Reprinted from The Nation
Pipeline apologists tell us the president's decision isn't that important for the climate--the dirty oil will flow anyway. Here's why they're wrong.
Demonstrators protest against the Keystone XL pipeline in Washington, DC.
(Image by (Creative Commons/Duffernutter Photography)) Permission Details DMCA
It doesn't matter.
Ever since the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline exploded three and half years ago, that's been the argument from the project's liberal supporters. Sure, the oil that Keystone would carry from the Alberta tar sands is three to four times more greenhouse-gas-intensive than conventional crude. But that's not on Keystone XL, we're told.
Why? Because if TransCanada isn't able to build Keystone to the south, then another pipeline will be built to the west or east. Or that dirty oil will be transported by rail. But make no mistake, we have long been assured: all that carbon buried beneath Alberta's boreal forest will be mined no matter what the president decides.
Up until quite recently, the tar-sands boom did seem pretty unstoppable. The industry regularly projected that production would soon double, then triple, and foreign investors raced to build massive new mines. But these days, panic is in the air in formerly swaggering Calgary. In less than a year, Shell, Statoil and the French company Total have all shelved major new tar-sands projects. And a rather large question mark is suddenly hanging over one of the world's largest -- and dirtiest -- carbon deposits.