Gleick’s Significant Figures: Is The Keystone XL Pipeline A Symbol Or A Piece Of A Puzzle?
"Gleick’s Significant Figures: Is The Keystone XL Pipeline A Symbol Or A Piece Of A Puzzle?"
Share:
Climate scientist Peter Gleick has launched a new must-read National Geographic ScienceBlogs column, “Significant Figures.” He explains what it will cover here. I’m reposting his second piece below — JR.
The pipeline is just a piece in a much larger puzzle. Photo montage by Peter Gleick
by Peter Gleick
It is time we just said “no.”
There is growing attention to climate change in the media; and there is a growing realization that decisions we make today will have a lasting effect on the world’s climate tomorrow.
But there is still a gap – a chasm really – between the reality of climate change and our day-to-day choices, investments, and public debates about water, energy, food, and resources.
Here is the reality: the burning of fossil fuels is the leading contributor of gases that are already changing the planet’s delicate climate, and the climate will continue to change in an exponentially increasing and worsening way unless we reduce emissions.
Here is the gap: we continue to make decisions in every phase of our lives ignoring the reality of climate change. Incrementally, each of our decisions might be, or at least appear to be, minor in the grand scheme of things. Combined, they propel us forward on a path to disaster.
This kind of gap is inevitable and understandable: the problem over global climate change is complicated and unprecedented; there is a massive well-funded effort to confuse the public about basic facts by those vested in the status quo (as there was in the tobacco debate and is in the gun safety debate); and the global or even national transitions needed require political courage that seems to be in short supply. This doesn’t bode well for the ability of society to make short-term choices that are in our own long-term interest.
A key, timely example: The Keystone XL Pipeline.
What is the Keystone XL pipeline? For those who haven’t been following the news in this area, very simply, this is a proposed large pipeline project to expand the capacity to bring fossil fuels derived from the Athabasca oil sands region in Alberta, Canada south through the United States to refineries and transportation hubs along the Texas Gulf Coast.
There are important and complex pros and cons to the project and these have been and continue to be argued in local, state, and national forums. Many in the environmental community are lobbying hard for President Obama and the State Department to withhold permission to expand the pipeline. In August 2011, a group of climate scientists sent a letter urging the President to reject the pipeline. A second letter was sent in early 2013. There have been public protests at the White House, along the proposed route, and by landowners in Texas. The state of Nebraska originally opposed the pipeline because of concerns about the threat of groundwater contamination and accidents.
The fossil fuel industry, major Republicans (and some Democrats), Texas politicians, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many others are urging quick approval.
Like most complicated environmental issues, this one is, well, complicated.
Supporters argue that the oil sands in Canada will be exploited no matter whether US markets open or not, that pipelines can be built and operated safely, and that the incremental threat to global climate is small. Opponents cite concerns about pipeline spills and safety, major water contamination and consumption during production and transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, and expanded dependence on fossil fuels. Even the science and environmental communities are split. Jonathan Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, who has long expressed concern about climate change, recently suggested that the major focus on the pipeline “seems somewhat misguided” (“At best, [the Keystone XL pipeline] is a bit of a sideshow. At worst, it’s a distraction from the bigger issues that contribute to climate change”]. He goes on to argue that the President has other ways to be effective on the issue of climate change and should “stay focused on real and immediate emissions reductions, and not get distracted by his friends or foes into playing Washington games.”
In some ways, this is a good point. The Keystone XL Pipeline, considered in isolation, is not a game changing or planet-threatening project. According to some estimates, obtaining and using oil from tar sands produces 14 to 20 percent greater greenhouse gas emissions than the average oil now used in the U.S. for transportation. In a report to Congress, the estimated effect of the pipeline on the U.S. greenhouse gas footprint would be an increase of 3 million to 21 million metric tons of GHG emissions annually – less than one percent of U.S. emissions. The tar sands in Canada are an environmental disaster in other ways, but the incremental emissions of greenhouse gases are small compared to the far greater threat of massive coal expansion in China, or potential fugitive emission of methane from fracking, or massive deforestation in Indonesia and Latin America, or any number of other major sources of greenhouse gases. In that sense, arguments that the Keystone pipeline is just a “distraction” or “red herring” have some merit.
But. But. But. Here’s my problem: when do we finally just say “no more?” When are we and our elected officials going to look at the complete picture created by our individual choices and decisions?
How can we read the relentless and convincing news from scientists about climate change, and then turn to the financial pages and read arguments to accelerate investment in old-style technologies, fossil fuels, and land developments along coasts that ignore climate factors? How can we suffer the devastating impacts of a Superstorm Sandy and then just turn around and rebuild the same vulnerable infrastructure in exactly the same places without addressing future sea-level rise? How can we cheer at the profits being made by energy companies in our investment portfolios or institutional endowments when those profits come at the expense of our own and our children’s planetary health?
Every individual choice, every long-term development project, every purchase we make, every financial investment in infrastructure or technology may, in isolation, be relatively innocent and modest. But our choices are additive. Society’s decisions must no longer be divorced from the recognition of the threats of climate change.
Imagine a jigsaw puzzle with a thousand pieces. Each little piece might tell us almost nothing about the full picture; every little piece is a tiny, almost unimportant part of that full picture. But every piece added builds up to an inevitable end. The Keystone XL Pipeline may be just a minor puzzle piece of a far larger picture, but that picture, when all the pieces are combined, is one of potential planetary disaster.
It is time to stop putting these pieces together and work on a different picture all together. That is the decision facing the President, and each of us. It is time we just said “no.”
— Peter Gleick via “Significant Figures” reposted with permission
FRONT
For further reading pleasure on the Keystone pipeline. Complete with linky goodness.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175648/
Peter Gleick wrote: “small compared to the far greater threat of massive coal expansion in China, or potential fugitive emission of methane from fracking, or massive deforestation in Indonesia and Latin America”
The difference is that President Obama is not in position to make an up or down, yes or no decision, right here and now, about any of those sources of carbon pollution — whereas he can stop the Keystone XL pipeline.
Peter Gleick wrote: “In that sense, arguments that the Keystone pipeline is just a ‘distraction’ or ‘red herring’ have some merit”
Actually the opposite is the case. Hand-waving at other ongoing or potential major sources of carbon pollution that Obama cannot easily stop with a single decision is a “red herring” and a “distraction” from the Keystone XL pipeline, which he CAN stop.
Excellent mindfulness, Sec. In a way, both you and Gleick make the same point–it’s hard to keep your eye on the ball. And that ball is to start reducing carbon emissions.
This article is the closest I’ve seen to mirroring my own thoughts about Keystone XL and the upcoming mega-protest in DC (Feb 17), when those opposing the project and willing to take to the streets to so say are going to be bussed and flown and taxi’d into Washington by the droves from many cities across the US. Put aside for a moment that marching in the streets, as of late, has become a relatively ineffective tool in the NVCD toolbox. The authorities will deflate the number in the crowd, the environmental groups will inflate it, there will be some photos and a lot of hype and maybe POTUS will take notice and maybe he won’t, depending on the news cycle that day. For me, focusing on Keystone XL so intently is probably a necessary ingredient, but is also a highly insufficient one to the mix of ingredients urgently needed for solving the climate problem. These decisions are being made, as trite as it sounds, in back rooms, in the context of major global energy geopolitical dynamics and huge deep pockets with much to lose and gain, much riding on the pipeline. Sec of State John Kerry, a person who probably “gets” the gravity of the threat of climate change more than just about any high-level policymaker, is not only “in the room” but right now, he IS the room. He’ll be weighing all the factors and may indeed come out with a recommended approval. Gleick appears to be reminding climate hawks not to become too myopically focused on one puzzle piece. It’s the war on out-of-control CO2 emissions that matters, and those of us opposed to “drill baby drill” should not allow one battle to define the movement to save humanity from its fossil fuelishness. There are all those other puzzle pieces, and saying NO to them is just as important.
The keystone pipeline protest this weekend is extremely important for a number of reasons.
1) For the first time ever, over 100 organizations, well known for going their separate ways, are banding together to fight one single major environmental crisis. I don’t think the importance of this can be overestimated. A united movement is a more powerful movement.
2)Governments are made very uncomfortable by crowds in the streets. They know that for every one in the crowd there are 10 more who support their views. Latest count was 30,000 and buses from 28 states.
3) Killing the pipeline would send repercussions throughout the fossil fuel industry, investors, banks, and insurance companies.
4) You don’t fight a war. You fight battles. The XL pipeline is a crucial battle and if everyone continues pulling together we can win this battle.
5) Martin Luther King’s and Lincoln’s speeches occurred in front of crowds, large crowds.
I agree with your comments, Anne.
If the weather is decent I’m planning to go from West Virginia to the Feb.17 protest, to help have a good turnout.
My hope is that the focus will be more on demanding that Washington and especially Obama take strong climate action generally, and less on specific issues — like, for example, stopping the Keystone Pipeline, or banning hydrofracing, or stopping strip mining for coal.
On each of these issues, there are always studies and arguments that people advance that show why “THIS (particular) ISSUE IS IT” — but it usually turns out that IT ISN’T.
And, the balance on any of these kinds of issues is not all one way. For example, a number of my neighbors are getting a lot of money from the deep shale gas under their farms. There have been a lot of wells frac’ed so far in our region and the Universe hasn’t ended. And the gas is a lot cleaner and in many ways safer than coal.
Anyway, I hope the Feb. 17 organizers can steer this event in a way that avoids the too-narrow-issue-fixation your comment cautions against.
I fully agree with Dr. Gleick’s assessment. However, I fear that a “just say no” campaign will have as much effect as did Nancy Reagan’s “just say no” campaign against drugs. We still misuse drugs in a serious way just as we will continue to misuse fossil fuels.
In this morning’s news (ABC’s GMA) we learned that the focus of Obama’s #SOTU address will be “pocketbook issues.” If that is truly the case, we won’t hear much about climate even though we know that the continuing warming of the climate is the biggest pocketbook issue we have. Just ask the insurance companies who are still trying to figure out how much Superstorm Sandy cost.
The point is to start with real action to build the war against increased carbon emissions. The KXL FIGHT IS IT. This builds committed activists for the next fights against fracking and coal exports.
How about we get some of those activists to go on down to a meeting over a wind farm and tell elected officials to APPROVE the project in a hurry. Instead, we who go to these meetings constantly hear NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, and so on until very little is getting done.
Time to do the right thing with the right focus. Just saying no is getting us NOWHERE.
That’s a great article by Dr. Gleick – and he’s absolutely right – when do we draw the line and say “no further” on shortsighted fossil fuel decisions.
I thought the mine to tailpipe emissions for tar sands oil was much higher than 15% over conventional oil (I remember that video on the site last week and the guy was saying 3.4 – 4 times the carbon). If it’s only 15%, and would assume Dr. Gleick is correct, its a lot less than I thought.
It’s very hard to get a dispassionate view on these stats. Just this morning the SF Chronicle had an article that showed several oil fields here have much higher life-cycle carbon footprints than the tar sands.
But for sheer scale, the tar sands represent an enormous carbon release. Add to it the deforestation it’s causing (which I bet is not part of the life cycle assessment) and the symbolic value of bordering the tundra, and it’s elevated to high significance.
The real issue is, is Obama and the environmental movement ready to withstand the onslaught of reaction? Is this the best moment to go to virtual war over carbon?
I think we’re running out of time and have to take the risk. Things will get very, very hot if Obama/Kerry say no. People have to be prepared for that next phase, which will be immediate.
I agree Change, although my bet is Obama will approve the XL to avoid the political difficulties and then use EPA to go after existing coal power plants. I don’t think the President is there like we all want him to be after that speech (& immediate back pedaling by his press secretary).
At this point (after the last 4 years) I’ll take the EPA route if that’s what he can do…I’d love to see him cancel the XL though…but he’s not going to unleash that firestorm on himself IMHO.
Civilization got here incrementally, along an almost infinite number of pathways. We have to unravel it the same way, only much, much faster. Not starting somewhere–anywhere–is to ask nature to cut through the Gordian knot.
That will not be pleasant.
KXL is an excellent symbol of what we can’t do anymore. It is the right pivot.
Also see: “An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate” by Dana Nuccitelli posted on SkepticalScience.com.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/updated-keystone-climate.html
The author says: “It is time to stop putting these pieces together and work on a different picture all together. That is the decision facing the President, and each of us. It is time we just said “no.””
As usual, it is the exact same answer that the environmental community constantly says: no! The answer is “Yes,” not no. But its a yes to the things that the environmental community cannot come to grips with. It’s yes to large-scale wind and solar at a transformative scale, not at some minor level. The challenges of physics and exogenous energy requirements for a civilization that offers transportation, the internet, food, water, sewage treatment, trash collection, roads, and a vast array of things treated as ordinary and regular is rather immense. Let’s not fool ourselves into a utopian view of what it takes to live a decent life.
We can do what needs to be done, but not by justing saying “no.” We must embrace a resounding YES to large-scale wind and solar, electrification of transportation and to a dramatic reduction in destructive behavior such as fracking. You can’t just ask people to freeze for lack of coal-fired power; you must give them a real substitute. That means saying YES.
I agree, to a point. Obama would be wise to not merely reject KXL, but to say, we’re going to do something else instead–like a Manhattan Project for solar deployment.
I’m not sure about the large-scale stuff. It seems distributed is more robust. Also energy efficiency. We haven’t even begun to tap that.
But I agree very much that NO alone is not going to cut it.
One needs to add the collateral damage and the land mass the size of Illinois to be ripped apart destroying the third largest water shed in the world. Lakes already filling with carcengens 59 miles away. Look at the TarSands still siting on the banks in Kalamazoo MI and the 34 other spills since June of 2010. If the Tarsands are burned it does mean end for global warming per key scientists and is being minimized wrongly. Rare and aggressive cancers downstream and with all of us living downstream now the NO is the only hope left and it would finally signal the serious concern and attention needed to address the problems of alternatives that would provide more and better jobs and would signal that our government finally is not in the pocket of API, Chamber of bribery and carbon industry like Koch brother’s profiting from refining and extraction. As they both have over 25 billion each it seems the corruption of our government money should be funeled into research and development and not denial while tarsands is kept in the ground and people are paid for the damages already apparent.
The bitmin can always be transported by railroad…
Then why are they so eager to build the pipeline?
To show the proles who is still the Boss.
Actually I think
1 the ghg footprint of the tarsands is underestimated when u take in to account the condensate and infrastructure and cleared forest and restoration of land and pet coke.
2 the carbon in the tarsands I believe prety much on there own almost blow the 2c threshold. Which is already out by 100ppm. It should be 350 not 450!
The oil sands are not make or break for the Canadian economy. We can do very well resolving the energy/climate problem.
The Existential Imperative: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion – http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/184496/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion
The bottom line is that Obama’s “all of the above” energy policy, while it might garner support and votes from different sectors of the energy economy, is a zero-sum game, or, actually, a pollution additive game for the atmosphere.
So, the government sponsors some wind and solar development, or auto emissions standards. Remove some potential carbon pollution from the atmosphere. Now, allow Keystone, Arctic drilling, etc., etc., and add some carbon to the atmosphere.
The net result? Atmospheric carbon levels keep growing, and they’ve already grown too far.
It will be very hard to listen to the administration prattle on about how it’s addressing climate issues if Keystone is approved — especially hearing it from Jay Carney.