Edited by Molly Rusk
The President's Choice
In the next few months, Barack Obama, the president of the United States, will decide the fate of the Keystone XL project, a 1900 kilometer pipeline to transport oil from Alberta to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.
In Alberta, where the decline in oil prices due to congestion in America’s network of pipelines is already causing considerable loss, anxiety reigns. The tone that Barack Obama put on the fight against climate change in his recent speeches makes one worry that, in order to emphasize his determination on this subject, he will refuse to give the green light to the TransCanada project. For the Canadian economy, such a decision would obviously be detrimental; and for the sake of environmental protection, the gesture would be useless.
The Keystone XL project has become environmentalists’ favorite target in the U.S. After protesting against the pipeline at the White House on Wednesday, Robert Kennedy Jr. said, “If they build it…we can no longer save the planet.” *
This statement is ridiculous. Of course, as we have often written here, more efforts must be taken to develop the oil sands more cleanly. That being said, it must be admitted that this operation will have no significant impact on climate change, as shown by the researchers at the University of British Columbia.
Besides, even if the Keystone XL pipeline isn’t built, the industry will extract the oil sands. The precious liquid will be sent to the United States by other means, or will be exported to other markets. A little more complicated, a little less profitable—but it will be done.
Regarding emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States, only a drop in consumption of oil and coal can reduce them. Banning Keystone XL will have no effect on the consumer. The oil they cannot get in Canada, Americans will buy from other countries, where the operation is not necessarily cleaner than tar sands.
In conclusion, the link between Keystone XL and the fight against climate change is weak, if not nonexistent.
Regarding the risk of leakage, American authorities must obviously impose very strict standards on TransCanada. But the opponents must understand, for their part, that if Keystone XL isn’t built, large quantities of oil will be transported by train (actually, this is already being done), a less safe mode of transport.
We look forward to seeing Barack Obama take hold of the fight against climate change. However, there is no valid reason for the rejection of Keystone XL to be part of the presidential strategy.
*Editor’s Note: This quote, while accurately translated, could not be verified.
In Alberta, where the decline in oil prices due to congestion in America’s network of pipelines is already causing considerable loss, anxiety reigns. The tone that Barack Obama put on the fight against climate change in his recent speeches makes one worry that, in order to emphasize his determination on this subject, he will refuse to give the green light to the TransCanada project. For the Canadian economy, such a decision would obviously be detrimental; and for the sake of environmental protection, the gesture would be useless.
The Keystone XL project has become environmentalists’ favorite target in the U.S. After protesting against the pipeline at the White House on Wednesday, Robert Kennedy Jr. said, “If they build it…we can no longer save the planet.” *
This statement is ridiculous. Of course, as we have often written here, more efforts must be taken to develop the oil sands more cleanly. That being said, it must be admitted that this operation will have no significant impact on climate change, as shown by the researchers at the University of British Columbia.
Besides, even if the Keystone XL pipeline isn’t built, the industry will extract the oil sands. The precious liquid will be sent to the United States by other means, or will be exported to other markets. A little more complicated, a little less profitable—but it will be done.
Regarding emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States, only a drop in consumption of oil and coal can reduce them. Banning Keystone XL will have no effect on the consumer. The oil they cannot get in Canada, Americans will buy from other countries, where the operation is not necessarily cleaner than tar sands.
In conclusion, the link between Keystone XL and the fight against climate change is weak, if not nonexistent.
Regarding the risk of leakage, American authorities must obviously impose very strict standards on TransCanada. But the opponents must understand, for their part, that if Keystone XL isn’t built, large quantities of oil will be transported by train (actually, this is already being done), a less safe mode of transport.
We look forward to seeing Barack Obama take hold of the fight against climate change. However, there is no valid reason for the rejection of Keystone XL to be part of the presidential strategy.
*Editor’s Note: This quote, while accurately translated, could not be verified.