Keystone, Northern Gateway pipelines raise questions that need answers before approval

The Star:  This is the most realistic and sensible perspective I've seen on the environment-oil-pipeline dilemma. Olive is right:  oil as our primary source of energy is not going to go away any time soon. It took well over 50 years to shift from coal as a primary source of energy to oil and natural gas.  Given the slow pace of commercializing innovations in alternative energy, the complexities of implementation, and governments' lack of political will to drive the development of alternative sources aggressively and cooperatively, it will be much longer before we witness a fully established energy paradigm shift - probably not in our lifetimes. 

Bottom line: while living with oil as the primary source of our energy - about which we have no choice -  we must in that context seek energy efficiency and ensure environmental safety everywhere we can in order to lessen the impact on the planet. This may involve focusing on the two pipelines not necessarily with the goal of stopping them since - let's be realistic - that's impossible, but with the goal of ensuring maximum environment safety and energy efficiency. That is actually acheiveable because both Trans Canada and Enbridge so desperately seek approval of these projects, and if we demand such stringency there's a very good chance they will accede.   Is such a position a compromise? You decide.


Robert Kennedy, Jr. said as much in his interview on CTV's Question Period. But David Hughes, a well-known energy analyst, says Gateway is unnecessary and that the pace of extractions from the tarsands themselves should be more evenly paced. Instead of pushing to sell oil to Asia and the U.S., he says, we should develop a comprehensive national energy policy and ship that oil east to central and eastern Canada to wean those regions off foreign oil, which is going to peak long before the tarsands. Agreed, but is there an ounce of political will from the Harper Regime for such a sensible idea?

Ron Liepert, Alberta's Energy Minister, calls Opponents of Keystone XL Liars

Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert says that those of us who object to the building of the #KeystoneXL are lying. A pretty strong accusation for a government minister no doubt borne of frustration since we're winning, and their combined 28 companies, industry associations, and unions are losing despite a concerted effort.

Here are some truths, Mr. Liepert, that you probably cannot - or are unwilling to - get your head around:

It's not about national security. It's not about jobs. It's not about the economy. It's not even about the pipeline. It's about perpetuating our dependence on oil, thereby increasing CO2 emissions - through both production and subsequent use - and, as a result, sabotaging if not  foreclosing on urgent widespread concentrated development of alternate forms of sustainable green energy. I can't say it anymore clearly or succinctly. The Canadian Embassy in Washington apparently gets this, but you must have missed the memo.

And the consequences if the XL is built? Potentially irreversible damage to the planet because you, Mr.  Liepert - addicted as your province is to both oil and gas as economic engines - want to help oil corporations exploit the #tarsands to expand your government coffers.  In short, any arguments you make begin on the wrong page and maybe even in the wrong book because our premise is simply one you can't possibly accept.

U.S. Self-sufficient Oil Production would be a Threat to both the Tarsands and the Keystone Pipeline XL

U.S. Oil Production a Threat to Canadian Oil Industry So let's say the U.S. becomes relatively oil self-sufficient by 2017, as some argue, and let's say that self-sufficiency does not fully offset imported oil from Mexico and Venezuela, as the Tarsands organizations would hope. What happens to the main if not the only market for Alberta Oil? I think there is a compelling argument for the U.S. to keep the imports taps from Mexico and Venezuela as supplements when necessary, for this would not only  mitigate potential shortages but, more importantly,  solve one gigantic political and environment issue raging right now: namely, with relative self-sufficiency and supplementary backup sources, why allow the contentious Keystone XL pipeline to be built? Several downside factors would remain, however: the U.S. may still want to built the pipeline to create jobs and stimulate the economy, the U.S. would continue to deepen its dependency on oil instead of aggressively pursuing alternate green forms of energy, and the tarsands group would begin no doubt to seek Asian markets through our West Coast much more aggressively.