.
1/31/14, "Keystone Pipeline to Be Built Because There’s No Reason Not To," NY Magazine, Jonathan Chait
"The State Department today released its long-awaited environmental
impact analysis of the Keystone XL pipeline. The analysis is key because
President Obama announced last summer he would not approve the pipeline
unless it was found to have no significant impact on climate change.
And that’s what the analysis finds. It argues, as many other analysts
have concluded, that if we block the pipeline, Canada will just ship the
oil out by rail.
So, what public policy reason is there to block
the pipeline? There really isn’t one. Indeed, the environmentalists'
obsession with Keystone began as a gigantic mistake. Two and a half
years ago, the environmentalist James Hansen wrote a blog post alerting
his readers to the pipeline, which he concluded would amount to “game
over” for the climate, as it would lead to the burning of enough new oil
to moot any effort to limit runaway greenhouse gases. His analysis was
based on a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation that turned out to be
wrong in several respects, the most important being the assumption that
blocking the pipeline would keep the oil in the Canadian oil sands in
the ground.
The anti-Keystone movement was an accident. I
recently argued that it was a huge mistake. Numerous allies of the
environmental movement replied that it did make sense, after all. (See
Joe Romm, Matthew Yglesias, Charles Pierce, and Ryan Cooper. All of them
insisted that Keystone is indeed a good issue for environmentalists to
organize around because it’s easy for people to understand. As Yglesias
put it, “You sometimes need to focus on slightly eccentric issues that
happen to have good organizing attributes.”)...
But if your goal
is to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, you need to have a strategy
designed to advance policies that limit greenhouse-gas emissions.
Stopping Keystone doesn’t do that. EPA regulations would. Would blocking
the Keystone pipeline make it easier for Obama to issue tough
regulations on existing power plants, and to negotiate an international
climate treaty in 2015 after such regulations bring us into compliance
with our reduction targets?
I don't see how. I think it would
feed criticism by opponents that Obama is captive to environmentalists,
even to the point of following their quixotic and marginal obsessions.
Approving Keystone might give him more credibility to defend tough
regulations. It's not guaranteed, of course. But the intuitive idea is
for a movement to organize around the issues that matter, not the issues
that are easiest to explain. Building a movement by misleading people
is a strange choice." via Free Rep.
=========================
Comment: The billionaires who backed the anti-Keystone movement aren't the kind who can tolerate embarrassment so they won't admit their mistake.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment