Opposition to Keystone = Opposition to Energy

There is no form of power generation, however green, that is not opposed by some gaggle of environmentalists. My grad school colleague Steve Hayward expresses this in logical form at Powerline:

Hayward's First Axiom of Environmental Energy holds that there is no source of energy—"clean" or otherwise—that environmentalists won't oppose if it becomes cheap, practical, and scalable.

That's good, but I think we can firm it up a bit. Here is Blanchard's First Axiom of Environmental Energy:

The strength of environmentalist opposition to any source of energy (S) is directly proportional to its economic viability (V).

I add this corollary:

S is always greater than zero, even where V is less than zero.

Environmentalists have opposed wind farms, especially near Presidential vacation sites, and they are now filing suit to stop the building a large solar power facility.

Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council this week notified the Interior Department that it will sue to block the Calico Solar Power Generating Facility, a proposed 660 megawatt solar power plant in Pisgah Valley in Southern California. The environmentalist groups allege that the Interior Department violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to adequately account for the project's possible effect on the desert tortoise, a federally threatened species.

Now I am all with the DoW, SC, and NRDC on this one. Large scale solar power arrays are full tilt crazy. Oh, and think of the tortoise!

Meanwhile, the opposition to the Keystone pipeline is intense enough to confirm my axiom. The pipeline would extend from Canada's oil sands to refineries on the Gulf coast. It would carry about 850,000 barrels a day. Is this a good idea?

Duh. Robert Samuelson has a fine post on the subject. I will list my reasons (some of which got from Samuelson) for thinking that this is a no-brainer.

1. For the foreseeable future, our economy will continue to run on fossil fuels. More fuel is more fuel.
2. Oil from Canada is not oil from dictatorial regimes. The left cares about that except when they don't.
3. Oil from Canada makes North America (including the U.S.) less dependent on "foreign oil", which is also something the left pretends to care about.
4. Extracting oil from the sands involves environmental costs. But blocking Keystone will not stop Canada from extracting the oil. If it doesn't come here, the oil will go west towards China.
5. If the oil pipeline goes west rather than south, that will substantially decouple Canada economically from the U.S. That would be very bad for the U.S. strategically.

I have no doubt that a pipeline bisecting the United States will involve inconveniences. Pipelines leak. Land has to be appropriated. I just think that the national interests indicated in my list are overwhelming.

Opposition to the Keystone pipeline is incoherent unless what you really want is to starve the U.S. of energy. I suspect that that is exactly what a lot of the opposition wants, but they are not about to say so and I doubt very much if they have come to grips with what that means.

Comments

[Hans]

Opposition to Keystone = Opposition to Energy

That is one of the most intellectually dishonest headlines I've read for a long time/

[Ken Blanchard]

Unfortunately for your comment, I substantiate the headline in the post.

[Chaganti]

THIS TECHNOLOGY WILL BE HELPFUL TO ALL COUNTRIES AND CAN GENERATE FEW WATTS TO MULTI MEGAWATT AND HELP A SMALL VILLAGE TO A VERY BIG METRO CITY. NO HARM TO NATURE OR INDIVIDUAL SPECIES

[George Mason]

So all we have to do is move everybody to the coasts. That's simple.

[Bill Fleming]

George, that's where about 70% of the worlds population already lives.

[Jon S.]

Bill,

What about the other 30%?

[Donald Pay]

Opposition to the tar sands projects is much broader than you have indicated, and includes US corporations including Whole Foods and Bed, Bath and Beyond. Many companies have made commitments to reduce their carbon footprint. More than that, many companies realize there are alternatives for energy production, but no alternatives to good quality water for human consumption and livestock and crop production. When you take into consideration all the risks, it's better to put the effort wasted by this project into alternative energy sources that don't have risk implications for the bread basket of the US.

The tar sands oil is already being transported through another pipeline and by rail to the southern US. It's not as if this oil won't be produced. It will simply be produced at a slower rate that will sustain it for a longer time frame. This oil is very heavy and not the best quality, so it requires lots of refining, which has it's own environmental problems.

[Bill Fleming]

Jon S. Wind and water baby... and a little nuke reactor in the garage. LOL.

[Bill Fleming]

...and solar of course...

[Bill Fleming]

p.s. I used to be anti-Nuke, but now that governor Rick Perry has decided that Texas wants the waste, I'm starting to warm up to the idea.

[George Mason]

Bed, Bath and Beyond! Sends shivers.

[Donald Pay]

Plot BBBY against the S & P 500 over 5 years, then you'll really get shivers.

[Stan Gibilisco]

"I suspect that that [to starve the U.S. of energy] is exactly what a lot of the opposition [the set of people who oppose the Keystone pipeline] wants, but they are not about to say so and I doubt very much if they have come to grips with what that means."

They can't.

[caheidelberger]

Ken, the U.S. won't use that energy. The whole point of Keystone XL is to clear the Midwest glut, move the oil to the Gulf coast, and place it on the export markets, which will raise the price of Canadian oil/West Texas Intermediate to levels comparable with Brent Crude, raise our prices at the pump, and increase TransCanada's profits. http://madvilletimes.com/2011/06/keystone-xl-to-clear-mid-americas-oil-glut-raise-prices/

[Ken Blanchard]

Cory: a pipeline across the U.S. to our refineries is our pipeline. A pipeline west across Canada is not.

You claim that you object to Keystone for the sake of property rights. Are you similarly opposed to interstate highways? Are you equally offended when a farmer can't drain a mud puddle because it has been declared a wetland? Just askin'.

[GrumpysGripes&Grumbles]

For all you stupid people,including the author. When oil leaks out of a pipline into and onto the ground itself....nothing can ever grow there. Since this purposed pipline goes straight through America's Heartland,did any one ever think to ask..."What if this sucker leaks?" Then what? Its not all about producing jobs,and to add to our"stores" of fuel. Its about what can happen to land once some natural disaster happens. And since the pipeline goes through areas well known to produce major earthquakes and F5 Tornadoes and the like, its probably NOT a good idea in the first place to put it there. Any one ever heard of the New Madrid Faultline? Or how about that F5 tornado that hit Joplin,Missouri? There's farmland right there that raises food to feed you, me and parts of Canada where the purposed area for this pipeline will go. I personally am not an eviromentalist,But I will say at least have common sense enough to know when something that sounds good,cannot always be good for you. We to just slow down and think about consequences can come from all of this. Well,those are my thoughts. Oh well,I guess we can always starve to death if something happens...at least we'll have fuel...to cook what food we wont have.