TransCanada’s proposed 1,100-mile pipeline that would carry crude oil from the tar sands in Alberta through North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska has, since originally proposed in 2008, become a straw man for climate change debates as well as conversations around global reliance on fossil fuels. When he announced on Friday that his administration would not approve the project, supporting recommendations from Secretary of State John Kerry, President Barack Obama reinforced the proposed pipeline’s symbolic function.
Kerry made no bones about his reasoning for rejecting the pipeline: “The critical factor in my determination was this: moving forward with this project would significantly undermine our ability to continue leading the world in combatting climate change,” he said, and he has a point. The Keystone pipeline would move 800,000 gallons of crude oil daily from its northern source, through rugged terrain in the northern United States and into existing pipelines traveling to the Gulf of Mexico. As such, the project is an affirmation of fossil fuel use for many years to come. Rejecting it will do little to change that in the grand scheme of global energy trends, but it certainly gives the United States legitimacy – at least for the remainder of the Obama administration – in discussions about how to counter climate change.
Obama has made recent strides in delivering on his second-term inaugural promise to meaningfully address climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan – the final version of carbon-emissions regulations – will require states to reduce their total greenhouse gas emissions, largely by cleaning up coal-burning power plants. The EPA is also proposing to lower ground-level ozone thresholds, prioritizing another fossil-fuel-related pollutant. These are important steps in attempting to curb the U.S. contribution to global climate change through greenhouse gas emissions. None of them, though, is sufficient to thoroughly counter the troubling trend.
Doing so will take a global commitment to the effort, and as the party responsible for 15.6 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases, the United States must demonstrate it is serious when engaging in multinational negotiations on this critical issue. Allowing a 36-inch diameter pipeline to cut through three states carrying crude oil to market would not lend legitimacy to U.S. seriousness in its role as a leader in these conversations. Obama calculated his decision carefully in that regard.
He also recognized the economics involved. Crude oil is roughly $44 a barrel right now. In June of 2014, the price was nearly three times that. At that point, there was an economic argument to be made for the Keystone XL project – albeit a not altogether compelling one. Today, that argument is significantly weakened. Further, while there would certainly be jobs created in the construction phase of the project, disproportionately few long-term positions would result from the pipeline to offset the environmental damage wrought – as well as the long-term reliance on oil the project would solidify. As Obama said Friday, “this pipeline would neither be the silver bullet to the U.S. economy proclaimed by some, or the death knell to climate proclaimed by others.”
He is right, and in rejecting the Keystone XL project, the president has elevated the United States’ stature in the essential global effort to address climate change. That is a critical outcome.
