The protests over the Keystone pipeline reveal the wider dividing lines over energy policy in the US
Keystone XL was the hottest environmental controversy in the US this summer. And by the end of August – as protesters massed in front of the White House – it had crossed to the mainstream. From a dispute about just another oil pipeline, it began to take on a wider importance.
The proposed 1,600-mile project would bring 700,000 barrels a day of tar sands crude from Alberta, Canada, to two ports on the Texan coast, building on a system that started pumping in 2010.
The Obama administration is set to decide on the project by the end of November, with most signs pointing to a go-ahead. But activists still hope to nudge things their way.
Environmentalists object to the $7bn project because of the possibility of leaks, and the carbon-intensity of tar sands extraction. Tar Sands Action says carbon emissions are three times the level of typical US oil, taken over the whole life-cycle.
The high-profile environmentalist Bill McKibben says Canada’s sands could take the world past a global warming tipping point.
Carbon conundrum
The industry says these claims are either wrong or hyperbolic. And not without justification. Detailed analyses, based a range of data, show less carbon-intensity. Energy consultancy IHS Cera says tar sands crude produces life-cycle emissions 5-15% higher than standard US crude. TheNatural Resources Defense Council, a committed foe of Keystone, found an 8-37% increase, depending on the production method.
In a sense, though, the numbers are secondary. Each side is more interested in “talking points”, than objective reality. What is really at stake is a fundamental argument about the future of energy.
“The reality is that the US has a massive need for oil,” says Shawn Howard, a spokesman for TransCanada, which is proposing XL. “Alternative technology is not there to replace fossil fuels, no matter what [the environmentalists] say. Given that, would they rather have tankers on the ocean, or have it delivered safely?”
Asked why Keystone has generated such controversy, Howard says last year’s Gulf of Mexico disaster, and 800,000 gallon pipeline leak in Kalamazoo, Michigan, “changed how people look at the pipeline and energy industry”.
Environmentalists say Keystone would delay moves towards cleaner energy, and not provide the security its backers claim. Jamie Henn, a spokesman for Tar Sands Action, says much of the final production will end up exported as diesel to overseas markets.
Henn sees Keystone as a key test of Barack Obama’s environmental credentials, and hopes that electoral politics will help sway the president. “Our message is going to be, ‘we worked for you in 2008 – how are we supposed to volunteer again, if we don’t stand up for our values?’”
He says convincing Obama is “a long shot”, but, successful or not, the protest has proved “there are still a lot of people who care about climate change in this country”. About 1,250 protesters have been arrested so far.
Both sides have probably overstated their case. Keystone will not in itself mean the destruction of the planet, and neither will it produce untold wealth and energy security. What the controversy reveals, though, is that passions about energy policy run deep. Approved or not, Keystone is likely to be the first of many such battles in the years ahead.