SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Keystone XL's Climate Impact Worse Than Thought: Study
'We can't be investing in infrastructure that's going to lock in our fossil fuel reliance'
Aug 11, 2014
The climate impacts of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline could be worse than thought, a new analysis shows.
According to the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change, completing this fossil fuel infrastructure project, which would run from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska, could lead to increased oil production. That in turn will cause a decrease in global oil prices, leading to greater oil consumption, the analysis states.
"We find that for every barrel of increased production, global oil consumption would increase 0.6 barrels owing to the incremental decrease in global oil prices," the study states.
"If that's the case, that'd be a big greenhouse-gas impact," stated co-author Peter Erickson, a senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute in Seattle, Washington.
The emissions generated as a result of the pipeline could be as much as four times greater than the State Department indicated in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of the project, as the authors say that the modeling used for the FEIS did not take into consideration the pipeline's impact on global oil prices.
Erickson and co-author Michael Lazarus' modeling showed that the project would lead to the release of as much as as much as 110 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. The State Department's FEIS, in contrast, found it would contribute as much as 27 million tons of CO2.
"It's obvious that Keystone XL isn't going to single-handedly cause or solve climate change," Luisa Abbott Galvao, climate and energy associate at Friends of the Earth, told Common Dreams, but it speaks to what we've "called the 'Keystone principle,' which is the idea that we can't be investing in infrastructure that's going to lock in our fossil fuel reliance."
In addition, Abbott Galvao said, "We can't forget that the implications of Keystone for climate are not just a matter of calculating direct emissions. You also have to consider the signal that this sends to markets and governments."
Friends of the Earth was among a dozen groups that sent a letter (pdf) to the State Department less than two weeks ago, writing that since the Department is open to considering other updates to its Keystone XL assessment, it should update its market assessment as well.
Abbott Galvao said that in its FEIS, the Department concludes that "tar sands development is inevitable, and if the pipeline isn't built, [tar sands are] going to somehow get out otherwise."
"We think that this is a fallacy," she said, noting a series of projects that have been canceled over lack of pipeline infrastructure. This is something the groups asked in their letter for State Depart to take note of--evidence that "Keystone XL is absolutely crucial to tar sands development."
"What this report confirms is what we've been saying all along--that because of this Keystone principle President Obama actually has all the information that he needs to make the decision already. He's not going to be able to stay consistent or coherent with his climate commitment if we're investing in fossil fuel infrastructure," she said.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The climate impacts of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline could be worse than thought, a new analysis shows.
According to the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change, completing this fossil fuel infrastructure project, which would run from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska, could lead to increased oil production. That in turn will cause a decrease in global oil prices, leading to greater oil consumption, the analysis states.
"We find that for every barrel of increased production, global oil consumption would increase 0.6 barrels owing to the incremental decrease in global oil prices," the study states.
"If that's the case, that'd be a big greenhouse-gas impact," stated co-author Peter Erickson, a senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute in Seattle, Washington.
The emissions generated as a result of the pipeline could be as much as four times greater than the State Department indicated in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of the project, as the authors say that the modeling used for the FEIS did not take into consideration the pipeline's impact on global oil prices.
Erickson and co-author Michael Lazarus' modeling showed that the project would lead to the release of as much as as much as 110 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. The State Department's FEIS, in contrast, found it would contribute as much as 27 million tons of CO2.
"It's obvious that Keystone XL isn't going to single-handedly cause or solve climate change," Luisa Abbott Galvao, climate and energy associate at Friends of the Earth, told Common Dreams, but it speaks to what we've "called the 'Keystone principle,' which is the idea that we can't be investing in infrastructure that's going to lock in our fossil fuel reliance."
In addition, Abbott Galvao said, "We can't forget that the implications of Keystone for climate are not just a matter of calculating direct emissions. You also have to consider the signal that this sends to markets and governments."
Friends of the Earth was among a dozen groups that sent a letter (pdf) to the State Department less than two weeks ago, writing that since the Department is open to considering other updates to its Keystone XL assessment, it should update its market assessment as well.
Abbott Galvao said that in its FEIS, the Department concludes that "tar sands development is inevitable, and if the pipeline isn't built, [tar sands are] going to somehow get out otherwise."
"We think that this is a fallacy," she said, noting a series of projects that have been canceled over lack of pipeline infrastructure. This is something the groups asked in their letter for State Depart to take note of--evidence that "Keystone XL is absolutely crucial to tar sands development."
"What this report confirms is what we've been saying all along--that because of this Keystone principle President Obama actually has all the information that he needs to make the decision already. He's not going to be able to stay consistent or coherent with his climate commitment if we're investing in fossil fuel infrastructure," she said.
The climate impacts of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline could be worse than thought, a new analysis shows.
According to the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change, completing this fossil fuel infrastructure project, which would run from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska, could lead to increased oil production. That in turn will cause a decrease in global oil prices, leading to greater oil consumption, the analysis states.
"We find that for every barrel of increased production, global oil consumption would increase 0.6 barrels owing to the incremental decrease in global oil prices," the study states.
"If that's the case, that'd be a big greenhouse-gas impact," stated co-author Peter Erickson, a senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute in Seattle, Washington.
The emissions generated as a result of the pipeline could be as much as four times greater than the State Department indicated in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of the project, as the authors say that the modeling used for the FEIS did not take into consideration the pipeline's impact on global oil prices.
Erickson and co-author Michael Lazarus' modeling showed that the project would lead to the release of as much as as much as 110 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. The State Department's FEIS, in contrast, found it would contribute as much as 27 million tons of CO2.
"It's obvious that Keystone XL isn't going to single-handedly cause or solve climate change," Luisa Abbott Galvao, climate and energy associate at Friends of the Earth, told Common Dreams, but it speaks to what we've "called the 'Keystone principle,' which is the idea that we can't be investing in infrastructure that's going to lock in our fossil fuel reliance."
In addition, Abbott Galvao said, "We can't forget that the implications of Keystone for climate are not just a matter of calculating direct emissions. You also have to consider the signal that this sends to markets and governments."
Friends of the Earth was among a dozen groups that sent a letter (pdf) to the State Department less than two weeks ago, writing that since the Department is open to considering other updates to its Keystone XL assessment, it should update its market assessment as well.
Abbott Galvao said that in its FEIS, the Department concludes that "tar sands development is inevitable, and if the pipeline isn't built, [tar sands are] going to somehow get out otherwise."
"We think that this is a fallacy," she said, noting a series of projects that have been canceled over lack of pipeline infrastructure. This is something the groups asked in their letter for State Depart to take note of--evidence that "Keystone XL is absolutely crucial to tar sands development."
"What this report confirms is what we've been saying all along--that because of this Keystone principle President Obama actually has all the information that he needs to make the decision already. He's not going to be able to stay consistent or coherent with his climate commitment if we're investing in fossil fuel infrastructure," she said.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.