Year 3, Month 2, Day 19: Toxic Crude

Joe Nocera, in the New York Times, tries to reconcile the Keystone XL with the problems of climate change:

Here’s the question on the table today: Can a person support the Keystone XL oil pipeline and still believe that global warming poses a serious threat?

To my mind, the answer is yes. The crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta, which the pipeline would transport to American refineries on the Gulf Coast, simply will not bring about global warming apocalypse. The seemingly inexorable rise in greenhouse gas emissions is the result of deeply ingrained human habits, which will not change if the pipeline is ultimately blocked. The benefits of the oil we stand to get from Canada, via Keystone, far outweigh the environmental risks.

Uhhhhhhh-huhhhhhhhhh. Sent February 14:

The planetary environment is already well on its way down the tubes, thanks to the past century’s worth of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. From that perspective, the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline’s contribution to our civilization’s ongoing climaticide is all but irrelevant. Why deny a comforting cigarette to a terminal-stage lung cancer patient?

But Bill McKibben and other environmental activists aren’t prepared to accept the inevitability of doom. From their perspective, it is absolutely crucial that, having recognized we are in a deep and inhospitable hole, we stop digging as quickly as possible.

The pro-pipeline rationale is (rather like the tar sands oil itself) a toxic mix of ingredients. Part petro-boosterism, part profit-mongering, and part “hippie-punching,” the arguments of Keystone XL proponents embody both moral and imaginative failures. Our long-term energy economy must be sustainable if our species is to survive the coming centuries.

Warren Senders