts noting the conflicted background of the author.
Wall Street Journal:
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/30/green-jobs-ole-is-the-spanish-clean-energy-push-a-cautionary-tale/
"And just where did that study come from? Professor Gabriel Calzada is the founder and president of the Fundacion Juan de Mariana, a libertarian think tank founded in 2005. He's also a fellow of the Center for New Europe, a Brussels-based libertarian think tank that in recent years apparently accepted funding from Exxon Mobil."
"... the study doesn't actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending. What the study actually says is that government spending on renewable energy is less than half as efficient at job creation as private-sector spending. Specifically, each green job required on average 571,000 euros, compared with 259,000 euros in "average capital per worker" in the rest of the economy."
Reuters:
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/04/07/do-green-jobs-cannibalize-other-jobs/
"Calzada, as the founder of a libertarian think tank, might not be completely objective."
Here is a scan of the letter from Spain to Rep. Waxman rejecting the study:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/media/Rodriguez%20letter.pdf
And here is a white paper from the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf
Read up. The 2009 study is bogus.
Ac95 — Nov 13 2011 12:48 AM
What a pathetic slob this president is. He runs around complaining about jobs when he clearly is rejecting this proposal which will create half a million jobs max. Way to go environMENTALists and Pres obama!
Norm Benson — Nov 13 2011 10:11 AM
Josh, thank you for the link to the white paper. As for whether Professor Calzada is a libertarian, that should only raise a flag, much the same way is NRDC, Greenpeace, or WWF, et. al., fund a researcher. It should be the argument's facts and not the arguer that the discussion ought to consider.
More figures: http://bit.ly/tQw514
Norm benson — Nov 13 2011 10:40 AM
“We’re [The federal government under Ds & Rs] making very large bets [on energy], and the decisions seem to be more grounded in politics and geography than in engineering and science,” said Michael Graetz, a professor at Columbia Law School and the author of “The End of Energy.”
TheTrue2 — Nov 13 2011 04:30 PM
"More time is needed to examine the pipeline’s impact on water, our climate, our health and safety"...I think we know the impact fairly well if everything works as it should. The concern is a catastrophic event that can release 186,000 barrels (55 gallons per barrel) with estimated worst response time to an emergency scenario. I think what we need assurance on is how good are the leak detection systems. I would want to look at on the field results for the same system from actual emergencies in other pipelines. I also would like to know how long it takes after shutdown activation for the flow to stop. This is a 1700 miles extension to a pipeline that in total is 2100 miles long....186,000 barrels spill covers a great deal of surface space. Clay is the best barrier to permeability. Every other type of soil is not quite as good. The soil in some parts above the Aquafier has high permeability (not to mention the destruction of the ecosystem cause by a large spill). I think the wise thing to do is to find a different route that avoids crossing through endangered and scarce resources and accomplish the same results of cheaper transportation costs.