ENERGY IN THE OBAMA ERA
Editor's Note: This article was written by Leo G. ('15) after he developed an interest in the climate crisis, and wanted to educate himself on the political issues of climate change.
President Obama’s recent veto of the Keystone Pipeline XL bill seems like a significant ecological feat for many reasons, even though the final decision on the future of Keystone has not been decided. Congress has not done enough to combat climate change and the Senate recently denied that climate change is induced by humans.[1] However, humans definitely cause climate change which is a serious problem for the future of our planet, as confirmed by the overwhelming majority of scientists. Obama’s veto sent a positive signal to environmental groups while also sending a negative one to the oil industry. Obama is ostensibly trying to curb climate change, as he promised to do in his 2015 State of the Union address. But why has Keystone been such a contentious issue on the political scene?
Firstly, tar sands oil, the kind that would be transported from Canada to Texas via the Keystone pipeline, is a very carbon-intensive form of energy. Tar sands oil requires lots of energy and water to mine and transport, making it very inefficient compared to other forms of oil. Therefore, the pipeline should not be completed. However, the counter argument is that if the pipeline was not approved, TransCanada would find another way (i.e. by train) of transporting the oil to refineries. Therefore, some argue, the pipeline will not influence whether or not the tar sands oil is ultimately extracted and sold. Furthermore, the pipeline would take less energy than transportation by train. However, the pipeline is representative of a large issue surrounding actions to reduce climate change: infrastructure. The inertia of our social, political, and economic structures is what keeps us on a path to environmental catastrophe. Keystone, if completed, would remain in use for many years and create incentive for companies and governments to continue to invest in oil.
Secondly, Keystone’s construction has been justified by the creation of jobs in the United States. Understandably, Congressional representatives want big and often carbon-intensive projects in their home districts/states to decrease unemployment, known as “pork-barrel” projects. The justification for carbon-intensive infrastructure is, therefore, economic growth. However, the building of the pipeline would only require 3,900 workers, 35 permanent jobs, and 38,000 “indirectly” created jobs according to the State Department. [2] Moreover, most of the tar-sands oil that would make its way to Texas through the Keystone pipeline would probably be exported, given that the demand and price for oil in the U.S. have gone down.[3]
Lastly, corporate money is an enormous factor behind environmental action, or lack thereof. Our elected leaders are not really passing Keystone to create jobs, especially because the pipeline would not create that many. Representatives and Senators are voting for environmentally destructive bills because big energy companies are paying for their campaigns. For example, the top contributing industry to Senator John Hoeven, the Senate sponsor of the Keystone XL bill, was the oil and gas industry.[4] The inundation of our “democratic” process with money is a larger and very serious issue: the Koch brothers, two major energy moguls, are reportedly planning to spend $889 million in the 2016 election. Corporate money in our political process is an issue exacerbated by the Citizens United ruling, and will have detrimental effects on efforts to save our environment. Citizens United opened the door for companies, that were granted first amendment rights, to spend significantly more in elections. In light of all of this, Obama’s veto importantly showed how he will take steps to battle climate change (when he is not up for reelection and is faced with significant environmental activism).
On the other hand, President Obama, not untouched by the demand for American energy independence, has advocated for harmful environmental policies. In his 2015 State of the Union he commended the increase in American production of oil, namely through offshore drilling and fracking.
Recently, the Obama administration announced to allow drilling off the east coast of the United States, from Virginia to Georgia.[5] This plan opens up the risk for another oil spill similar to the 2010 BP disaster. Many of the health effects induced by the spill are still being felt today.[6]
Therefore, while Obama has taken political action to combat climate change, he has also made decisions that will hurt the environment. However, contradictory environmental policy simply will not cut it. For the world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, major political action is required on all fronts. Therefore, Obama’s veto and rhetoric about climate change are ostensibly important for ecology; however, the more pressing question is whether his position will be felt and acted on through all climate related policies.
Firstly, tar sands oil, the kind that would be transported from Canada to Texas via the Keystone pipeline, is a very carbon-intensive form of energy. Tar sands oil requires lots of energy and water to mine and transport, making it very inefficient compared to other forms of oil. Therefore, the pipeline should not be completed. However, the counter argument is that if the pipeline was not approved, TransCanada would find another way (i.e. by train) of transporting the oil to refineries. Therefore, some argue, the pipeline will not influence whether or not the tar sands oil is ultimately extracted and sold. Furthermore, the pipeline would take less energy than transportation by train. However, the pipeline is representative of a large issue surrounding actions to reduce climate change: infrastructure. The inertia of our social, political, and economic structures is what keeps us on a path to environmental catastrophe. Keystone, if completed, would remain in use for many years and create incentive for companies and governments to continue to invest in oil.
Secondly, Keystone’s construction has been justified by the creation of jobs in the United States. Understandably, Congressional representatives want big and often carbon-intensive projects in their home districts/states to decrease unemployment, known as “pork-barrel” projects. The justification for carbon-intensive infrastructure is, therefore, economic growth. However, the building of the pipeline would only require 3,900 workers, 35 permanent jobs, and 38,000 “indirectly” created jobs according to the State Department. [2] Moreover, most of the tar-sands oil that would make its way to Texas through the Keystone pipeline would probably be exported, given that the demand and price for oil in the U.S. have gone down.[3]
Lastly, corporate money is an enormous factor behind environmental action, or lack thereof. Our elected leaders are not really passing Keystone to create jobs, especially because the pipeline would not create that many. Representatives and Senators are voting for environmentally destructive bills because big energy companies are paying for their campaigns. For example, the top contributing industry to Senator John Hoeven, the Senate sponsor of the Keystone XL bill, was the oil and gas industry.[4] The inundation of our “democratic” process with money is a larger and very serious issue: the Koch brothers, two major energy moguls, are reportedly planning to spend $889 million in the 2016 election. Corporate money in our political process is an issue exacerbated by the Citizens United ruling, and will have detrimental effects on efforts to save our environment. Citizens United opened the door for companies, that were granted first amendment rights, to spend significantly more in elections. In light of all of this, Obama’s veto importantly showed how he will take steps to battle climate change (when he is not up for reelection and is faced with significant environmental activism).
On the other hand, President Obama, not untouched by the demand for American energy independence, has advocated for harmful environmental policies. In his 2015 State of the Union he commended the increase in American production of oil, namely through offshore drilling and fracking.
Recently, the Obama administration announced to allow drilling off the east coast of the United States, from Virginia to Georgia.[5] This plan opens up the risk for another oil spill similar to the 2010 BP disaster. Many of the health effects induced by the spill are still being felt today.[6]
Therefore, while Obama has taken political action to combat climate change, he has also made decisions that will hurt the environment. However, contradictory environmental policy simply will not cut it. For the world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, major political action is required on all fronts. Therefore, Obama’s veto and rhetoric about climate change are ostensibly important for ecology; however, the more pressing question is whether his position will be felt and acted on through all climate related policies.
[1] Goldenberg, Suzanne. "US Senate Refuses to Accept Humanity's Role in Global Climate Change, Again." The Guardian. January 22, 2015. Accessed February 24, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/us-senate-man-climate-change-global-warming-hoax.
[2] "Fact Checking Keystone Jobs Claims." CNN Money. November 18, 2014. Accessed February 24, 2015. http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/18/news/economy/keystone-jobs/.
[3] "Where Keystone's Oil Will Go." CNN Money. November 18, 2014. Accessed February 24, 2015. http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/16/news/economy/keystone-oil/.
[4] "Sen. John Hoeven." Open Secrets. Accessed February 24, 2015. https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00031688.
[5] Joling, Dan (AP). "Alaska Leaders Decry US Ban on Oil Drilling in Arctic Ocean Area Where Walrus Feed, Raise Pups." US News. February 11, 2015. Accessed February 24, 2015. http://www.usnews.com/news/science/news/articles/2015/02/11/oil-drilling-banned-in-arctic-area-that-attracts-walrus.
[6] Crude Awakening. Performed by Shane Smith. Vice News / HBO, 2014. TV / Online.http://www.vice.com/video/watch-our-hbo-report-on-the-lasting-effects-of-the-bp-oil-spill-915
Additional facts and scientific knowledge provided by Mr. Williams.
[2] "Fact Checking Keystone Jobs Claims." CNN Money. November 18, 2014. Accessed February 24, 2015. http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/18/news/economy/keystone-jobs/.
[3] "Where Keystone's Oil Will Go." CNN Money. November 18, 2014. Accessed February 24, 2015. http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/16/news/economy/keystone-oil/.
[4] "Sen. John Hoeven." Open Secrets. Accessed February 24, 2015. https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00031688.
[5] Joling, Dan (AP). "Alaska Leaders Decry US Ban on Oil Drilling in Arctic Ocean Area Where Walrus Feed, Raise Pups." US News. February 11, 2015. Accessed February 24, 2015. http://www.usnews.com/news/science/news/articles/2015/02/11/oil-drilling-banned-in-arctic-area-that-attracts-walrus.
[6] Crude Awakening. Performed by Shane Smith. Vice News / HBO, 2014. TV / Online.http://www.vice.com/video/watch-our-hbo-report-on-the-lasting-effects-of-the-bp-oil-spill-915
Additional facts and scientific knowledge provided by Mr. Williams.
