So President Obama killed the Keystone Pipeline deal but what did this actually accomplish?
Well first of all it succeeded in ruining a deal with Canada - our close ally, good neighbor, and number one trading partner. It succeeded in killing potentially thousands of good, high-paying jobs for for mainly middle-class Americans. It might not be the numbers that proponents claim but there can be no denying that jobs that would have otherwise been created have just been prevented from seeing the light of day.
It prevented additional greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere. Wait! No, actually it won't do that at all. As a matter of fact, it will probably result in a net increase in greenhouses gases. How you may ask? The answer is perfectly straight forward. The Canadian tar sands oil isn't going to be left in the ground. That much is certain. The Canadian government indicated that they wanted a decision from the U.S. government so that if America chose to not go through with the deal, Canada could pursue other options. Most likely the Canadian government will sell the oil to China. At best, that would be a net sum zero. However, that won't be the case. Petroleum refining in China is far less environmentally friendly than in the U.S.. Further, when the crude oil is converted into its end products, those that will be consumed in China will be used far less efficiently there than they would be had they been sold and consumed in the U.S. or Europe. Remember the scenes from the Olympics in Beijing? The smog there was so thick that one could barely see and people has to wear masks to protect themselves from the filth in the air. Events even had to be delayed or moved because the air was unsafe for the athletes to breath.
At least the environmental impact to America will be less. This was the major objection to the project by environmentalist groups. Again, actually it won't. Since the prevailing winds go from west to east, the pollution originating in China ultimately makes its way to America. Additionally, it will be potentially more dangerous as the risk of oil spills will increase dramatically. The reason again is simple. Crude not going through a new, modern Keystone pipeline will either be transported by rail, truck or existing older, less safe pipelines. Once that crude makes it to the Canadian coast, it will be loaded on old, single hull construction Chinese tankers which, if involved in an accident such as a collision or grounding, will result in catastrophic spills. Moreover, rail and truck transportation is far riskier than pumping crude through a modern pipeline with its numerous safety features such as automatic monitoring and shutdown. Environmental activists like liberal billionaire Democrat donor, Tom Steyer (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/us/politics/financier-plans-big-ad-campaign-on-environment.html; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/19/american-crossroads/would-billionaire-environmentalist-tom-steyer-prof/; https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/billionaire-has-unique-role-in-official-washington-climate-change-radical/2013/02/17/23cdcf4c-6b26-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/billionaire_liberal_donor_gets_way_on_keystone_pipeline_122369.html) argue that the Keystone project posed a risk to the Ogallala Aquifer which provides drinking water to millions of people, plants, and animals. However, based on this concern, the route of the pipeline was changes to mitigate the danger which led to both the EPA and the State Department as well as other government agencies approving the project.
It is pretty clear that killing the Keystone deal was more about politics than economics or the environment. For example, Mr. Steyer has fossil fuels and green energy business interests that stand to gain greatly from the death of Keystone and he used his influence to help elect candidates who opposed the deal. Steyer's supporters on the Left will be quick to point out that Mr. Steyer has divested himself from those businesses but aren't those the very same people who said Vice President Cheney was personally benefiting from the Iraq War because of his past association with Halliburton even though he no longer has any dealings with the company?
Politics - pure and simple!
No comments:
Post a Comment