Ron and group,
I see the Keystone decision, as occurs with so many decisions, as a tradeoff of conflicting values. All heavy oils (Venezuelan, Mexican, and Canadian) have a higher carbon output than light crudes, and there is no question that the oil/tar sands are heavy. There is also no question that the likelihood of a Canadian interruption of supply to the US is lower than from the Middle East, Nigeria, Venezuela or Mexico. For me, and I think independent of the disclaimer below, the US oil security question would trump the incremental carbon contribution that is, as Ron notes, quite small incrementally; if I were the US president I would bring the oil into the US and pay for /require offsets. “Dirty oil” from a source with a long history of shared values and a 4000 mile undefended border, and with non-state ownership of resource development projects, trumps both “dirty oil” from scary countries, and for me “cleaner oil” from scary countries. In a perfect world we would wave a magic wand and get off fossil fuels quickly. This just isn’t going to happen, sad to say. The most recent US election points, in my mind, to a future where the likelihood of an absolute denial of carbon’s impact on climate change is heightened. Coal usage in the US for power generation, which is at least one order of magnitude higher in carbon emissions than the oil sands, has a strong protector in the majority leader of the US Senate. Hence I think of the energy security issues that face the US. I would love to trust in a stable Saudi Arabia, Middle East, Venezuela and Mexico, but I wouldn’t bet my country’s economy on it. The point is made that the Canadian oil would be exported from the US Gulf Coast to offshore markets. That might be true in 2018, but will it be true in 2028, 2038? The point is made that Venezuela is a key supplier of heavy oil to meet current US needs. In terms of energy security, my reaction is QED. So for me economic security issues trump the incremental carbon impact, which as Ron notes, is small and can be offset. Regrettably, there is little near and mid-term prospect of the US weaning itself from oil, so for me buying oil from a safe source has value. Add to this two other observations. The US State Department concluded, I think correctly, that if the oil doesn’t go to/through the US it will get to international markets by other routes. Further, the response to a lack of pipeline capacity has been a huge increase in the shipment of oil by rail, less efficient and safe than pipelines. Now the disclaimers. I live in Alberta, Canada. I have worked in the energy industry. I have a son in the US military who received a minor wound while stationed in the Middle East, and I consider that one major function of the US military is securing a safe world for the transport and usage of oil. A final comment. People on both sides of this discussion have claimed that their position is a “no brainer”. I think this is a wrong claim on both sides. Trading economic security against an admittedly more carbon intense fuel source is a difficult tradeoff. Peter Flynn Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta [email protected] cell: 928 451 4455 *From:* [email protected] [mailto: [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Ronal W. Larson *Sent:* January-10-15 4:33 PM *To:* Geoengineering *Subject:* [geo] Keystone pipeline veto importance? List: Because moderator Andrew is in London, he may feel it inappropriate to report on what many US environmentalists see as an important likely near-term climate victory - President Obama’s promised veto of the Keystone pipeline. A bill has passed the US House and soon likely the same in the US Senate. The White House Press Office has said President Obama will veto this - despite a majority of the US electorate wanting the pipeline built. Is an Obama veto important? Here are two recent articles saying his veto is important: http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-point-of-the-keystone-fight/ http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/the_keystone_xl_pipeline_debate_is_right_where_we_want_it Probably most US pundits say no - too little actual carbon involved. I suggest this veto is important for future geoengineering discussions as well as climate discussions. There is still hope that the US can be both a climate and geoengineering (especially CDR/NET) leader - in Paris talks this year. Other thoughts? Ron -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
