skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Keystone XL Pipeline
Defending the Clean Air Act

Susan Casey-Lefkowitz’s Blog

Don't Let the Keystone XL Bait and Switch Scam Diminish American Leadership

Susan Casey-Lefkowitz

Posted December 20, 2011 in Curbing Pollution, Moving Beyond Oil, Solving Global Warming

Tags:
, , , , , ,
Share | | |

TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would bring tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast for export has become a central part of the debate in the United States about how we fight climate change. American leadership to fight climate change is critical at home and internationally. The pipeline project marks a step in the wrong direction for the United States – leading us towards dirtier forms of fuel that are not compatible with fighting climate change. However, the oil industry is trying to pull a bait and switch scam with Keystone XL – offering it as a path to economic and national security when the pipeline is actually a job killer that is mostly meant for export. The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in the national interest and there are strong economic and security arguments to back this up. America can show leadership on clean energy and on fighting climate change by rejecting this dirty fuel project.

The Keystone XL pipeline debate is part of a pattern of corporate scams and misinformation from the stock market bubble of the 1990’s to the real estate bubble of the early 2000’s. Keystone XL continues this pattern of industry risk taking and ignoring of long-term dangers (in this case climate change) for increasingly smaller short-term gains.

The risks to our farms and waters of Keystone XL have been a matter of strong concern all along the pipeline pathway for many months now. The fact that this pipeline is also a job killer rather than a job creator has also been well documented. What is less well understood are the many other economic dangers of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.  A recent article by former Federal Trade Commission attorney and former counsel to the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee and the Senate Judiciary Committee Henry Banta raises a number of questions when it comes to the economics of the Keystone XL pipeline project:

  • Hardly mentioned at all in the current debate about jobs is that the pipeline could have the effect of reducing employment in the U.S. oil and gas industry.
  • The notion of Canada as a more secure source must be viewed with considerable skepticism by anyone who is old enough to remember the energy crises of 1973 and 1979.
  • In whose interest is the end run past the refineries of the Upper Midwest? TransCanada told the Canadian Government that these U.S. refineries and their customers have been enjoying low crude oil and product prices because of Canadian crude oil. The Keystone XL line would end this “discount” and raise fuel costs in the region about $4 billion.
  • What advantages does the Gulf offer? Perhaps that it is a “free trade zone” meaning that the crude is free of any trade restrictions and some taxes.
  • Indeed there is considerable evidence that the owners of the line intend to export either crude oil or the refined product. If that is what they have in mind, what’s in it for us?
  • Proposals for new tar sands pipelines in Canada are facing delays due to continued public concerns and tar sands oil is unlikely to be going to Asia anytime soon unless it comes through the Keystone XL pipeline. Are the citizens of the U.S. being asked to take a significant environmental risk in order that the oil companies can get past the obstacle of an unwilling public in Canada? 

Similarly, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will not help us from a security perspective. Nancy Soderberg, former deputy national security adviser and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations recently wrote an article that summarizes the security concerns with Keystone XL as follows:

  • Rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline is important for U.S. leadership in making sure that the security of the United States is not compromised by reliance on oil and that the U.S. plays a global leadership role in building a renewable energy economy.
  • As retired Army Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson noted in a recent blog, the pipeline’s biggest client, Valero Energy Corp., informed investors that the refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, would be focused on exports, keeping American consumers vulnerable to global oil price fluctuations.
  • The idea behind Keystone XL was to give Canadian businesses access to the ocean and global market, not to help America reduce its dependence on foreign oil.
  • Committing ourselves to projects like Keystone XL would further lock us into a global oil market that aids and abets tyrants and terrorists, and holds American consumers hostage.
  • Approving such a project would severely diminish U.S. global leadership in building a world based on renewable energy, combating growing greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and reducing dependence on a volatile oil market.

Climate change is a global problem. And it will not be solved without American leadership. The harm to our pocketbooks, homes, health and communities is also being felt all across our country in the violent storms, droughts, floods and fires that we have experienced even in the last year. Just this morning, the news is filled with the unusual blizzard in the southern plains.

For America to demonstrate that it is serious about tackling climate change, the world has to see us not only moving forward with clean energy, but also fighting dirty energy. Keystone XL was the first time the world noticed a serious movement to say no to dirty fuels and no to business as usual in America.

When America has been at its best, it is optimistic and pragmatic. This is the way America behaved in organizing the Berlin airlift, putting a man on the moon and accelerating us into a high tech world. The many businesses, workers and investors in America already moving toward a clean energy economy are optimistic and pragmatic and represent all that is best in America.

In contrast, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is pessimistic and cynical. The pipeline’s proponents are trying to scam people with exaggerated jobs numbers and a myth that this pipeline would make us more secure. The world is not waiting to follow a pessimistic and cynical America. The idea that we can continue to rely on dirtier and dirtier forms of energy and lead the world is absurd. The world is looking for leadership to fight climate change – the worst economic and national security threat facing us in coming decades. America needs to stand strong against oil industry ploys to push a tar sands pipeline as a jobs plan or a security venture when it is neither. We need to show leadership and reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and other tar sands expansion projects.

Share | | |

Comments

Steve ThompsonDec 20 2011 10:28 AM

Carbon emissions are not the only issue related to oil sands mining. Here is a summary of a peer-reviewed study that outlines the other environmental issues that are created by oil sands mining:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2010/09/athabasca-river-how-many-politicians_07.html

The Athabasca River watershed in Northern Alberta will continue to be heavily impacted by the mining operations no matter the ultimate destination of the oil extracted.

CrayonladyDec 20 2011 10:42 AM

As an Albertan it is imperative that it be noted that the Alberta government are pros at propaganda. They are considered one of the most abusive governments in Canada, and they will benefit by 5 billion a year from this pipeline. Every time there is a new oil boom in Alberta, the government gets richer and those that are poor, handicapped or seniors suffer to the extent of almost third world countries.
The Alberta Conservative government are elitest pigs who don't even care if parents can afford to feed their children. Remeber why they want your money...it certainly isn't to do anything but line their pockets...personal greed is their biggest motivation, and don't let them claim anything else.
Will your child go to bed hungry for Christmas, thousands of Alberta children will.
How are they going to meet the needs of Americans, when they blatently hang their own citizens out to dry. Literally.
Don't be fooled by their propaganda...it's just that, propaganda.

Woody PfisterDec 20 2011 11:13 AM

Union workers needs jobs. Obama needs union workers. Obama will approve the pipeline.

Think Lisa P Jackson's Ozone "I'm going to close down Gitmo" moment.

Canadian oil will not supplant U.S. oil production, it will supplant Venezualen and Mid-East oil. If the Canadian oil is re-exported, it will be as refined product and improve the U.S. balance of payments.

Go Keystone XL!

James LewisDec 21 2011 03:14 AM

XL produces independance and environmetalest distroy it. go figure

PamelaDec 23 2011 12:18 PM

After reading these comments, it is clear to me those who embrace this project exist in a dimmed world with very short-sighted goals. Read the tens of dozens of reports concerning the project as a job-killer and not job-promoter - if this is your primary short-sighted perspective.

There's so much more to this project than "jobs"; there's billions of dollars that will line the pockets of the likes of the Koch brothers (the 1%), who do not care about little laborers, who do not have any problem deceiving the little laborers. When jobs fail to materialize, they will laugh at you-not help you.

Beyond the money aspect of his project, the mere process of removing oil bitumen from the earth subjects every global human individual, animal, and plant to further irrevocable harm through environmental pollution and degradation (air, land, and water). Pollution does not exist in a vacuum and will not be contained in Canada; however, will be dispersed globally. Continued global environmental pollution and degradation has the very definite consequence of killing our future generations (i.e. great grandchildren). Will you have any great-grandchildren?

Let us also not forget the dangerous impact this project has on our extremely limited fresh water supply. The mining process contaminates water, installation of the pipeline contaminates water, and the pipeline will leak further contaminating drinking water. Should there be a major accident involving the pipeline, there will be unthinkable consequences for humans. Humans can only exist a few days in the absence of clean water and associated death is a horrid physiological event.

For those who are only thinking about having a short-term job, please think more deeply with consideration of all the ramifications of this ill-conceived project.

Finally, it is imperative the citizens of this country devise means of lessening their dependence on oil and oil products. Oil resources will become depleted (i.e. Alaskan pipeline oil is nearly depleted and the pipeline must now be removed - who pays? Hint - you). Global oil resources have already peaked, meaning we have tapped the majority of oil on this small planet and we are now only able to scrape up small remaining amounts. Why destroy the environment and cause human health issues and human deaths for such a short-term project?

Think more deeply about this project before making comments that clearly indicate a lack of critical thinking and deep thought. And by the way, it also is advisable to use a dictionary to disguise complete ignorance (hint, hint James Lewis).

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: Susan Casey-Lefkowitz’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In