Comment pubs.acs.org/est
Keystone XL: Pipeline to Nowhere
U
true. But if Canada is to develop the oil sands for sale to China, from two to six million barrels per day as planned, it would require new pipelines across Alberta and British Columbia through sensitive ecological regions and first nation’s property. The proper place for such a decision is with Canadians and first nations. 5. When do we start to stop? If not now, when? It has been a good run, this fossil fuel age. But from the invention of steam power in the 1700s when industrial society first started to burn huge quantities of coal, the future was preordained. One cannot burn all the fossil fuels that required 300 million years to form in just a few centuries and not expect to pay consequences. The fossil fuel age has massively disrupted the balance of oxidation and reduction on earth. Thus, elemental cycles yield more oxidized products like acid rain (nitric acid, sulfuric acid) and carbon dioxide as a result. For all these reasons, we do not need a pipeline without a future. It is a pipeline to nowhere.
se of coal, oil, and natural gas has to stop (in that order). But “dirty” oil, emanating from oil sands (a.k.a., tar sands) with a significantly higher carbon footprint than conventional oil, deserves a place at the front of the line. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would enable development of oil sands from Alberta, Canada, to the U.S., but this dog will not hunt. It is a pipeline to nowherea dead end in our economic future. The fossil fuel age is coming to a close and only those fuels with the least carbon content should be used. Fossil fuels are linked to an exponential build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and an increasing frequency of extreme events floods, droughts, wildfires, and storms. Unless we wish to see more events like the 2003 European heat wave, the 2010 drought and wildfires in Russia, and 2012 Superstorm Sandy; we should begin to phase-out carbon-laden fuels. Denying the construction of the Keystone XL could be a resolute signal that President Obama is serious about climate change. A portion of the Keystone Pipeline is already realityit runs from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska, and two branches then extend to Patoka, Illinois and Cushing, Oklahoma (see figure). Do we really need a parallel extension to transport an additional 830 000 barrels/day of crude to refineries in the Gulf Coast? After all, the U.S. became a net exporter of refined petroleum products in 2008, so most of it would be exported anyway. Here’s the case against the Keystone XL: 1. We do not really need the oil. Energy efficiency is actually the key(stone) we should be focusing on. With new EPA regulations on light duty vehicles coming online now through 2025, the savings from fuel efficiency alone will account for 2 million barrels/day, more than twice the oil that would flow from Keystone XL. Consumers will save $3,400−$5,000 in net fuel costs over the lifetime of their vehicle from these new rules; and 2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases will be avoided. Clearly, energy efficiency trumps fossil fuel development in every way. 2. Keystone XL would add to global greenhouse gas emissions. New infrastructure like Keystone XL will increase demand and the rate of development of Alberta oil sandsoil with a very large carbon footprint (17% higher than crude oil produced in the U.S.) according to the recent Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement by the U.S. State Department. It is true that burning an additional 830 000 barrels of oil per day does not represent a large fraction of total greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, but it is a step in the wrong direction. 3. It is a slippery (and oily) slope. If XL is approved, the deposits of oil sands potentially available for development in Alberta are truly massive, 170 billion barrels of oil, enough to raise the carbon dioxide concentration of the entire atmosphere by almost 10 ppm if it was completely extracted and burned. 4. Let Canadians decide. Pipeline proponents say that China will buy the oil anyway if the U.S. does not. That may be © 2013 American Chemical Society
■
Jerald L. Schnoor, Editor-in-Chief AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
[email protected]. Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Published: April 29, 2013 3943
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es4014129 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 3943−3943
