Keystone XL Rejection: Right Move Right Now

EDITORIAL_ Foreign crude will not soil U.S. soil via the Keystone XL pipeline—at least not in the near future. Today, President Obama again rejected passage of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would transport dirty crude from the Canadian Tar Sands across the U.S. to refineries on the Gulf Coast–and he was right to do so.

The transport would be fraught with environmental hazards—spills, fires, water, soil, and air pollution–and for no real gain for most U.S. citizens and businesses in lowering gas prices (already at historic lows), ensuring energy independence (the refined oil is for export, not the U.S. market) or creating jobs (most U.S. work has already been done).

Certainly the jobless rate does not lend validity to arguments that the Keystone passage is needed to create jobs. The unemployment rate fell today to 5 percent—its lowest since the financial and housing collapse in 2008.

Gas prices are no justification for Keystone’s passage. Fuel prices, today at a national average of $2.22 per gallon, are the best argument against its passage, since the low price of oil, (~$50 per barrel) renders the tar oil too expensive, comparatively. Today’s gasoline prices are simply too low to cost-justify the tar oil extraction. And, oddly enough, gas prices would be even lower if oil companies were less greedy and more customer-responsive, according to a Wall Street Journal article, “Prices at gasoline pump are falling but not as much as oil.”

Because of global market economics—oil companies would get a better payout from foreign buyers—the gasoline wouldn’t even be distributed on U.S. soil. The only thing that would be potentially distributed on U.S. soil would be crude spills, fires, pollution and carbon emissions.

The economics of jobs, gas prices, business activity, and oil exports may change, making it more tempting for some to sacrifice the health of the environment and humans for money. But right now, those reasons do not exist.

Sound business decisions always weigh the risks and costs against the benefits. Currently the environmental, structural, and human health risks and costs of Keystone and subsequent emissions in an era of climate change and environmental concerns are too high.

Got thoughts? I’d love to hear from you. [email protected]