There is literally nothing more important in the world than Keystone XL.
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline project, if approved and effectuated, will have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels of crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the oil refineries at the Gulf Coast of Texas around Houston. The project is divided into two parts: One from Alberta to Steele City, Neb., which is already a hub for the already-existing TransCanada pipeline system connecting Illinois and Oklahoma with Alberta; and the second from Nebraska to Texas.
Proponents see the pipeline as being the solution to making the United States energy-independent. Indeed, linking Alberta all the way to Texas will boost oil extraction in the Athabasca tar sands region of Alberta, which contains petroleum deposits made up of bituminous sands.
Opponents, on the other hand, such as The New York Times’ editorial board member and former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute James Hansen, say that fully exploiting the tar sands will be “game over” for the climate.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “there is more than twice as much carbon in the tar sands oil.”
The tar sands are the source of some of the dirtiest fuel possible on Earth. The production of oil from the tar sands (which would happen in Alberta) and subsequent refinement (in Texas) emit three to four times as much carbon dioxide than conventional oil production does. Enough tar sands rest in Alberta to increase atmospheric CO2 from the current 400 parts-per-million (already above the upper safety limit of planetary CO2 of 350 ppm) by 200 ppm, an apocalyptic possibility that will happen if the Keystone XL is given the green light by President Barack Obama.
The first application from TransCanada, having made its way through Canadian and U.S. legislation, was parried by Obama in January 2012. Following that, in March 2012, Obama gave the thumbs up to the southern (Nebraska to Texas) half of the pipeline. Now, it is time for Obama to give his final word on the pipeline.
Apart from the climate consequences noted above, the extraction of tar sands oil requires both the waste and contamination of vast amounts of water, the tar sands are located underneath Canada’s boreal forests (the world’s largest intact ecosystem) and the pipeline itself carries tremendous risks of spilling. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe that even economically, Keystone XL will not be a boon, whether in terms of creating permanent jobs or in terms of lower gas prices in the U.S. (Much of the refined oil will be exported.) Finally, and not in the least trivially, tar sand oil production is forcing indigenous communities off their lands in some areas and poisoning them in others.
Despite all of this, it looks like Obama may well still approve it. In just the last month, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said it was time for Obama to make a decision, TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said he is “very confident” that Obama will approve the pipeline, and Thomas Donilon, Obama’s former national security adviser, said Obama would “probably” approve it as well.
Where is the environmental movement in all this?
Perhaps the words of Martin Luther King Jr., whose birthday we celebrated Monday, from his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” contain the truth about what’s curtailing the necessary action: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.’”
Fit this to the context of today’s environmentalism, replace “moderate” with “liberal” or “progressive,” and you’ve struck gold. The environmental movement is there, but it is weak. Civil disobedience actions have been held in Washington, D.C. and various parts of the heartland, but more is needed, and not just in terms of quantity of resistance, but also in terms of quality. Against the inexorable power of capital, more aggressive, radical means are required.
The Keystone XL must be stopped at all costs. And looking at the contemporary environmental movement, both the solution and our biggest, addressable obstacle are clear: militant action and wariness toward adopting it.
