Now that the Northern Gateway pipeline has apparently been put on hold after Premier Christy Clark鈥檚 decision not to push forward with the project, eyes are turning to the Keystone XL pipeline 鈥� and at the moment, it seems possible that Alberta鈥檚 pipeline expansion might not make it, either.
U.S. President Barack Obama came out last week to discuss the project鈥檚 future as a part of a sweeping strategy in reducing America鈥檚 carbon emissions, limiting the environmental impact of current energy systems, and investing in clean energy and low-emissions projects. In light of this policy, Obama declared that the Keystone XL pipeline will only go through if its backers can prove that the project won鈥檛 increase emissions.
The final White House decision is still forthcoming, but Obama鈥檚 reservations are familiar language to B.C. environmentalists, who opposed the Northern Gateway pipeline on similar grounds.
91原创 defenders of Keystone, however, are talking about it using quite different language. Last week, the Globe and Mail summarized the defenders鈥� arguments for the project in terms of the boost that it will give to Canada鈥檚 economy, the huge potential for 91原创 job creation, and 鈥淎merican energy security鈥� 鈥� which perhaps is a moot point when we鈥檙e talking about finite, non-renewable resources, but anyway.
The crux of the discussion is the seeming conflict between environmental concerns and economic concerns. In B.C., the former won out, at least temporarily; in Alberta, the latter seem to be the more persuasive.
B.C. environmentalists opposed the Northern Gateway pipeline out of concern about the presence of tankers in our potentially treacherous and ecologically vulnerable waters; similarly, American environmentalists are concerned about Nebraska鈥檚 delicate Sand Hills region. But Obama鈥檚 key argument against moving forward with Keystone is the phrase 鈥渘ot significantly increasing emissions.鈥� This phrase sounded fine when I first heard it, but upon further reflection, it鈥檚 actually sort of weird.
This means that the Keystone project mustn鈥檛 involve any additional emissions, i.e., more than are already being emitted in transporting crude from America鈥檚 other suppliers in Mexico, Venezuela and the Middle East. This, of course, is a far cry from the far more dramatic goal of actually decreasing global carbon emissions, or working toward weaning the world off its dependence on coal and oil.
Keystone XL defenders argue that if the pipeline weren鈥檛 to expand, oil producers would find other markets for their products, which would produce even more emissions. This argument evades even the semblance of responsibility for environmental concerns (although I was perhaps being na茂ve when I thought that an industry might willingly embark upon a policy aimed at its own obsolescence).
What I find interesting in this conversation 鈥� from Obama鈥檚 clearly stated reservations to Keystone XL鈥檚 defenders 鈥� is that 鈥済ood for the environment鈥� is code for 鈥渘ot too much worse than what we鈥檙e already doing to it.鈥�
In any discussion about energy, oil and natural resources, environment and the economy are pitted against each other like boxers in the ring, where only one can be victorious. We can see this in the half-hearted gestures of Keystone XL defenders, who have sort of shrugged and argued that since the oil has to get to some market somehow, this is the best way to do it.
I鈥檓 sure my determined cynicism about the environmental impact of the Keystone expansion smacks of hypocrisy to some, given how much time I spend lamenting the fact that our anemic economy is killing new grads. There are real economic opportunities in Alberta, it鈥檚 true: It鈥檚 common for women my age to watch our male friends and boyfriends go to the fields, in almost any capacity, and make a killing while we stay home and dream about paying off our loans one day 20 years down the road.
We can no longer afford to think of this as a zero-sum game: We need both a healthy economy and a healthy environment, and not the kind of 鈥渉ealthy鈥� that can be expressed as: 鈥淲ell, we鈥檙e not causing too many more emissions, so yeah, you could say it鈥檚 good for the environment.鈥�
How do we get there? It鈥檚 unclear. There鈥檚 no one clear path forward, and it will take creativity, ingenuity and courage. It will also take a refusal to settle for the empty rhetoric of 鈥渘ot significantly increasing emissions.鈥�
We need to do better than simply 鈥渓ess worse.鈥�
