As the deadline for comment to the U.S. State Department on TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline loomed, prominent environmentalist Bill McKibben and NASA climate scientist James Hansen each voiced calls for the Obama Administration to turn down TransCanada’s request for approval to build the pipeline. As has become the norm, their objections were supported by over-estimates of the greenhouse gas implications of oil sands development.
Read more here.
I’m surprised no-one’s commented on this article yet, pipelines are getting a lot of attention in the press right now.
Does it make strategic sense to oppose Keystone XL and Northern Gateway on the grounds that denying market expansion to fossil fuels may create/force opportunities for lower emissions energy, while allowing pipeline construction will only further entrench our reliance on the existing energy system? Both of the aforementioned pipes matter not only because of the extra shipping capacity they offer but because of the opportunities their construction would create for still more pipe and refinery expansion. Vanderklippe had an article yesterday suggesting as much: http://bit.ly/mI7otT
I realize this is a pretty convoluted strategy to induce fuel and technology switching, but in the absence of a national energy policy which sees expansion of fossil fuel production as justifiable only to the extent that it helps build a bridge to a low-carbon society, are convoluted strategies are the best we have available?