Pipeline editorial wrong on many counts

To the editor,

The November 8 editorial about the Keystone XL pipeline gets several things wrong.

According to the State Department, the project would create 1,950 construction jobs for two years. That sounds like a lot, but keep “two years” in mind. Once the pipeline is completed, there would be only 35 new permanent American jobs, and that’s according to TransCanada (the company building the pipeline).

Any economic activity will create jobs. Think of the most wasteful and destructive mega-project you can imagine, and you can bet it would create jobs; that doesn’t automatically mean that you must support it. We do have choices. There are many enterprises that would create good jobs without making our climate crisis worse. Renewable energy creates many more jobs than the fossil fuel industries. We need investment in good, job-creating enterprises. The XL oil pipeline is not one of them.

Tar sands oil production is not drilling. It is strip mining on a vast scale. In the process, enormous areas of boreal forest (an important carbon sink) are completely eliminated. Using a “full fuel cycle” analysis, which includes all emissions from extracting the fuel, refining it and finally burning it, tar sands oil produces 15%-20% more greenhouse gas emissions than regular oil. The State Department did not consider a full fuel cycle analysis, which, among other problems, helps explain why it minimized the environmental impacts of Keystone XL.

Tar sands oil, which is still tar-like, due to its bitumen content, needs to be “upgraded” for pipeline transport by adding light hydrocarbons. These characteristic can make it near-impossible to clean up in the event of a spill. Anyone who thinks spills won’t occur is ignoring the history of pipelines. As for the argument that tar sands development will be the same with or without the pipeline, internal industry documents contradict this. And would the industry have campaigned so desperately for the pipeline if it made so little difference to them?

Climate change promises to make our planet uninhabitable if unchecked. Of course, we still need oil for a while, but that does not require Keystone.

For those who doubt the scientific consensus on the human contribution to climate change, I recommend the NASA web site: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Phil Somervell

Palmer