OP-ED | McMahon Is Wrong About Keystone Pipeline
by Ben Martin | Jan 13, 2012 11:59am
(19) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Opinion
Recently Linda McMahon declared that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is in the national interest and described it as a “gift horse”. She is wrong. It is neither. A more accurate description of the project would be a “poison pill” or a “dirty needle used to feed our oil addiction.”
The jobs figures Ms. McMahon cites to support her argument are misleading at best and, at worst, utterly false.
According to studies conducted by the US State Department and Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute, these figures come from a study funded by TransCanada (the company proposing Keystone XL) and are wildly inflated. The independent study done by Cornell found that there would be no significant job gains and that the pipeline could actually cause job losses. Further, the claim that environmental concerns have been “put to rest” is also specious. As the New York Times reported, the study that found “minimal environmental risks” was conducted by Cardno Entrix, a company selected and paid for by TransCanada. The study also did not account for the disastrous climate change effects of refining and burning the extraordinarily dirty oil transported through the pipeline. In addition, the US EPA has called this report “inadequate” and providing “insufficient information.” TransCanada’s claim that it will find a safe route is hard to believe given its record of 12 spills or leaks in the first year the current Keystone Pipeline was operating and the safety violations revealed by Mike Klink, a former employee, of the last pipeline they built.
TransCanada has misinformed, paid off, and otherwise pressured land owners to give up their land rights for this pipeline according to Randy Thompson and other land owners in Nebraska. Finally, the claim that the oil will be produced and shipped overseas regardless of whether the US is the “beneficiary” of the project is proven false by the Globe and Mail who reported that Canadian citizens have so far prevented TransCanada from building a pipeline to Canada’s west coast, arguing that the resulting damage to the environment would be too high.
Even with the overwhelming weight of the above evidence against proponents of Keystone XL, there is an issue here larger than the unfounded arguments advocates of the pipeline have put forth about jobs. They try to frame the decision to approve Keystone XL as a choice between jobs and the environment. This is a dangerous false choice. Since the EPA was enacted in 1970, Americans have seen the end of holes in the ozone layer, great reductions in acidification of waterways, and reductions in the pall of smog engulfing so many cities. Study after study has shown virtually no net loss of jobs due to regulations, and often shown increases in jobs according the Economic Policy Institute. And this does not account for the reductions in costs related to health and infrastructure decay caused by pollution. GreenForAll.org has outlined many ways that upgrading our energy infrastructure to be clean and safe would provide employment for thousands of American citizens.
Proponents of oil, coal and natural gas want us to continue using the dangerous, deadly energy of the past. Continuing and increasing investment in solar, wind, and other clean, renewable technologies, we will not only see improvements in the quality of land, air and water, but also job gains that fossil fuel projects cannot provide. The Keystone XL Pipeline must be rejected as part of an overall strategy to convert our nation, and world, from yesterday’s dirty energy to tomorrow’s clean power. Putting Keystone XL into place will lock us into burning fossil fuels at a time when the survival of our planet demands that we do the opposite. We must stop the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Ben Martin is a Wallingford resident and a member of 350 Connecticut, a statewide grassroots climate action organization.
Tags: keystone pipline, Linda McMahon, environment, Ben Martin
(19) Comments
posted by: Neil H | January 13, 2012 6:01pm
Hogwash! This is extremely short sighted attempt to discredit an extremely valuable project.
So in keeping with this theme let’s go down the wild accusation path and put our “pretend hats” on for a minute and assume that this multi-billion dollar pipeline project will NOT create any direct construction jobs, nor the thousands of manufacturing jobs (steel pipe, pumps, meters, motors, etc.) to supply the billions of dollars of materials, nor the indirect jobs to support the labor forces used to build the pipeline (restaurants, hotels, entertainment, gas stations, etc). And let’s go further and ignore all the added jobs required to operate, service and manage the pipeline once it is built and operational.
Let’s close our eyes and make believe that the local, state and federal governments will never collect a dime of sales, income or properties taxes from this $7 billion infrastructure undertaking.
And finally let’s finally fool ourselves in believing that drilling for oil in the middle east and transporting it here is more environmentally friendly. If you look at a map you will happen to notice that the middle east is located halfway around the world where the oil is piped hundreds of miles to the coast, transferred onto diesel power tankers, moved thousands of miles over volatile ocean waters, off-loaded into storage tanks and then piped to our refineries. Can you tell me with a straight face that this is more environmentally friendly versus extracting this commodity in North America and transporting it via a state-of-the art pipeline that has been subjected to a rigorous and unprecedented 3 ½ year environmental review and approved by our own Department of State – seriously?
Finally, I would have to assume that you would rather have our oil needs be supplied by the likes of Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia vs. Canada. Hmmmm…..for those of us over the age of 10 this really deserves no more explanation.
The point here is if even if there were zero financial benefits from the added jobs, revenues, and taxes the near-term energy security that this project delivers would stand alone; being worth its weight in (black) gold.
I also believe that we should invest prudently in renewable technologies, however, the cold hard reality is that we still need oil. One day we will hopefully move completely away from fossil fuels, however, it won’t happen by killing this project. This is simply a naïve and damaging rationalization.
Keystone XL is the largest infrastructure project on the books in the U.S. right now and is one that will play a crucial role in creating real (non-governmental) jobs, adding tax revenue and most importantly linking a secure and growing supply of North American crude oil with our largest refineries here in the US. In my humble opinion a majority of people of this country would be in favor of incenting this and more pipelines like this to be built as a relatively rapid and practical way to significantly improve our energy security over the next several decades.
posted by: wmwallace | January 14, 2012 12:51am
This is why we have unemployment over 8% in our country. Do nothing means more people are either under employment or those who quit looking for work.
We need jobs in our country right now. This will happen whether it comes though the US or not. Canada will just put the pipeline though to the Pacific ocean and bypass the US completely.
posted by: Reasonable | January 14, 2012 1:28pm
We have a problem with beginning the vital pipe-line project, as we lack any real leadership in Congress and the White House. No one is watching our store. God bless America, but that appears to have been outlawed. also.
We don’t have to get involved in loser wars, when we are being zapped-out by our national election mistakes!
posted by: Colin Bennett | January 14, 2012 5:15pm
Ben is absolutely right, the Keystone XL pipeline is terrifically horrible idea. We need to immediately invest in a nation-wide renewable energy system. Doing so will create countless jobs while directly improving the lives in millions of people.
posted by: Ben from WLFD | January 14, 2012 10:37pm
Have you ever heard the phrase “Read The Manual” shortened to RTM? I would invite the users who left the previous comments to RTO(Read the Op-Ed) before making their comments. All of their claims are refuted by reputable sources in the letter so it seems they either commented on JUST the title or missed some the key points. But to sum up the point: building renewable energy infrastructure creates as many jobs as the pipeline without the danger or pollution. We don’t need or want the pipeline.
posted by: Reasonable | January 15, 2012 10:53am
Ben Martin: You sound like you voted for Richard Blumenthal in the last congressional election. Why did you exclude his plan? Perhaps, because he doesn’t have one.
You suscribe to continue relying on “getting our deadly energy” from middle east nations—who are not our friends. I would prefer to do business with Canada, with whom we have mutual respect and values.
posted by: Ben from WLFD | January 15, 2012 4:17pm
I would appreciate stating my opinions for myself and not by those which seek to redirect the debate. I don’t want oil from the middle east as much I don’t want oil from TransCanada. As I stated I am in favor of 100% renewable energy replacing our oil use. I would also remind you that the oil is not coming from people who share our values but from an international corporation which is only interested in profit. Also this pipeline is designed to bring bitumen to Texas refineries for export, so we will not receive the benefits but bear all the risk. Renewable energy is inherently more local and fair that oil or fossil fuels so that is what I support.
posted by: ActNow | January 15, 2012 5:43pm
Dear Neil H: I am sorry to inform you that the (steel pipe, pumps, meters, motors, etc.) you speak of have all already been made in far off places like India and China.
The promised tax revenue from the Keystone 1 to the state of Montana fail exceedingly short of what was “projected” and promised before it was approved.
The state of Kansas for some foolish reason and without the consent of the voters, gave TransCanada a 10 year exemption on the pipeline.
The state-of-the art pipeline Keystone 1, which by TransCanada’s “experts” statement prior to receiving approval was only supposed to leak 1x every 50 years. It hasalready leaked 14 times in the USA and another 20 or so in Canada.
Do you see a pattern here.
America assumes the burden of the leaks which will occur (and by the way they do not know how to clean up (Google the Kalamazoo pipeline spill which happen in July 2010 and is still not cleaned up) and the oil is shipped overseas, and also btw - they (TransCanada) has worked a loophole so they would pay very little taxes on the export.
Please educate yourself on this issues. Oh, a closing thought, please take a look at how much $ some members of our (corrupt) government have pocketed to sell this toxic sludge to us.
Sorry - can’t seem to stop… you should also look to see why the US Military refuses to use any petro products made from tar sands crude.
posted by: Reasonable | January 16, 2012 11:21am
Ben fom WLFD: Where is the local renewable energy YOU PREFER?
posted by: Neil H | January 16, 2012 12:33pm
Dear ACTNOW,
India or China….hmmm…..unless you have inside information on the source of the all the pipeline equipment you are certainly free to believe any and all of the radical environmental blogs you choose. BTW I’m willing to bet you probably drive a car that was built or sourced in another country. Also, do wanna bet where that computer you are using is from? Oh and let’s not forget that many of the components are petroleum based.
Second, if the tax revenue falls short wouldn’t this still be better than zero tax revenues, wouldn’t it? And as far as Kansas goes, that’s their foolish fault – not TransCanda’s.
Third, about our corrupt government I have one word – Solyndra.
If you could only lift the “pretend hat” just above your eyes you might see reality – which remains more jobs, more tax revenues, and reliable and secure energy.
posted by: ... | January 16, 2012 4:27pm
For anyone who thinks the environmental impact has already been set in stone, you should read this article. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/science/earth/keystone-xl-pipeline-transcanada-reroute.html
Nebraskan’s hated the idea, and feared for the safety of their water table. So they are planning a rerouted pipeline to avoid it completely. The fun part? There is no study yet on the new route, so there is no go ahead from the State Dept. (therefore, the White house) to approve/deny this project.
The timeline state in the article: Another 12-18 months (from Nov. 2011) for a new review. That means no final decision could be appropriately made on the impact to all wildlife and species (including humans) and the environment that inhabits these areas affected by the pipeline.
I’ve stated before I enjoy independent energy from any source as long as it is safely and properly handled. The TransCanada pipeline though, without proper research and reevaluation surely must equate to some the Health Care Reform Bill. They called that ramming through an unknown deal with undetermined consequences. How is this any different?
posted by: Ben from WLFD | January 16, 2012 10:46pm
“Where is the local renewable energy YOU PREFER?”
I’m glad you asked. The wind mill by the Q bridge in New Haven, the solar panels on schools in Plainville, the geothermal system at the WLFD PUC and the solar system covering CT Transit. Renewable energy is possible, growing and profitable. Our time and resources should be figuring out how to develop more clean energy instead of trying to get foreign oil transported to refineries in Texas.
posted by: LMcM in New Haven | January 17, 2012 3:00pm
“Renewable energy is possible, growing and profitable. Our time and resources should be figuring out how to develop more clean energy instead of trying to get foreign oil transported to refineries in Texas.”
Well said, Ben! The only reason that we aren’t yet surrounded by affordable clean energy is that our government has been subsidizing dirty fossil fuels for decades. Those fuels aren’t really cheaper—their costs are externalized, which means that the American people pay for the subsidies via taxes, and fossil fuels companies aren’t held responsible for the ways they damage the environment (even leaving the climate out of it, oil spills devastate the ocean, gas fracking pollutes drinking water, coal mining leaves land unfarmable and destroys streams).
And Neil H—you cite Solyndra as your prime example of corruption? I’m not defending how that was handled, but you might want to check out the oil industry’s influence in Washington and the way coal companies run West Virginia before you throw stones—the fossil fuel industry has been corrupt as all get-out since its inception. In contrast, an awful lot of the clean energy and (especially) the efficiency industries are made up of small businesses with comparatively little lobbying presence or political power.
Lastly, numerous studies have found that renewable energy creates more jobs than fossil fuels:
“According to an analysis of 13 independent reports and studies of the clean energy industry by UC Berkeley’s Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), renewable energy technologies create more jobs per average megawatt (MW) of power generated, and per dollar invested in construction, manufacturing, and installation when compared to coal or natural gas. Over the course of a 10-year period the solar industry creates 5.65 jobs per million dollars in investment, the wind energy industry 5.7 jobs, and the coal industry only 3.96.1 In the case of coal mining, wind and solar energy generate 40 percent more jobs per dollar invested.2
“...A Union of Concerned Scientists analysis conducted for the state of Wisconsin found that an 800 MW mix of new renewables would create about 22,000 more job-years than would new natural gas and coal plants over a 30-year period.3 A New York State Energy Office study concluded that wind energy would create 27% more jobs than coal and 66% more than a natural gas plant per kilowatt hour generated.4 In addition, a study by Economic Research Associates of energy efficiency and renewable energy as an economic development strategy in Colorado found an energy bill savings of $1.2 billion for Colorado ratepayers by 2010 with a net gain of 8,400 jobs.”
(Read more: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-o4u5oFxa8sJ:www.greenforall.org/resources/summary-of-research-on-the-job-creating-potential/download+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg9wNBWTYvQhy5HSyIhUd1_xvV8Ft3aRM-sWvDGm_w8bvrJfP10ATgAe4S7B7Qk9ASGgN-EFy11tQQJUFtXlzzKIDmvMFn4JqPlrjIaDPCPSqYdY3zjUVJKEjI3t4p0x9KEPMrK&sig=AHIEtbQJOUJeW0plgbTsmfzVamKplwq_Vg)
posted by: wmwallace | January 17, 2012 5:25pm
We are going to need fossil fuels for awhile and saying we have renewable resources already to cover those needs is ridiculous to say the least. This pipeline will create jobs, which is something that is needed in our shaky economy.
I looked at the failures of renewable energy companies like Solyndra.
posted by: RenewableNow | January 17, 2012 6:31pm
I agree with Ben. I do not want oil from the Middle East. I don’t want oil period! We need to make the shift to renewable energy now. That’s where the real, lasting American jobs are. It has been proven that the number of jobs spoken about by the senate hopeful are inflated and plain false. Not to mention the potential danger this pipline poses to the health of our country.
posted by: Reasonable | January 17, 2012 8:42pm
Ben from WLFD: Why isn’t President Obama doing anything to give us clean energy—but being busy collecting over a billion dollars from the billionaires controlling him in office—for his reelection fund? Obama’s controlling billionares do not want a national clean energy program.
posted by: LMcM in New Haven | January 18, 2012 1:40pm
Update: sources say the State Department will issue a rejection later today!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71598.html
Good to know the administration is hearing the concerns of the American people over this project.
posted by: UConnJim | January 20, 2012 12:08pm
The whole guise of renewable energy is the fallacy of Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever moniker you may ascribe it. To create a false religion of green without the concrete evidence of its existence only influences the dull minds of the easily fooled and ignorant. Climate is ever changing; it is most influenced by the geothermal activity that lies within this planet and the nuclear effects of the sun. It is an arrogant opinion by all who think that Man has that great of an effect on the climate. One volcanic eruption deposits an exponential amount of poisonous gases, acids, pollution, CO2, CO, and carbon into the air than that of all the human activity on the earth.
The discovery of petroleum has done (and still is) more for the evolution of Mankind’s ingenuity, development, betterment of life, comfort, existence. If it were not for the discovery of oil, not a single whale, walrus, elephant seal would be in existence as they would all have succumbed to extinction for nothing but the oil in their fat. But, now we have a new crisis in our wildlife that has been overlooked by the liberal mass-media and the pro-green organizations and that is the massive killings of birds, many of which are on the endangered species list, by the invisible blades of the wind farms across the country. Yet, one little lizard can garner all the attention of the “do-gooders” and the alphabet TV networks in order to stop a vital pipeline of natural energy. Yes, I said it, natural energy. Fossil fuels were created by nature just as the wind and the sun. To deny its importance and the continual need for it is ignorance. For the keyboard that you are typing on and the computer that it is connected to; the coffee maker brewing your Joe; the glasses on your face; the aspirin for the headache; the shampoo and soap to clean you; the fuel that transports you; the things all around you that make this life, in this time, in this point of history so enjoyable was provided to you by Petroleum.
Throughout Man’s existence his battle with the environment and climate has always been and always will be. If we were to graph the time of the Earth’s existence (4.5 billion years) as a representative span of 10 feet, Man’s existence during the span would represent the thickness of a sheet of paper. We know nothing and can only theorize what may or may not be happening. Legend is not fact and, thus, cannot be used as a tool by idealists to alter the lives of the majority.
