0 comments | Print

Editorial: Obama should resolve to reject Keystone oil pipeline

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 10A
Last Modified: Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013 - 1:05 pm

A dangerously obese man, serious about his New Year's resolution to lose weight, would not begin the year by buying $7 billion worth of fat-producing candy. Nor would any nation serious about reducing greenhouse gases approve construction of a $7 billion pipeline that would facilitate the consumption of 900,000 gallons a day of tar sand oil, spewing greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere.

On this New Year's Day 2013, America is that dangerously obese man.

And President Barack Obama is poised to make the long-delayed decision on whether to bulk up or slim down. The candy is the Keystone XL project, a proposed 1,700-mile pipeline across the United States that would transport extra-dirty crude oil mined from the tar sands of Canada's northern Alberta province to U.S. refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

A go-ahead for the pipeline from the Obama administration would tell the world that the United States, like the glutton who can't control his appetite, is not serious about addressing climate change. A rejection would send the opposite message. It says that the United States will not continue to stand idly on the sidelines as the polar ice caps melt, coastal regions sink and extreme weather events – droughts, hurricanes, wildfires and tornadoes – intensify.

Keystone XL has been portrayed as a classic contest between jobs and the environment. That's just not true. Supporters' claims that the pipeline will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs are a gross exaggeration. A U.S. State Department review concluded that the pipeline would produce only 5,000 to 6,000 new jobs and that the vast majority of those would be temporary construction jobs, lasting two years at most.

Once built, the pipeline would support a scant 50 permanent jobs in the United States, a study from Cornell University's Global Labor Institute estimated.

Meanwhile the environmental and health risks posed by tar sands oil extraction, transport and use are incalculable. Oil from tar sands contains significantly more sulfur, nitrogen, nickel and carbon than conventional oil sources, making it more harmful to human health and the environment.

The usual methods of extraction, either through strip mining or by pumping steam underground to melt out the bitumen – a thick, tarlike form of petroleum – requires the use of vast amounts of water and energy and creates large lakes of toxic waste. The underground pipeline across the American heartland poses a serious risk to important aquifers that irrigate croplands and supply drinking water for millions of Americans.

Finally, if approved, the Keystone XL pipeline further cements America's dependence on fossil fuels that are warming the planet through a buildup of carbon emissions in the atmosphere. It delays the urgent need to shift to non-polluting renewable energies, to build more sustainable communities and energy-efficient cars and appliances.

America can't keep putting off its commitment to be a leader in combating global climate change. Obama can't keep putting off pledges to lead in that international effort.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Read more articles by the Editorial Board



About Comments

Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "Report Abuse" link below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.

What You Should Know About Comments on Sacbee.com

Sacbee.com is happy to provide a forum for reader interaction, discussion, feedback and reaction to our stories. However, we reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments or ban users who can't play nice. (See our full terms of service here.)

Here are some rules of the road:

• Keep your comments civil. Don't insult one another or the subjects of our articles. If you think a comment violates our guidelines click the "Report Abuse" link to notify the moderators. Responding to the comment will only encourage bad behavior.

• Don't use profanities, vulgarities or hate speech. This is a general interest news site. Sometimes, there are children present. Don't say anything in a way you wouldn't want your own child to hear.

• Do not attack other users; focus your comments on issues, not individuals.

• Stay on topic. Only post comments relevant to the article at hand.

• Do not copy and paste outside material into the comment box.

• Don't repeat the same comment over and over. We heard you the first time.

• Do not use the commenting system for advertising. That's spam and it isn't allowed.

• Don't use all capital letters. That's akin to yelling and not appreciated by the audience.

• Don't flag other users' comments just because you don't agree with their point of view. Please only flag comments that violate these guidelines.

You should also know that The Sacramento Bee does not screen comments before they are posted. You are more likely to see inappropriate comments before our staff does, so we ask that you click the "Report Abuse" link to submit those comments for moderator review. You also may notify us via email at feedback@sacbee.com. Note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us the profile name of the user who made the comment. Remember, comment moderation is subjective. You may find some material objectionable that we won't and vice versa.

If you submit a comment, the user name of your account will appear along with it. Users cannot remove their own comments once they have submitted them.

hide comments
Sacramento Bee Job listing powered by Careerbuilder.com
Quick Job Search
Buy
Used Cars
Dealer and private-party ads
Make:

Model:

Price Range:
to
Search within:
miles of ZIP

Advanced Search | 1982 & Older



Find 'n' Save Daily DealGet the Deal!

Local Deals