Inside Opinion

What's on the minds of Tacoma News Tribune editorial writers

NOTICE: Inside Opinion has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Inside Opinion.
Visit the new section.

U.S. can’t afford to forfeit Canadian petroleum

Post by TNT Editorial Board / The News Tribune on Jan. 30, 2012 at 5:56 pm with 2 Comments »
January 30, 2012 5:29 pm

This editorial will appear in Tuesday’s print edition.

Here’s an unfortunate but inescapable reality: The world will burn petroleum for decades to come.

Modern industrial economies – in other words, the hopes and livelihoods of billions of people – are sustained by oil. Greener energy alternatives aren’t remotely close to supplanting it.

Until affordable renewables can be ramped up enough to replace petroleum, squeezing off the supply of crude would wreak economic distress of global proportions. By comparison, today’s hard times would look like the good old days.

So the oil will keep flowing; governments do not deliberately create economic depressions. That’s why President Obama’s recent decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas was indefensible pandering – shameless appeasement of overwrought opponents who talk as if the project would seal the doom of planet Earth.

What’s been accomplished? Without skipping a beat, the Canadian government has turned to China as a potentially better customer for Alberta’s tar sands oil.

The China option would reroute that oil through British Columbia and onto tankers plying potentially treacherous Northwestern coastal waters.
Canadian officials seem to be taking Obama’s decision as a wake-up call – a warning that Canada can no longer take the United States for granted as a reliable market for its gas and oil.

There are all kinds of reasons Americans shouldn’t want Canadian oil going to China. Environmental reasons, for starters. Despite all the scaremongering, pipelines are the safest way to transport oil – much safer than the tankers that would carry Alberta’s oil across the Pacific Ocean. (A pipeline would still carry the China-bound petroleum, but to British Columbia, not Texas).

The Keystone project was dangerous only when compared to leaving the oil in the ground, a nonexistent alternative. Its risks and carbon impacts were thoroughly vetted by the State Department, whose professionals endorsed the project until they were overruled politically.

The United States also can’t afford to weaken its energy partnership with Canada, a paragon of stability, decency and democracy. Canada’s immense oil and gas reserves could put it in a league with Saudi Arabia in coming years, and it currently sells nearly all of its fuel exports to us.

It’s insane to forfeit the trust of Canada’s oil industry; insane to pass up crude from a friendly non-dictatorship; insane to let China nail down long-term contracts on petroleum that could instead have enhanced America’s energy security.

The need to get beyond petroleum is urgent. The problem is, that can’t happen overnight. Until factories and cars are powered by something cleaner and greener, oil is what we’ve got – and we shouldn’t pretend that a reliable supply doesn’t matter.

Leave a comment Comments → 2
  1. We can’t afford our psychological reliance on cars. Besides
    the cost of oil there are other costs that mount into
    trillions of dollars each year. Getting around is doable
    for a large number of Americans without cars. It’s the
    advertising propaganda that buffaloes us every time.

  2. georgeditsworth says:

    You say that if the pipeline is not built, Canadian crude, piped through Canada, will go to China via British Columbia ports, causing potential environmental disaters for coastal waters of Washington. You are absolutely correct; the potential for disaster is there. But why do you not think the oil won’t go to China anyway once it is piped to Texas. You seem to ignore the fact that tankers loaded there would be just as prone to disasters as those plying the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Do you not agree that the oil will be sold to the highest bidder, probably China, and after the pipeline is built, only those few Americans who service the pipeline and who load the Chinses oil tankers will benefit. Your editorial does not address the fact that, perhaps, none of the oil transported through the pipeline will be used in the US, you simply seem to assume that as true. Further, the tone of your editorial seems to imply that you would not favor rules that dictate that the pipeline be built only by American companies who employ only U.S. citizens, and that oil transported through the pieline only be used in the United States of America. As the old saying goes “be careful what you wish for, you may get it”. Give it some thought.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0