Today the Obama Administration released a statement rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline project citing obstructionist Republicans. The announcement was greeted by a chorus of approval from environmental organizations such as the NRDC, the Sierra Club, and 350.org who organized the protest last November at the White House. But the announcement did little to signal a meaningful end to oil dependency or anything that would create real meaningful energy security. Because oil is the primary fuel for our transportation system, to keep the system rolling it needs oil. Until a fully electrified transportation system is implemented, that is.
To refresh ones memory, the Keystone XL pipeline was proposed to carry oil from the Alberta tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico, where it would be refined and then sold on the global oil market. It was positioned as creating jobs and economic income, etc, and perhaps if the side effects of mining the tar sands were not so horrid it would not have engendered the level of protest that has engulfed this project. The 350.org group called the Keystone XL project a "carbon bomb," that would put global warming on overload, because of the amount of CO2 that would be released by tapping the tar sands.
The NRDC said the Obama Administration decision "represents a victory of truth over misinformation" saying that in the U.S. the "oil companies trumpet false job claims and promise a secure supply of oil" while in Canada the oil companies boast about "using the pipeline to export oil to Asian markets and charge more money for the oil they do sell in the U.S." The NRDC goes on to say the "facts reveal this pipeline was never in America’s national interest" because it would have endangered our people, our environment, our water, and the sole beneficiaries would be the oil companies. Finally the NRDC is proud of President Obama for having stood up to Big Oil, despite threats from the Oil industry of "huge consequences".
The Sierra Club distributed an email applauding the Obama Administration for having stood up to Big Oil. The letter reminded us:
- Big Oil says the pipeline would ease our pain at the pump? Nope. This is a fight about oil company profits. The pipeline will actually raise gas prices in the Midwest by 10 to 20 cents a gallon, hurting American families and American farmers and putting a damper on our fragile economy.
- Oil companies say the pipeline wouldn't spill? Not buying it. The last pipeline that was built like this spilled over 12 times in the first year of production.
The email distributed by 350.org also applauded the Obama Administration for having stood up to Big Oil despite the threats. The email warned that "Big Oil will do everything it can to overturn that decision," that their weapon is money, and that "They’ve used it to buy the allegiance of many Representatives and Senators and now they’ll use Congress to try and get their dirty work done." This isn't, we should note, an idle threat since the Citizens United decision a couple years ago that opened the doors to unlimited anonymous corporate spending on political campaigns. Accordingly they plan to hold a protest rally on the West Lawn in Washington DC on Tuesday January 24. See the 350.org website for more details.
What all this applause misses is how the Obama Administration's announcement completely misses the mark on the real issue. Yes it's nice that the Keystone XL project was canceled, that the tar sands oil won't have such easy access to the global market, and that perhaps it will delay the release of carbon from burning fossil fuels. If we carefully read the announcement we see contradictory statements, and no effective meaningful step towards real energy security.
On the one hand the announcement reiterates the Obama Administrations' "commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil" but a couple sentences later boasts that "domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down" and that "we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security".
On the one hand their commitment is to reduce dependence on oil, and on the other hand they're working with the oil and gas industry to drill for more oil and gas? Can you say hypocrisy?
The real issue is that worldwide oil production has peaked, and that the U.S. had its peak of oil production in 1971. Because U.S. oil production peaked so long ago there is no meaningful way to increase U.S. oil production in any meaningful way that will put a meaningful dent in U.S. oil imports. No matter what partnership with the oil and gas industry the Obama Administration envisions, it will not create meaningful energy security.
A lot hinges on how one defines "energy security". The energy insecurity currently faced by the U.S. is the dependence on fossil oil to drive the transportation system coupled with the fact that the U.S. imports 2/3rd of the oil it needs to keep the system rolling. It means the U.S. is sending massive amounts of money to oil producing countries, and it means oil producing countries have a lever of control over the U.S. economy. Witness the reaction to Irans threats to cut off oil shipping through the Straits of Hormuz.
Some define "energy security" as solely U.S. production of oil. However as we already noted the U.S. went past its peak of oil production in 1971 and cannot increase domestic oil production to match oil demand. A better definition of "energy security" would be self sufficiency of the "energy" to drive the economy, and not be stuck on defining "energy" as "oil". The word "energy" does not mean "oil" and there are other forms of energy which could drive the transportation system.
A real meaningful step towards energy security would be to not only start weaning ourselves off of fossil oil and slowing down drilling in new oil production infrastructure, but to take urgent steps towards electrification of the transportation system. Unfortunately the Obama Administration's announcement instead reiterated an embrace of the oil and gas industry.
About the reporter: After 22 years in Silicon Valley's software industry David Herron is now writing about green transportation (electric vehicles) from Silicon Valley. David has built a number of electric bicycles, scooters, a motorcycle, and recently completed an electric 1971 Karmann Ghia conversion. He also runs the popular electric vehicle discussion forum, visforvoltage.org, and is the author of the book "Node Web Development".
See:
How can President Obama be so right in rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline, but so wrong on why?
Comments