Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and the Keystone XL Pipeline
I wrote last week that I had no idea why Lisa Jackson would resign her position as administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, other than simply running out of strength from a 24/7 bombardment from certain business interests that are hell-bent on peeling back environmental reforms. Here’s a stronger theory from Democracy Now:
Speculation that Obama will approve the pipeline has grown in recent weeks following the sudden resignation of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson. A source reportedly close to Jackson told the New York Post she did not want to be at the EPA when the pipeline is given the green light, saying: “She will not be the EPA head when Obama supports [Keystone XL] getting built.”
Where is the reasoning ability of environmentalists?
Look at environmental damage created by approval and then take another look at the effects of not approving the Keystone pipeline.
Bringing the crude oil from Canadian tarsands and Bakken shale formations would create some unavoidable Right of Way problems and there would be some potential for leaks. The oil would be refined along the Gulf Coast with state of the art industrial processes with strict emissions laws. Still, some additional air and ground water pollution is likely.
Now how would that be different if the Keystone pipeline was not permited?
China would pay for a transCanadian pipeline which crosses the Rockies and terminates in Vancouver. I think that the potential for ecological damage is at least as great and probably greater with this mountainous terrain.
Now it gets really dicey when you consider what happens when the oil gets to China. Have you ever breathed the air in Beijing? Their environmental laws are almost nonexistent. If you are concerned about carbon dioxide emitted from burning this oil, consider that the same amount of CO2 circulates around the globe whether it is released in the USA or in China.
I think the long term solution to our energy and environmental problems is a orderly transition to a green economy but we will need a reliable source of petroleum for the next 50 years under any reasonable scenario.
I do not see edicts that do not follow free market principles as being reasonable. Market forces will defeat the best laid plans that assume that the majority of people will do the “right” thing inspite of uneconomic burdens placed upon them.