The Validity of the Keystone Pipeline Environmentally

Senior Energy Analyst Glenn Doty remarks that rejecting the Keystone pipeline is a net negative for the environment:  The percentage of transported oil that is spilled when transported by train is hundreds-fold that when it is transported by pipeline. By making a symbolic stand that does absolutely nothing to impact oil production and nothing to impact oil consumption, the rejection of the Keystone pipeline has absolutely resulted in an increase in the amount of oil spilled, because it’s still being produced and sold, it’s just transported by train instead of pipeline.

Yes, we’ve had this conversation, and I grant that, at a micro level, rejecting of the pipeline could easily have a negative environmental effect, for the precise reasons you’ve stated: our refusing to allow it will cause more spillage on a per-barrel basis while not deterring the use of petroleum.

Yet I believe that symbolism actually is a big deal.  The U.S. needs to establish an energy policy whose headline is this: “We’re Phasing Out Fossil Fuels, Oil Companies Be Damned,” or perhaps, “We’re Phasing Out Fossil Fuels, And, Believe It Or Not, The Oil Companies Are Leading the Way” (see this piece on Shell Oil).  In any case, the second part is less important than the first.

My point:  Leadership in the right direction has to start somewhere, and this pipeline is as good a place as any.