It is
totally unexpected for Nature magazine to weigh in on this debate,
but it is certainly welcomed. For the past decades, the
environmental movement has been allowed free rein to engage in
scientific fraud to further their often paid agendas. It has thus
become appropriate for leading science voices to step up and use
their credibility to counter this behavior far sooner than has been
the case.
The
worst example has been the so called climate debate in which a select
group were able to demonize honest dissent.
It is
high time for the leading voices of science to preempt this activity
as ac matter of policy. At worst, if it is possible, have two
leading sides of the debate tilt at each other.
Beyond
all that, if you are concerned about carbon, then while we still burn
the stuff, the natural worst to best is clearly coal, oil through
natural gas. Suddenly we can supply ample gas thanks to the magic of
fracking. That alone is driving the thermal coal industry to the
wall right now. This will not stop until all coal plants are
shuttered. The stunning reality is that the USA will magically meet
its Kyoto objective and eliminate offshore oil imports during the
next several years through no government planning of its own.
Oil
is for transportation and again oil transport can be graded best
through worst with pipeline, sea through rail and truck. Millions of
barrels of oil are now pouring into the US by rail over the CN track
running through Chicago and down into the Gulf. Burlington Northern
is moving north Dakota production in the same way. The rail
companies are pinching themselves to discover that the US government
is so stupid.
You
will observe that the oil is moving regardless and that Canada is
engaged in hauling oil into Eastern Canada and in increasing
throughput into the West Coast for the Chinese market.
All
that oil will be better served ending up in the Gulf refineries to
displace incoming oil from the rest of the world. This ramps up the
pressure to approve the pipeline and nicely neutralizes the
environmental lobby.
Respected journal
Nature supports Keystone XL pipeline
Obama urged to focus
on coal instead
By Yadullah Hussain
One of the world's
most respected scientific journals says U.S. President Barack Obama
should focus on coal-gorging power and utility companies in the
United States, instead of appeasing environmentalists by turning down
the Keystone XL pipeline.
"Regarding the
Keystone pipeline, the administration should face down critics of the
project, ensure that environmental standards are met and then approve
it," Nature said in an editorial on its website.
Keystone XL pipeline,
which will ship oilsands product from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, has
been the subject of environmental rage and its scrapping is seen as
central to reducing global carbon emissions.
But Nature contends
the pipeline's impact on the environment is exaggerated. "Nor is
oil produced from the Canadian tarsands as dirty from a climate
perspective as many believe (some of the oil produced in California,
without attention from environmentalists, is worse)."
While oilsands
development raises "serious air-and water-quality issues in
Canada," these issues are beyond the president's jurisdiction,
the weekly periodical said. "By approving Keystone, Obama can
bolster his credibility within industry and among conservatives."
The magazine,
considered one of the most-cited scientific journals in the world,
says Obama should instead send a message to the coal industry.
"The energy
utilities will duly cry foul, but the same companies are already
powering down old and inefficient coal-fired power plants in favour
of natural gas plants. Why? Because natural gas is cheap and burns
more cleanly than coal, helping companies to meet increasingly
stringent air-quality regulations."
Meanwhile, a recent
report by Greenpeace ranks coal as a bigger climate change culprit
than the oilsands.
"Coal is the
biggest threat globally," Keith Stewart, one of the report's
authors, told The Canadian Press.
"Sometimes, we
get a little parochial in Canada - we think that the whole world is
entirely focused on tarsands as the biggest problem. What we're
saying here is that it's one of the biggest problems."
The Pembina Institute
has recommended scrapping the Keystone XL pipeline based on its
findings.
"Moving forward
with a pipeline that would undermine other critical efforts to reduce
emissions is not an example of responsible resource development,"
wrote Nathan Lemphers, in a blog on the Pembina website, arguing that
the approval of the pipeline will mean oilsands production equivalent
in carbon emissions to building 6.3 new coal-fired power plants or
putting 4.6 million cars on the road.
The U.S. State
Department is expected to make a decision on the pipeline by the end
of the first quarter.
Keystone was blocked
last year amid concerns over the route of the pipeline, which crossed
the sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska. TransCanada submitted a
new plan in September of last year proposing an alternate route
through the state. Nebraska's Republican Gov. Dave Heine-man gave the
go-ahead to the pipeline last week.
No comments:
Post a Comment