Judging the ultimate impact of a Keystone rejection based on the direct market impact of the pipeline seems to miss the point entirely, because there is no single infrastructural linchpin to carbon emissions. The development of FF infrastructure is, like FF consumption, a commons problem.
Probably much more important than the direct market impact of the pipeline is the precedent set by rejecting infrastructure based on climate concerns. This is a political precedent, so its ultimate effects are not amenable to exact prediction, and it may or may not be very important in the long run. If it becomes the norm that FF infrastructure projects must pass some high standard of meeting local or national interest in order to be perceived as justified, and that they must do so publicly and become politically entangled as well, thus incurring costs and increasing risk, then the precedent set by a rejection of Keystone could hamper the development of future FF infrastructure, and thus be important in the long run. The ultimate impact of the political precedent is uncertain, yet it is probably much more important than how much Keystone *per se* would immediately impact world oil price. On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > With my moderator hat on.... > > If people think this is an appropriate topic for the list, it would be > helpful to have some numbers to demonstrate why. > > The pipeline would have to make a significant difference to price globally > to significantly increase the quantity of FF demanded by the market. Will > it do this? I have seen no evidence here, or elsewhere. If not, this is > off-topic. > > Without my moderator hat on... > > My personal view is that carbon taxation or energy-efficiency regulations > are far more effective a tool to manage carbon output than what > environmentalists call "site battles" (squabbling over this-or-that piece > of infrastructure). Site battles lead to haphazard and irrational > decisions. > > As an aside: The pipeline could potentially be reused in the post-oil age > to redistribute hydrogen, biofuels, water, etc. > On 11 Jan 2015 11:19, "David Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The New Yorker just published a Ryan Lizza piece on Keystone, in which >> Lizza noted that: "the philosophical gulf between Obama and congressional >> Republicans is relatively narrow". ' >> >> See: "The Keystone XL Test: Can Obama make a deal? >> <http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/keystone-xl-test-can-obama-make-deal>" >> New Yorker, January 9 2015. Ryan Lizza is the New Yorker's Washington >> correspondent. He also contributes to CNN. >> >> Lizza pointed out that Obama's "veto statement >> <http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr3r_20150107.pdf> >> was silent on the merits of the project itself". That is, the veto threat >> is stated to exist because the executive branch asserts that H.R.3 (the >> Keystone Pipeline Act) "conflicts with longstanding Executive branch >> procedures regarding the authority of the President", and hence, if >> Congress sends such a bill to the President to sign into law, "his senior >> advisers would recommend that he veto" it. >> >> Lizza claims to have inside information regarding Obama's view of >> Keystone: "In private, *Obama has been dismissive of environmentalist >> claims* that building Keystone XL would significantly affect climate >> change", and adds that "his State Department, with some caveats, came to >> the same conclusion in an environmental-impact statement >> <http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/finalseis/index.htm>". >> >> Hence, Lizza reasons, a deal may be possible. He advocates that Obama >> make one. He speculates: "What would the G.O.P. be willing to trade to >> get Keystone approved? A carbon tax?". >> >> My question: could the US environment movement give up its adamant >> opposition to Keystone if, in exchange, Republicans signed on to a federal >> carbon tax? >> >> >> On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 4:17:04 PM UTC-8, Alan Robock wrote: >>> >>> You all might also be interested in my blog on the subject in March >>> last year. It seems President Obama listened to me. >>> >>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-robock/president-obama- >>> say-no-to_b_4913672.html >>> >>> Alan Robock >>> >>> >>> -- >> 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. > -- 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.
