Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

World

Op-Ed: Pembina comments on Obama’s rejection of Keystone XL pipeline (Includes interview)

Erin Flanagan, Oilsands Analyst at Pembina Institute

This is an interview with Erin Flanagan who is an analyst working to reduce the environmental and social impacts of current and future oilsands development. She researches and advocates for policies that improve environmental management in the region and support Canada’s transition to clean energy. She also contributes to private- and public-sector projects on a range of technical issues in the oilsands, including greenhouse gas and water management, land-use planning, tailings treatment and reclamation.

Erin has published numerous reports on the environmental impacts of oilsands development and its associated infrastructure. Her analysis has appeared in outlets such as the Globe and Mail, the Financial Post and the New York Times. She appears regularly on CBC, Global and CTV news and current affairs television programs.

Erin holds a Bachelor of Science in chemical engineering with a minor in public policy from the University of New Brunswick. Her contributions to technical and humanitarian issues have been highlighted by organizations including the Canadian Engineering Memorial Foundation, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of New Brunswick and the Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering.

 

INTERVIEW

What does the rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline project by President Barack Obama mean for Canada and the climate change movement?

President Obama’s decision to reject application to construct TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline reiterates that climate change is a key consideration for all energy infrastructure projects going forward. In his commentary, President Obama noted that his decision is motivated in part by a desire to ‘lead by example’ on the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change. This is a game-changing precedent for infrastructure projects in Canada, and around the globe.

 

On November 6, 2015, when President Barack Obama made the announcement he said: “Now, for years, the Keystone Pipeline has occupied what I, frankly, consider an overinflated role in our political discourse. It became a symbol too often used as a campaign cudgel by both parties rather than a serious policy matter. And all of this obscured the fact that this pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others.” Can you comment on this being a “serious policy matter” above all else and why this decision was lost in a political tug of war?

The Keystone XL issue became a partisan political issue in the United States. But for Pembina, our interest has always been to determine the extent to which this piece of infrastructure would result in new emissions in Alberta’s oilsands. Our perspective has been that TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline would, if approved, facilitate a significant increase in oilsands production both directly through increased pipeline capacity and indirectly by opening access to new markets that could offer higher prices for oilsands products. Because of the consequences of the project on our shared climate if approved, the Keystone XL issue was always, from our perspective, a serious policy matter.

 

Obama also referred to Canadian oil in this way: “Shipping dirtier crude oil into our country would not increase America’s energy security. What has increased America’s energy security is our strategy over the past several years to reduce our reliance on dirty fossil fuels from unstable parts of the world.” Since the US rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline and the definition of Canada’s ‘dirty oil,’ how will this affect the perception of the resource? Is it an industry losing ground when other countries are moving forward with innovation and alternative forms of energy?

This isn’t an issue of perception – this is an issue of fact. Canada’s oilsands require more energy to extract and process when compared to other oil resources around the globe. For example, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency analysis found that Keystone XL would cause up to 27.6 megatonnes (Mt) in additional or incremental greenhouse gas emissions compared to existing sources of crude oil. This estimate reflects the higher-than-average greenhouse gas emissions from extracting, transporting, upgrading and refining oilsands.

 

Going forward, how do you believe this decision will affect, if at all, the other pipeline projects in Canada, specifically Energy East and the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline projects?

This decision underscores the need for Canada to move quickly on reforms to its existing environmental assessment and infrastructure review process. During the election campaign, the Liberal party committed to modernizing the National Energy Board’s review process. This included a commitment to include upstream carbon emissions in environmental assessments for projects like pipelines. Transforming those platform commitments into law will mean changes to all projects currently under review at the National Energy Board (NEB).

 

Obama also spoke of future clean energy when he admitted, “Now, the truth is, the United States will continue to rely on oil and gas as we transition—as we must transition—to a clean energy economy. That transition will take some time. But it’s also going more quickly than many anticipated.” Can this progressive thinking approach and action by the US be used as a strategy in defending clean energy initiatives for Canada rather than solely focusing on oil extraction and export going forward?

Yes. Most environmental groups, including the Pembina Institute, advocate for a transition to a low-carbon economy. This means discussing the environmental impacts of new fossil fuel projects AND discussing the environmental benefits that accrue from renewable projects. For more information on our clean energy economy work, see here.

 

On the cooperation of businesses initiating clean energy and benefitting the economy, Obama adds: “Our biggest and most successful businesses are going all-in on clean energy. And thanks in part to the investments we’ve made, there are already parts of America where clean power from the wind or the sun is finally cheaper than dirtier, conventional power.” a) In your opinion, is Canada doing enough to manifest clean energy initiatives and bringing them to market considering the legal fights ahead for oil extraction and delivery? b) Can oil and gas companies be part of this progressive movement?

a) Canada and its provinces should be doing more to enact policies that support the low-carbon and renewable sectors. As global climate policy shifts, demand for energy efficiency technologies and renewable energy will only continue to increase. Alberta is well placed to take advantage of these economic and environmental opportunities.

b) Yes, oil and gas companies can be part of the solution – if they take progressive action on greenhouse gas emissions in the short term. Leading oilsands producers are preparing to incorporate the price of managing carbon pollution into the cost of doing business. Meantime, the world’s top economies, including Canada, have pledged to phase-out fossil fuels by the end of the century. Resilient companies — from oil and gas to renewable energy producers and everything in between — are innovating to prepare for the inevitable, a lower-carbon future.

 

In his concluding comments, Obama mentions the battle to fend off climate change. “If we want to prevent the worst effects of climate change before it’s too late, the time to act is now. Not later. Not someday. Right here, right now. And I’m optimistic about what we can accomplish together. I’m optimistic because our own country proves, every day—one step at a time—that not only do we have the power to combat this threat, we can do it while creating new jobs, while growing our economy, while saving money, while helping consumers, and most of all, leaving our kids a cleaner, safer planet at the same time.” How can the Pembina Institute play a role in making a difference by initiating and/or defending progressive, collaborative policy initiatives?

As Canada’s go-to source of energy expertise, Pembina provides technical information to industry and government leaders, and advocates for a science-based approach to environmental protection and energy development. Further, we convene important conversations with thought leaders from industry, government, communities and the environmental sector to identify common ground and move solutions forward. We present credible and practical perspectives on the role of energy in our society. We ground Canada’s energy conversation in the facts, and we challenge conventional thinking with innovative solutions. We think that employing these diverse tactics will position us to be part of Canada’s solutions on climate change.

 

LINKS

Barack Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline citing ‘national interest’


Full Transcript: President Barack Obama’s Rejection of Keystone XL Pipeline


Pembina Institute


Pembina Institute Clean Energy Economy

Written By

You may also like:

World

Calling for urgent action is the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

Business

The cathedral is on track to reopen on December 8 - Copyright AFP Ludovic MARINParis’s Notre-Dame Cathedral, ravaged by fire in 2019, is on...

Business

Saudi Aramco President & CEO Amin Nasser speaks during the CERAWeek oil summit in Houston, Texas - Copyright AFP Mark FelixPointing to the still...

Business

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal infers that some workers might be falling out of the job market altogether.