Cooking the Books: The True Climate Impact of Keystone XL

[limpyhobbler]

A new report out today from environmental groups shows that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would, if approved, be responsible for at least 181 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) each year, comparable to the tailpipe emissions from more than 37.7 million cars or 51 coal-fired power plants.

In documenting the emissions associated with the controversial pipeline project, the report makes real the scale of climate impact and the further hurdles the project would create for the battle against climate change, putting the State Department’s “business as usual” scenarios into doubt.
...

“When evaluating this project, the State Department should apply a simple test: Does its completion bring the U.S. closer to meeting its climate goals? The answer is clearly no, and therefore the project must be denied,” said Steve Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change International.
...

The report was researched and written by Oil Change International with input and review by the Natural Resources Defense Council, 350.org, Environment America, National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.

http://priceofoil.org/2013/04/16/cooking-the-books-the-true-climate-impact-of-keystone-xl/

[PDJane]

1. Yes, of course.

There are climate deniers in this administration, but I mostly think the push to get this moving before 2015 is the desire of harper to use the proceeds to ensure his re-election, with a majority.

[GliderGuider]

2. The "problem" isn't the pipeline, but the stuff it carries.

The pipeline just makes it easier for us Canucks to get the gunk to the Burning Men. Even if there was no Keystone XL, the stuff would get burned anyway. Canada wants the $$$ and would find other ways to sell it - slower, but just as sure in the end. Stopping the Keystone XL amounts to little more than a delaying action. It's of much greater symbolic than climatological significance.

What we need is not to stop Keystone XL, but to stop people from using energy from all fossil fuels, no matter what kind of a tube they come out of. Probability = 0.0

So it goes.

[limpyhobbler]

3. The way to stop fossil fuel extraction is to fight fossil fuel extraction.

I doubt there is any other way to stop fossil fuels except to fight extraction of fossil fuels.

What I hear from you that there is no point to doing anything unless you can do everything. It's like telling a baseball team there is no point getting on first base because you need to get around all the bases and cross home plate to score. And then do it more than the other team to win.

But what I'm thinking is you've got to start somewhere. By fighting pipelines we are working to keep oil in the ground and building organization. Blocking a major piece of new oil infrastructure would be a solid first win that puts us in a stronger position for the next fight.

Stopping Keystone XL will force the industry to find other routes out for the product, to the west or east. In each case there will be no pipelines without a fight.

Also I think building more pipelines into the tarsands will allow for faster extraction. For example if there are 10 pipelines into the tarsands, that's worse than five, because 10 would allow for the stuff to be piped out faster than five would.

Anything that slows down the extraction is good.

Zero probability of stopping all fossil fuels? Again we got to start somewhere. The odds may be bad but that's no reason to quit fighting fossil fuel extraction, otherwise it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

[GliderGuider]

4. You're right that it's better to fight than do nothing

But I've got a theory about the underpinnings of human culture that says this situation was essentially inevitable from the moment we discovered just how much energy there is in fossil fuels.

If there is one thing that humanity is greedier for than money, it's energy - because when all is said and done, energy is money.

"The leading cause of climate change is prosperity."

Maybe we should start from that premise. There's lots to fight there...

[PDJane]

5. The fact is that the current plan is to put the tar sands oil

Under Toronto, in pre-existing pipelines that are 35 to 70 years old and designed to carry natural gas. This is a really stupid human trick. When that stuff leaks, and it will, it will pour this stuff into the water table and the catchment area that feeds the great lakes. The soil is mostly wet clay and there are underground streams all over the place. This has the ability to pollute Lake Ontario. You know, the drinking water for millions of people?


Yes, it's stupid to dig the stuff up, and we have to fight it. Other places have successfully done so. We really have to consider the farm land that people are moving away from because of the smell from the holding and tailing ponds. People are becoming ill from this stuff.

The leading cause of climate change is stupidity. The oil sands take as much energy to remove as it produces, and maybe we should start there. There is money, of course, but it's not as extensive as it would be if this weren't burning natural gas, polluting water, and leaving huge swathes of land denuded of anything put toxic ponds and earth movers.