|
|
Canadian Blue-chip Industrial Forum
|
|
||
Yedlin: Carter's pipeline 'truths' aren'tWill there ever be an end to the largely uninformed commentary and analysis about the oilsands and the evils of the Keystone XL pipeline? This week, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, alongside nine other Nobel Laureates, sent Barack Obama a letter urging rejection of the project. On Friday, the U.S. State Department issued a statement saying it would be further delaying a decision on the project because of ongoing litigation at the Nebraska Supreme Court, which could have an impact on the routing of the pipeline. It will also allow for more time to review the 2.5 million comments received during the public comment period that ended March 7. It pretty much guarantees a decision on the project will not be made until after the November mid-term elections, which is what most observers were expecting. Obama needed to find a way to appease environmental groups opposed to the project, while still keeping the labour groups onside with the promise of approval and the jobs that would come with it, and he has succeeded. The State Department said it informed TransCanada of this latest development by phone on Friday morning - Good Friday morning. If that isn't crossing a few boundaries - and a vivid display of cowardice - it's tough to say what is. The company released a statement saying it was "disappointed and frustrated with yet another delay." Despite this latest delay, State Department officials had the chutzpah to say, during the conference call held Friday, that they want the process to move "as expeditiously as possible." That couldn't be further from the reality. After 2,000 days, five environmental reviews and more than 17,000 pages of scientific data, how can the State Department even begin to think the word "expeditious" fits a description of the process to which this project has been subject? So where does this tie into Carter and the letter he signed this week? For one thing, it's clear from the letter that he and his group have bought into the volumes of misinformation being spread about the oilsands and Keystone, courtesy of environmental groups whose form letters no doubt comprise the majority of the 2.5 million public comments the State Department wants more time to review. The hyperbole contained in the Carter letter, including the statement "the tarsands are among the world's most polluting oil," is usually reserved for Hollywood types such as Robert Redford and is not befitting any Nobel Laureate. Moreover, the writers appear entirely unaware of the high carbon footprint associated with producing California thermal oil or that three coal-fired power plants in the United States account for more greenhouse gas emissions than does the oilsands in its entirety. There is much irony in Friday's announcement and Carter's letter. For one thing, it's Carter who bears responsibility for U.S. dependency on coal for electricity generation, and by extension its contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. It was under Carter that the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act was passed in 1978, which prohibited the use of natural gas for electricity generation for fear the U.S. would run short. The decision had the unintended consequences of increasing the use of coal to generate electricity, a noose that's proving difficult for the U.S. to dislodge today. While the Act was repealed in 1987 under Ronald Reagan, during the nine years it was in place coal-fired electricity plants went from supplying 44.2 per cent of the country's electricity to 56.8 per cent. Today, that number sits at 39 per cent, while natural gas, which supplied 13.8 per cent of fuel for electricity in 1978, has risen to about 30 per cent. The other inconsistency in Carter's comments is that his exhortation to Obama not to approve Keystone XL contradicts a cornerstone of his administration's energy policy, which was to increase energy self-sufficiency and work toward energy security. Those of a certain vintage will also recall a speech Carter gave in 1979, in which he said the United States would decrease its dependence on foreign oil. "Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 - never," he said then. Foreign oil in 1977 and today mean the same thing - oil that's imported from countries that are politically unstable and unreliable. That leaves Canada, its friendly and stable neighbour as a reliable source of oil imports; a country that regulates development of its energy sector, unlike many oil-producing jurisdictions. Ironically, approval of Keystone would achieve the energy objectives Carter set out 35 years ago. It's a project that would not only improve American energy security - an issue that's top of mind as a result of events in Russia and Ukraine - but would minimize the environmental impact and safety concerns associated with moving increased amounts of oil by rail to U.S. refineries, which is what's happening now. Oil exports from Canada have increased in the last four years (the Keystone project has been in limbo for six) as companies have looked to other modes of transportation in the absence of new pipelines being built. With Friday's announcement it's getting harder to believe a fair and transparent process is taking place around the Keystone XL project. Maybe, just maybe, it's time for TransCanada to withdraw its application, allow its management team to focus on other projects and let Obama see what it's like to feel the wrath of Americans who were counting on the jobs that would have come with the project. Deborah Yedlin is a Calgary Herald columnist dy edlin@calgaryherald.com |
return to message board, top of board |