skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

Susan Casey-Lefkowitz’s Blog

Killing the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline: the gift of hope for a clean energy future

Susan Casey-Lefkowitz

Posted December 23, 2011 in Curbing Pollution, Moving Beyond Oil, Saving Wildlife and Wild Places, Solving Global Warming

Tags:
, , , ,
Share | | |

Updated as of December 26

On December 23, the House passed a "tax holiday" extension package that contains an unrelated provision to speed up a decision on the dirty energy Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. How does this help fight climate change? By requiring a decision before the pipeline route is even determined, Republicans have inadvertently given the President no choice but to reject Keystone XL - an unexpected holiday gift that will help us fight climate change and promote clean energy.

It is clear that Republicans and Big Oil hoped to rush approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline after the Administration decided on an additional year of review, including determination of a new route that would avoid the fragile Nebraska Sandhills. But this attempt is going to backfire as the fast-tracking attempt leaves the President no choice but to say that based on available information, the project is not in the national interest and to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.

In fact, the arguments for the pipeline are so wildly exaggerated these days that they amount to a scam – a scam of the worst kind that plays on people’s desire for security and need for jobs.

But Keystone XL would not bring energy security. The project would bring tar sands oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast where much of it would be destined for export.  Oil companies in the America are exporting ever more of our oil because this is what brings them profits. This means that those who argue that Keystone XL is necessary for U.S. energy security are wrong. Security experts say that the real path to energy security is to kill the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. And even though proponents raise the specter of tar sands going to China if Keystone XL is not built – this is also false. For example, the proposal for the Northern Gateway pipeline that would go to Canada’s west coast is also experiencing at least a year of delay in the face of widespread public concerns – and fierce opposition from British Columbia’s First Nations has many believing that pipeline will never be built. Ironically, that leaves Keystone XL as the tar sands best bet for reaching China – and it leaves Americans bearing all the risk.

Keystone XL is a job killer, not a job creator. The jobs exaggerations of tar sands proponents are well documented. The pipeline will create the normal number of construction jobs that any single project would. This is not a national jobs plan and it is cruel to raise expectations that cannot be met. Rather than dirty energy projects such as the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, America needs to focus on clean energy economic development to build the type of energy-related jobs plan that means true long-term prosperity. As Senator Leahy noted yesterday in response to the new mercury rules:

“With clear and effective Clean Air Act rules, we see tremendous benefits: cleaner air, healthier and more productive citizens, and the creation of thousands of good-paying clean jobs.  Skilled laborers are standing ready to fill the 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 long-term utility jobs that the Utility Air Toxics Rule will create.  This is about five times more jobs than the controversial Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline would employ.  And unlike the pipeline, these clean air improvements do not gamble with the public’s health and our environment.”

So, thanks Congress for the gift of a provision that will kill a risky and reckless project. People all along the pipeline route and Americans who have suffered in the past year from the violent storms, droughts, and floods that are part of our changing climate all appreciate the gift of one less dirty energy project and the gift of hope for a cleaner energy future.

Share | | |

Comments

k. ForestDec 23 2011 10:46 AM

Excellent article; finally a future vision not based on short term corporate greed for a few. From my very rural home in north west Canada, I have, for the past 30 years, witnessed the total exploitation of our environment, from a pristine wilderness to a mined, logged, dammed, drilled, pine-beetle choked desert. We really all do live on one planet with a common atmosphere and environment and we need to work together to keep it.

james SDec 23 2011 02:11 PM

You people are sick, and need help.

People are starving for jobs, but we would rather go down the bogus clean energy road. It is foolish!

No one wants to breath 'dirty air'. But without more jobs there will be no one to breath the alleged 'clean air!'

JoeDec 24 2011 04:29 PM

James S, I pity you, but I don't forgive you. It's obvious to anyone not slammed on rotten eggnog that you didn't read the article - "starving for jobs" - ??? why is it that a job is only a "job" if it mines the Earth? Why is a solar energy plant not a job, but tar sands are? Which one of those resources will some day be depleted? I'll bet you whatever your job pays you that the Sun wins, Wind, Geothermal, or any other of a dozen technologies you thumb your nose at.

What makes me weep is that people like you are so beholden to a "job" but you cannot fathom that your model of economics is currently built on an increasing population which consumes increasing power as time goes on; yet you refuse to face the truth that the current sources of energy - dirty or not - are finite and destined to be exhausted. That you can so cavalierly pass that on to some future generation that will be even farther up against the wall than we are, at the same time you claim to care about people, is sad. You care about yourself, today. What happens tomorrow? You won't be there and that's not your problem. Wow. Thanks for caring.

We used to light our streets with lamps filled with whale oil. I guess we should lament that we dont' do that any more, because of all those whaling jobs that were lost? Or should we have waited until the population demand for whale oil exceeded the limits of the whaling community to bring in whales - or exceeded the whale's ability to make more of themselves? Please look up "troglodyte" before you make your next embarassing screed about "bogus clean energy".

Or better yet, take a good look at a picture called "Blue Marble" - you've got Google. Take a good, hard, look at that photo. All the oil that is ever in the Earth is there right now, getting smaller by a few hundred million barrels a day, and it's never coming back. Not in your lifetime, or ten thousand lifetimes. What then? Tell me where the oil will come from after the tar sands are gone, and Saudi Arabia is dry, and all the oil under the sea is either gone or washed ashore - what plan for "jobs" do you have then?

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