April 5, 2012
For Hamilton students, the Keystone XL pipeline project may seem too far away and have too little to do with our day to day lives. The project, however, if it goes forward, will not be completed until the current freshman class has graduated. For anyone who pays for gas to drive or uses electricity, the current energy crisis matters. Carbon emissions from extraction, production and utilization of Canadian tar sands have the potential to affect our climate, both at Hamilton and nationwide, far into the future.
The Keystone XL pipeline has one intended purpose: to lower gas prices by increasing domestic production. However, domestic gas prices ride on global crude oil prices, which fluctuate based on myriad factors—ranging from domestic production to conflicts in the Middle East to the rate of economic growth in emerging markets.
Yet, while some economists insist that the price of gas is not rising and simply that the dollar is falling, Keystone XL would likely have little impact on domestic gas prices. In an international petroleum market, any production gains would soon be swallowed by markets like China, which are increasing in size and will soon be much larger and more voracious than the U.S.
Moreover, crude oil produced from Canadian tar sand is a very destructive process—it has the potential to displace wildlife and devastate ecosystems and, by some estimates, the energy potential of the extracted crude is less than the fossil fuel energy needed to extract and process it in the first place. In other words, Canadian tar sands are a money pit, both for overall oil consumption and carbon emissions.
So while it’s clear that the U.S. will not be able to drill its way out of the current energy crisis, President Obama has advocated a so-called “all of the above approach” to energy. This includes investing in renewable energies as well as expanding offshore drilling operations to increase domestic production of crude. The State Department, however, has jurisdiction over approving all international infrastructure projects. Due to constant pressure from environmental lobbying groups and citizen opposition to the project, the State Department rejected the project in its current planning form.
The Obama administration, however, has essentially made an end-run around the State Department approval process. Obama has stated that he will “expedite” construction permits for the southern half of the Keystone pipeline to begin construction in the U.S. Why would a president, who seemed committed to building a sustainable energy infrastructure during his initial campaign, suddenly reverse his position?
The answer is, of course, election year politics. During a time when gas prices are the highest they’ve been in years, the President does not want to be characterized by a potential Republican foe of standing in the way of a project that could ease the burden on the pocketbooks of many middle and lower class Americans. Obama’s “all of the above approach” has been tempered by four years of criticism, and, as a nation, we have made few gains towards building a sustainable infrastructure to replace and update the petroleum-based interstate highway system. In fact, we have moved backwards, as the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf shows.
Keystone, in the long run, will not help ease the burden of high gas prices. It will, in fact, stand to enrich Canadian oil companies and domestic refineries at the expense of the environment and consumers, and could potentially lead to another devastating spill—except this time in the heartland of the U.S. Keystone would also present a tempting target for potential eco-terrorists and could cause many other problems in the long run.
In short, Keystone XL is a mistake. It will further entrench the American economy in petroleum just at a crucial time where, as a nation, we must take steps towards breaking our oil dependency. The market exists for a fundamental game-changer. It is time for us, as enlightened student-citizens, to take control of our future and not allow moneyed interests and national politics to determine our future choices—both for energy to power our lives and for our environment.