Who would follow our example on Keystone?

Related
Oil spills and Keystone
Americans must speak out against Keystone
China may buy Canadian oil — thanks to Obama
U.S. is on the road to energy independence — thanks to President Bush
We can't drill our way to energy independence
See more stories »
- X
  
  The Keystone XL pipeline won't end up helping ordinary folks much Why sell our best shot at energy independence to other countries?U.S. energy policy must be forward-looking GOP energy policy running on empty Road to energy independence goes through ANWR, Keystone Keystone pipeline: Let's wait for the facts America's failure to invest in alternative energy sources will come back to haunt future generations Obama should revisit his decision to scrap the Keystone XL pipeline Obama put politics over country when he killed the Keystone XL pipeline D.C.'s Keystone Kops What's Obama's No. 1 priority? Not jobs.The Sun editorial page: Liberally sprinkled with chuckles Obama made right choice on pipeline Thumbs down on Keystone Pipeline provision in tax cut deal threatens Maryland coastline U.S. should follow Canada's lead on energy Ex-energy industry exec doesn't care about protecting Earth's air, water and wetlands U.S. energy policy: What have we got against Canada?U.S. energy policy: A slow national suicide No to Keystone XL Proposed Canadian pipeline will increase our dependency on foreign oil Keystone XL pipeline, bringing oil from Canada, is a step toward the future Going to jail for the environment Pipeline or no, oil is not the future The shrewd politics of Keystone delay

By Jonah Goldberg

7:00 a.m. EDT, March 18, 2013

While many have long seen America as the global bad boy, everybody likes Canada. If Uncle Sam tucks his pack of Marlboros under his T-shirt sleeve and plays by his own rules, the Canadian moose -- or whatever their Uncle Sam equivalent is -- always wears his blue blazer and school tie and does his chores without being asked. Canada is a global citizen, a good neighbor, a northern Puerto Rico with an EU sensibility that earns its gold stars from the United Nations every day.

This fact should have relevance below the 49th parallel. Right now, we're all waiting for President Barack Obama to decide on whether the Keystone XL pipeline can go forward. The pipeline would take oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta and deliver it to refineries in the U.S. It would extend all the way down to ports in Texas.

The prospect that Mr. Obama might approve the pipeline has environmentalists ready to handcuff themselves in a drum circle around anything that moves. For a while, they insisted that their core objections had to do with fears of spills in environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska and elsewhere. As many suspected, this was always political cover. When the proposed route was changed to accommodate these concerns, opponents weren't mollified. They were only further enraged.

Opponents of the pipeline want America to lead by example and say the pipeline is a step in the wrong direction. "Who wants the U.S. to facilitate the dirtiest extraction of the dirtiest crude from tar sands in Canada's far north?" asks New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

Well, first of all, the Canadians do! Second, if we won't, the Chinese would be happy to facilitate (a point Mr. Friedman ignores). Canada and China have made it clear that if the U.S. doesn't allow the pipeline to go south, they'll make one that goes west to the Canadian coast. In other words, the oil is going to be pumped out no matter what. Moreover, the risks of a bad spill increase if we don't build the pipeline. Oil tankers heading to China are a bigger threat to the environment than a pipe over or through dry land to American refineries.

But my aim isn't to defend the pipeline, which strikes me as a no-brainer in every way. It's to make a larger point. If the idea is that America is somehow "leading by example" when/if it kills projects like Keystone, or cracks down on oil drilling on federal lands, as Mr. Obama has done, then we're not fooling anyone -- not even the Canadians.

All around the world, governments are expanding their oil and gas operations. In Russia, oil output keeps going up. Brazil is racing to expand offshore drilling. Mexico recently announced another huge oil field it won't hesitate to develop. Experts are predicting a South Atlantic oil boom to rival the North Sea craze of the 1980s.

Meanwhile, thanks to technological advances, the International Energy Agency predicts the U.S. will be the world's largest oil producer by 2017 and a net exporter by 2030. And again, Greens, who've insisted for years that we need to wean ourselves off of foreign oil, aren't cheered by the news. They're ticked off that they lost another convenient talking point.

While it's true that President Obama brags about how oil and gas production are up, his policies have nothing to do with it. A new report from the Congressional Research Service confirms: "All of the increased [oil] production from 2007 to 2012 took place on non-federal lands." Since 2010, federal oil production is down 23 percent.

To what end? As global-warming activists will be the first to admit, global warming is global. Whatever CO2 we've declined to pump into the atmosphere has been more than replaced by emissions from growing economies in Asia. We could cut our emissions to nothing, and in a few years the increase in China's emissions alone would replace them.

You know what else are global? Oil and gas markets. Whatever oil we've denied ourselves has been made up for by development in other countries. All that we've done is make oil prices higher than they needed to be and denied ourselves billions of dollars that would have stayed here rather than go to the Middle East. No country, save the U.S., seems at all interested in denying itself or the world much-needed economic growth by letting oil and gas sit in the ground.

In other words, when you've lost Canada, you've lost the argument.

Jonah Goldberg is the author of the new book "The Tyranny of Clichés." You can write to him by email at JonahsColumn@aol.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO.

Comments (1)

Add / View comments | Discussion FAQ

Tara EC at 11:26 AM March 19, 2013

The environmental arguments against KeystoneXL ignore the fact that in the long-term, approving the pipeline is better for the environment than rejecting it. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions since Canada has stated that oil shipped via KeystoneXL will be done so under terms of an agreement that lowers these emissions by 17% (http://goo.gl/Kbw35). In addition, it will reduce the number of trucks, trains and barges needed to transport the oil, further lowering emissions. And it should be noted that pipeline transport is the most environmentally safe form of oil conveyance. There are currently 170,000 miles of pipeline in the U.S., moving 11.3 billion barrels of petroleum annually. This method has by far the lowest spill rate of any method, with only 0.7 incidents per thousand miles of pipeline between 2006 and 2008. Also, 80% of spills involve less than fifty barrels, with most involving less than three. Also, as this author correctly states, Canada has made it very clear that the oil from the region will be extracted and sold regardless of what happens with KeystoneXL (http://goo.gl/MOFS1).

COMMENTING POLICY: Readers are encouraged to post comments that are germane to the article. We reserve the right to remove any user, and to delete comments that contain abusive language or personal threats, as well as those that are racist or demeaning. Readers may report comments by clicking "Report Abuse." Once a comment has been flagged, a Baltimore Sun staffer will investigate. Click here for more information on commenting.