Another View: Pipeline concerns addressed, so build it
The U.S. State Department finally has given the Keystone XL pipeline an unexpectedly “green” light. The agency found the pipeline wouldn’t cause significant environmental damage; wouldn’t prompt more oil extraction; and wouldn’t increase demand at U.S. refineries. And its construction actually would lead to fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the likely alternatives for moving oil.
The State Department didn’t formally approve the project, but it did give direct answers to the key environmental concerns that President Barack Obama raised when he put the project on hold in June 2013:
No, the pipeline would not be the environmental horror that the opponents allege.
Yes, it would have a significant economic impact. It would create lots of jobs.
“There are no more excuses for delaying this project,” said Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, which represents 3 million skilled craftsmen. “The time to construct this pipeline is now.”
Yes, now. The Obama administration should promptly approve Keystone XL — and boast about the environmental and economic pluses it will deliver.
Keystone XL would link the rich oil sands of inland Canada to U.S. refineries and ports at the Gulf of Mexico. The pipeline would be a safer, more reliable way to move oil from one part of North America to another.
Yet the project remains in limbo five years after its backers first sought approval from Washington. There’s speculation that Democratic congressional leaders will press Obama to keep a decision on ice until after the November midterm elections.
The pipeline plan divides two Democratic constituencies: labor unions that want the job creation, and environmental groups opposed to further development of fossil fuel resources. These groups see thwarting Keystone XL as a step toward faster development of renewable fuel sources.
No matter what Washington decides, Canada will extract this oil and consumers somewhere will use it; the question is whether it goes to U.S. refineries or elsewhere.
What’s most striking in the State Department report appears deep in the fourth of its 11 volumes, under the heading Greenhouse Gas Impacts. Three scenarios if the pipeline isn’t built:
• If the oil instead moves to refineries by rail and tanker, greenhouse gas emissions would be 27.8 percent higher.
• If the oil is transported by train to existing pipelines, emissions would be 39.7 percent higher.
• And if the oil goes to the Gulf solely by train, emissions would be 41.8 percent higher.
The Obama administration should strike a blow for environmentalism and approve the Keystone XL project.
The White House has said it will until other federal agencies have a chance to comment on the report. That could delay a final decision for 90 days or longer.
Enough. Get to work — and put people to work — on the Keystone XL pipeline.