Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry calls rejection of Keystone XL
US President Barack Obama announced on Saturday that the State Department would not be approving the Keystone XL pipeline project, a controversial proposal which had become symbolic – rightly or wrongly – for the White House’s broader stance on climate issues. But it is action that will yield negligible changes in global warming. “The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward”. By comparison, the Keystone XL pipeline would have been 875 miles long. In fact, rejecting the pipeline could increase greenhouse gas emissions as companies find less efficient means-such as rail-to transport the oil.
While the climate benefits are negligible, the economic opportunity lost is very real. Had Keystone been approved, an additional 830,000 barrels of crude would have been transported from Canada to refineries in Texas every day.
Recently, TransCanada asked for suspension of its application in anticipation of a possible rejection by President Obama and a possible regime change in upcoming presidential election in 2016.
In a related statement, Secretary of State John Kerry explained that the final Keystone decision also was due to findings relating to the impact the pipeline would likely have on local communities, heritage sites, and water supplies, as well as those mentioned in Obama’s remarks. “First, the pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy”, Obama said.
Either way, the company is already diverting more attention to another major pipeline project it’s developing called Energy East. The $9.1 billion pipeline is slated to carry about 1.1 million barrels of crude per day from Western Canada to ports along Canada’s east coast.
If the president has been committed to fighting climate change, why have we seen so many pipelines carrying potentially risky oil constructed during his presidency?
But even if the pipeline stood a good chance of flopping, that’s not something a president should consider in deciding whether or not to grant a permit. The federal government’s determination should begin and end on those considerations.
That target implies there will be no project cost writedown within the next year. His main reasons for doing so were environmental safety and climate change. Keystone XL vaulted into the United States presidential campaign agenda in 2012, and its spectre will haunt next year’s race to pick Obama’s successor.
With a powerful worldwide climate treaty set to be finalized early next month, the president appears to be trying to lock in his environmental legacy. It does indeed serve American interests – as a safe, reliable source of energy.
Since conventional carbon-based fuels provide more than 80 percent of America’s energy, these restrictions on using abundant, economical energy sources will only inflict economic pain on households and businesses.