Keystone XL

The arguments against the Keystone XL pipeline range from unconvincing to unreasonable. One objection is that Keystone requires the public seizure of private property. That is so, but I have pointed out that the same is true of interstate highways and National Parks. I once spent an evening around a campfire with a man who had to give up the land he was born on for the creation of the Buffalo National River. I rather doubt that any opponent of Keystone XL would be on his side.

Another complaint is that tar sands oil has a larger carbon footprint than many other sources of oil, which is true. It doesn't, however, amount to much. Robert Bryce has this:

The reality is that the global issue of carbon dioxide is no longer about the United States. Over the past decade, U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions fell by 1.7 percent. During that same time, period global carbon-dioxide emissions rose by a stunning 28.5 percent.

The most reasonable objection to KXL is that the pipeline will leak (it will) and that it will cross a lot of very important aquifers. The proper response to that is to do everything possible to make the pipeline safe. Cars will crash. The remedy for that is to build the safest cars possible, not to outlaw automobiles.

The most unreasonable objection to KXL is that the oil it transports will be sold abroad rather than consumed in the U.S. There are terms for this kind of thing. They are manufacturing and export. Importing a raw material (crude oil) and then refining it and selling it abroad are what a robust economy does. Value added here enriches us. Critics of Keystone XL are very bothered by the fact that some of the pipeline product will go to China. Well, we have a very large trade imbalance with China. Selling something back won't hurt. In fact, the Gulf refineries will produce gasoline or diesel as the market demands for whomever demands it.

The arguments for Keystone are dispositive. Ron Bailey, the science correspondent for Reason magazine, has a nice piece that I just read on my Kindle. Keystone XL is projected to add $775 billion to the U.S. economy by 2035. That, dear readers, is real, live stimulus. The project will produce about 600,000 jobs. Yes, some of these are temporary, but just right now who cares?

During this economic funk that we are currently suffering, jobs right now is what everyone agrees we need. Well, TransCanada will need to hire about 10,000 people right away if the pipeline is improved and 34,000 folks by 2014. This, gentle readers, is a shovel ready project. Consider that in June of this year Alberta (where the oil is coming from) saw 22,000 jobs created. In that same month, the entire US of A managed to generate 18,000 jobs.

There is also the issue of property taxes to consider. TransCanada ain't gettin' the land for free. We are looking at ten million in state and local taxes in South Dakota.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see the downside. Unlike solar power startups, TransCanada isn't going to go belly up with a half a billion of our gold in its hold. Unlike wind power, the oil isn't going to poop out during the hot season. Unlike previous stimulus bills, allowing TransCanada to spend its own money digging trenches will really stimulate the state and national economies. I'm all in.

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

At the risk of sounding irreverent and contrarian, I suspect that this might be a fabulous time for a savvy, slightly reckless long-term investor to sink some cash into solar or wind power.

That said, I agree with you generally on Keystone XL, but we'd better make damn sure that we South Dakotans don't end up on the hook for cleanup costs when the inevitable accident occurs.

[George Mason]

Stan; With Solyndra exec.s(read Obama supporters) taking the fifth (12 times, getting into Hilary Clinton territory), avoiding investment in solar and wind at this time would be wise (the next investigation is into obama donors with large stakes in wind). Petroleum is a much safer bet. The obama administration and the professional malcontents will continue to increase the costs of drilling, transporting and refining raw materials. This will continue to inflate the costs to the consumer(so much for caring about poor people)through onerous regulation and litigation, and costing the jobs president teleprompter claims he is so dedicated to creating.

[Donald Pay]

Keystone XL is code for crony capitalism that leads to treason. When you've got the right wing foundations and the corporatists in the Obama Administration all supporting this turkey you can bet it's bad news for the USA.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110907/pipeline-lobbyists-transcanada-obama-110908/

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: your logic and your medication need to be adjusted. Both sides hire lobbyists. You can complain about that if you will, but calling it treason is nutty.

[Jon S.]

For what it's worth, I was talking to a student from Buffalo, SD recently, and apparently they have made a major addition to their school in anticipation of the jobs created due to the pipeline. As Ken says, that's stimulus.

Donald's argument is that when everyone agrees something is good, that's proof that it's bad. I am aware that there are such things as mass delusion (how else to explain the fact that Adam Sandler has a movie career), but sometimes this is also known as "consensus."

[Anthony D. Renli]

One hole in your first argument that the seizing of private property is the same as the interstate highway system or national parks:

The highways and parks are owned by the United States Government and therefore the taxpayers of the United Sates. Keystone XL is going to be owned by a publicly traded corporation, TransCanada.

A better analogy would be - WalMart decides they want a store where your house is, so they get the local government to use eminent domain to take your house. This is why some of us oppose this. It is a private corporation taking land from farmers who may not want to sell.

[Zack]

Lie much?