Sorting the truth on Keystone
Would pipeline fuel jobs or a ‘carbon bomb’? Depends on your source
Environmental opponents don’t mince words on the Keystone XL pipeline. Some call it the “fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet” because of the carbon emissions from the oil it will carry.
If the pipeline is approved and the fuse lit, climate scientist James Hansen says, it’s “game over for climate.” Hyperbole? Backers say the Canada-to-U.S. pipeline could lower U.S. dependence on unstable foreign sources of oil and create thousands of jobs. Hyberbole? This project, one of the most contentious of Barack Obama’s presidency or of any energy proposal in U.S. history, has triggered a multiyear slugfest.
Tens of thousands of protesters have circled the White House and Capitol, some dressed as polar bears and others carrying an inflatable pipeline with the words “Climate Champion or Pipeline President.”
Meanwhile, Obama has been lobbied to approve the project by the U.S. oil industry, Republican members of Congress and Canadian officials including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has said he won’t “take no for an answer.”
Rhetoric aside, what would the pipeline really do to the climate and the economy?
Yes, it could lead to a massive spike in heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, but only if the oil would otherwise stay in the ground, according to USA TODAY’s review of the State Department’s 11-volume final environmental report — released Jan. 31 — and interviews with climate scientists.
Yes, it could create jobs — but not as many as some claim.
The State Department estimates that during construction, the project would create 3,900 one-year construction jobs and 38,200 indirect ones, but during operation, only about 50 jobs.
Keystone’s owner, Calgarybased TransCanada, says the pipeline would generate about 9,000 construction jobs.
The State Department’s review says the 1,179-mile pipeline, which would carry heavy oil sands from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Neb., would do little to change U.S. gasoline prices or oil imports.
The reason: Oil is traded on a global market that adjusts to shifts in supply and demand. So even if North America produces more oil, that doesn’t mean it stays here.
The biggest debate centers on another question: Would Keystone affect the development of Canada’s oil or tar sands, which sit below stretches of Alberta’s boreal forest that are about the size of New York state?
Environmentalists say it would. The State Department review says it probably wouldn’t, arguing the oil would be transported by other pipelines, truck or rail.
The billion-dollar pipeline needs a permit from the State Department because it crosses an international border.
Yet Obama has said he’ll make the final call. He hasn’t publicly shown his hand, but he has said Keystone’s approval depends on whether it “significantly” increases global carbon pollution.
The president was widely expected to approve or reject the project this year, after a separate review by federal agencies of
“The most troubling aspect of the Keystone pipeline is that it’s an encouragement to use oil longer than we should.”
Christopher Field, the Carnegie Institution for Science
whether it’s in the “national interest.” That time frame could slip, however, because a Nebraska judge in mid-February invalidated a law that allowed approval of Keystone’s route through the state. Two of the main issues are: Is Keystone XL a “fuse to the largest carbon bomb on the planet”?
Potentially yes. Bill McKibben, author and environmental activist, has used this catchy phrase to mobilize grass-roots opposition. Hansen, who led NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies from 1981 to 2013, agrees Keystone could unload such a bomb.
“The tar sands are about the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, especially when you consider the damage done and energy used in getting them out of the ground,” Hansen writes in an e-mail. He says they contain twice the amount of oil burned in human history and if developed, “it is game over — we will not be able to stabilize climate.”
Some climate scientists say Hansen has gone too far. Harvard University’s David Keith, a Canadian who opposes Keystone XL, says developing tar sands would not necessarily emit more carbon than a large coal mine.
“Saying that the tar sands are not necessarily worse than coal is like saying that drinking arsenic is not necessarily worse than drinking cyanide,” says geophysicist Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago.
He says fully developing the tar sands could by itself, “even if we suddenly stopped burning coal,” warm the planet an additional 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end — an amount that climate scientists warn could be catastrophic.
The State Department estimates the likely carbon emissions from the 830,000 barrels per day of oil sands that Keystone could carry. Those annual emissions are huge — 147 to 168 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO2e), equivalent to running at least 30 million cars, 7.3 million homes and 42 coalfired power plants each year.
Yet the State Department’s review focuses on a much smaller number. It says tar sands would likely replace other oil in the global market, so it estimates tar sands would produce 17% more carbon emissions over its life cycle than average U.S. crude. Its use could add 23.4 more MMTCO2e per year — equal to that of nearly 5 million cars.
“Oil sands are definitely worse than other types of crude,” says Sandra Yeh, research scientist at the University of California-Davis’ Institute of Transportation Studies.
Would tar sands be developed even if Keystone XL is rejected?
Potentially yes. The State Department says the pipeline is unlikely to cause even incremental increases in emissions, because the tar sands will likely be developed anyway — as long as oil prices remain high enough.
“Rail will likely be able to accommodate new production if new pipelines are delayed or not constructed,” the review says.
The review says rail is a dirtier way to transport tar sands to the Gulf Coast and, compared with Keystone, could boost annual greenhouse gas emissions 28%.
In an editorial on Feb. 20, former head of the U.S. Geological Survey Marcia McNutt said that she supported Keystone because rail and truck transports would be more environmentally damaging.
“Pipelines are the safest way ... by a long shot” to move tar sands, TransCanada’s spokesman Shawn Howard says, noting the recent spate of rail accidents.
Martin Tallett, president of EnSys Energy, a Massachusettsbased consulting firm that worked on the State Department report, says Keystone is now just one of four large pending pipelines, so even if rejected, another will probably move tar sands out of Alberta — to Canada’s west or east coast.
Opponents agree the energy market has changed — so much so that Keystone is irrelevant.
“We simply don’t need this pipeline,” says Anthony Swift, attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, citing the U.S. oil boom.
Christopher Field, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, says the planet has to shift to carbon-free energy sources like solar, wind and nuclear to avoid catastrophic global warming.
“The most troubling aspect of the Keystone pipeline is that it’s an encouragement to use oil longer than we should,” he says.