Our Views: Build pipeline from Canada

Maybe it was a political hot potato, but now that the election is over, the government’s decision on a major new oil pipeline from Canada should be made on the merits, and not on the politics.

For many environmentalists, the idea of the Keystone XL pipeline is not just an issue with the pipeline itself, but with the use of the heavy oil from tar sands. Unhappily for this point of view, the reality is that America needs more energy. Oil and gas are key components of our energy future for many years to come.

And even if one has objections to the idea of refining the Canadian oil, a former top aide to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama has some blunt advice for environmentalists:

“Those who will decide whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would run between the tar sands of western Canada and Nebraska, need to recognize that Canadian oil not flowing to the United States will probably flow to Asia, where it will be burned with fewer environmental protections,” wrote Lawrence Summers in The Washington Post.

It’s a more than fair point. America is not the only market for oil. China’s worsening environmental problems are of concern to everyone worried about the pace of global warming, and China is scouring the world for raw materials, including oil.

Finally, North American energy sources ought to be exploited here in North America.

That we should develop oil and gas resources with appropriate environmental controls is obvious, as is the long-term need to diversify our energy production portfolio. But the approval of the Keystone pipeline is not ultimately a hard decision on its merits.

Comments

1) Comment by gjnyc - 23/02/2013

hey build a commuter train from Baton Rouge to New Orleans then we can talk.

2) Comment by DMJ - 20/02/2013

It's important to remember that Oil isn't bought and sold like other commodities. After a certain point, there's really no telling where the oil came from. You can't go to certain gas stations and only pump Canadian oil or Kuwaiti oil. If the overall supply increases along with the demand, then prices will remain relatively stable. This, of course, will more burning of gasoline, whihc will mean more carbon emissions, which is why environmentalists are against it .

3) Comment by DMJ - 20/02/2013

We'll still import from the Middle East even if we end up using the Keystone pipeline to its fullest. If anything, approval of the rest of the pipeline will embroil us in Middle Eastern affairs even longer. Oh, and if Canada can sell to China, they will, Keystone pipeline notwithstanding. I still think we should finish building it, and we probably will, but I think its proponents and TransCanada are overestimating its positive effects.

4) Comment by Bighug - 20/02/2013

The editorial makes some good points. In addition to those, it is probable that pumping oil from a well in the middle-east, transferring it across a desert and thousands of miles of ocean, then again moving it within the US, ends up causing more pollution than using Canadian oil. It also funds our enemies over there. Makes much more sense to buy from our neighbor and reduce pollution.

5) Comment by DMJ - 20/02/2013

TransCanada just recently agreed to re-route the southern section of the pipeline (the northern section has existed for years) around a very large aquifer. Most people don't realize that the state of Nebraska (not exactly a bastion of liberalism) was opposed to the pipeline unless a new route was offered. Now that they have proposed a new route, I predict we'll see approval for the southern half fairly soon. Also, even if we don't, there's no guarantee that Canada will even be able to sell this oil to China. They'd have to construct an equallly long pipeline to their west coast which would go right through giant swaths of Indian reservations, which are even less keen on a pipeline than the Obama administration.

6) Comment by [e-mail] - 20/02/2013

Now that the election is over..... is a most perfidious admission that the interests of the country must always play second fiddle; ignorance is bliss and the American public is being fed propaganda that is both shameless and outright and in some cases, criminal lies.

7) Comment by Melisse3 - 20/02/2013

Tell your President. He's the one who has been, and still is, holding up this project. But you already know that. This should have been the easiest, no-brainer, decision of his presidency.

8) Comment by tradewinns - 20/02/2013

there are already pipelines running all over america with accidents few and far between. enviromentalist are just looking for someone's ax to grind and they have decided on this. with the price of gas approaching $4 a gal. here and higher elsewhere, the evironuts will lose and with good reason.

9) Comment by 8point6 - 20/02/2013

"Finally, North American energy sources ought to be exploited here in North America." People have been saying that since the carter administration. The "environmentalists" fought it back then, as they are fighting it, now.