Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Kathryn Marshall

GET UPDATES FROM Kathryn Marshall
 

Without Keystone, the "Tyranny of Oil" Reigns

Posted: 11/18/11 09:00 AM ET

The activists who rally constantly against the oil sands may think they've helped make the world a better place, now that U.S. President Barack Obama has turtled, in the face of their pressure, on the Keystone XL pipeline. They haven't. They've made it worse.

They made up claims, lacking scientific evidence, that the pipeline would be unsafe, risking spills in ecologically sensitive areas, whipping up unnecessary fear among farmers and landowners in Nebraska -- the same way they continue to panic residents living downstream from the oil sands production facilities.

Dr. John O' Connor and his enablers in the anti-oil sands lobby persist in telling the lie that there are elevated cancer rates in communities along the Athabasca, like Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, even though thorough study after thorough study has shown such claims to be utterly baseless. We have come to expect exaggerations and fabrications from anti-oil sands groups, but there is something deeply unethical about their reckless exploitation of innocent people's fears -- for their livelihoods and their lives -- in the selfish pursuit of a take-no-prisoners campaign against all fossil fuels.

Contrary to the fear mongering of professional agitators like Naomi Klein and enviro-chic celebrities like Julia Louis-Dreyfus, the U.S. Department of State had ruled that Keystone XL -- which could have delivered more than a million barrels of secure, peaceful, ethical Canadian oil to U.S. markets every single day, displacing oil from belligerent countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia -- passed the environmental safety test. It would have "no significant impact" on the environment, studies found. More than that, though, the pipeline would have actually helped end the "tyranny of oil" that Barack Obama himself once warned about.

Louis-Dreyfus, who played Elaine on Seinfeld, tried manipulating that warning -- the same way environmentalists have manipulated so many truths -- issued by Obama, during his 2008 election campaign. In a video for the activist group Tar Sands Action, she made it sound like he said that while railing against North American oil producers. He wasn't. He was lamenting the power that undemocratic and hostile regimes were able to leverage against the U.S. thanks to their oil resources.

"We must free ourselves from the tyranny of oil. The price of a barrel of oil is one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Petrodollars pay for weapons that kill American troops and Israeli citizens," Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The way to a safer, more democratic world, he said, was for oil consumers to "stop bankrolling" totalitarian, hostile regimes. It goes without saying that he didn't mean Canada.

But anti-oil sands groups don't actually want that. They don't want safer oil. They don't want more stable oil. They don't want oil that enriches countries that stand up for human rights and women and minorities and democracy and peace. They want America off oil, period. And they'll pursue that at any cost. Daryl Hannah, another B-list celebrity who joined the anti-Keystone cause, warned that the pipeline would make America "slaves to fossil fuel dependency." That's like saying having a Taco Bell in your neighbourhood makes you a slave to chalupas. Applying words like "slaves" and "tyranny" to something as benign as the exchange of commodities between two democratic, peaceable trading partners is just part of the propaganda that extremists use to stigmatize the use of oil. All oil. Regardless of its source. But just because Canada wanted to open a new source of oil to Americans, doesn't mean that Americans would be forced to consume it.

What actually motivates Americans to be dependent on fossil fuels isn't the number of pipelines they have running their way. Without Keystone XL, they'll still get as much oil as they want, tankered in from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Kuwait. What keeps Americans using oil are the laws of economics and physics: there just isn't an alternative fuel that can power our cars, trucks, planes and ships as oil does. There are no solar powered 747s. Big rigs can't run on geothermal energy. They'll still be dependent on fossil fuels, they'll just be increasingly dependent on conflict oil.

That may not be what average Americans want, but it would appear to be exactly what the anti-oil lobby prefers. They actually want oil to remain as ethically dirty as possible. Giving American consumers the option of switching to a secure and stable supply of ethical Canadian oil -- which opinion polls show American citizens want more of -- would surely make them feel far less guilty about their oil dependency and far less likely to seek alternatives. Anti-oil sands activists may figure that the more unpalatable they can make oil consumption and the more dangerous they can make oil dependency seem -- by keeping Americans tied to the most atrocious and bellicose tyrants on the planet -- the sooner they'll convince their fellow Americans to give up oil altogether.

That's a naïve and perilous belief. The U.S. won't stop using oil any time in the near future. The widely respected energy economist Daniel Yergin recently told National Public Radio that "even [in] the most optimistic case, it's hard to see more than three per cent of the vehicles [in America] being electric by 2020." Any significant share of non-oil vehicles wouldn't occur till "2030 or beyond," Yergin said. Hydrocarbons today represent about 80 per cent of America's energy mix; in 20 years, Yergin predicts that share will drop only meagerly, to 75 per cent. In the real economy, where Yergin lives, the necessity of fossil fuels is real and durable. It can't be wished away by sit-ins at the White House and YouTube videos starring sitcom actresses.

If the anti-Keystone crowd thinks it can easily put an end to America's need for oil by blocking ethical sources and making the consumption of fossil fuels as unsavoury as possible, they're clearly very wrong. The unsavoury oil, from OPEC's conflict oil merchants, will keep coming. And the real tyranny of oil -- the one Obama once warned against in such stark terms -- will continue to reign.

 

Follow Kathryn Marshall on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KVMarshall

The activists who rally constantly against the oil sands may think they've helped make the world a better place, now that U.S. President Barack Obama has turtled, in the face of their pressure, on the...
The activists who rally constantly against the oil sands may think they've helped make the world a better place, now that U.S. President Barack Obama has turtled, in the face of their pressure, on the...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 54
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
09:00 AM on 11/20/2011
Coal is so nineteenth century and oil is so twentieth century. How about trying ethical windpower and ethical solar power. Failing that there is still ethical wave power. Given the costs of flooding, hurricanes and droughts, they are really cheap alternatives to fossil fuels. Roads cost thousands of dollars per mile so it is time to stop indulging the auto industry which runs on oil which is used to pave the roads and run the cars.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:31 PM on 11/19/2011
Ok ladies, let's hear you explain the difference between the concept of ethical oil, and the concept of fair trade coffee and nonflict diamonds.
For the forseeable future we are going to be using oil, so why not use the fair trade and non conflict oil?
06:27 AM on 11/20/2011
Are you saying that Alberta Tar Sand oil is somehow less destructive to the environment?
Realist2011
beware false profits....
09:31 AM on 11/19/2011
Your article was at least entertaining, mostly. You rail against the anti-oil environmentalists while apparently arguing that your view is the correct one. Personally, I don't know enough about the environmental consequences of tar sands over other forms of production. President Obama did the right thing, for America. People like you in Canada are upset because for some reason, you think we said "No" to your oil production. We encourage you to produce all the oil you want and sell it to whoever you want, through a pipeline built solely in Canada. What I don't wish to have is YOUR oil pipeline in OUR country. It's not about environmental extremism, or "oil tyranny" (by the way doesn't oil tyranny go both ways?), it's just common sense. Pro-oil writers want me to feel bad that I won't support a pipeline that does not provide real benefits, only "marketing" benefits, to America. Guarantee "X" number of well-paid permanent jobs to Americans. Guarantee that all the oil and refined products will stay solely in the US to promote that energy security you seem to enjoy talking about. Short of those two requirements, well, then all you're doing is getting angry because you don't like us getting in the way of your money. Please, feel free to build your pipeline to your west coast. I absolutely encourage it. That's where it belongs. Not here in America.
02:02 PM on 11/19/2011
As a country, you need our oil more than we need our oil. In the very near future, you will need...hmm, actually, you already need and want our water now. I'd bet you'd be okay with a water pipeline. Oh...and we aren't upset about the pipline being delayed. America is already one of our biggest consumers of our oil but be careful what you wish for. Your fuel costs what it does because you refine it. If we refine it, your price would go up a dollar or better a gallon. How do you think that would work with your already crippled economy?
Your President didn't do the right thing for America...He did the right thing for himself which was to postpone the decision so that he would not alienate any particular groups until after the election.
Yup, that's your "Yes we can" President in action.
Oh....and learn the difference between tar and oil. I know that doesn't work well for environmental extremeists but try and educate yourself...
Realist2011
beware false profits....
02:20 PM on 11/19/2011
The great thing about Canada and America is that we have the freedom to voice our own opinions. You believe that I'm incorrect just as I believe your logic doesn't bear out. One of us is likely to be correct. Over the next couple of years, events will support one idea and the other will be proven false. I can live with that, whichever way it goes.
Realist2011
beware false profits....
02:26 PM on 11/19/2011
And be sure and let us know how those pipelines running through Canada to your Pacific coast work out.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
atcrossroads
08:37 AM on 11/19/2011
Ethical oil? Nothing that pollutes the world my children and grandchildren must live in is 'ethical'.
09:13 AM on 11/19/2011
Things aren't black and white. It is more ethical than oil that pollutes AND oppresses women.
Black and white thinking is for conservatives.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Frnkndad
12:21 AM on 11/19/2011
Without Keystone, America will have to become less reliant on oil.
Without Keystone, a few multibillionaires might not be able to exploit the environmentally repugnant tar sands as quickly as they'd like.
Without Keystone, a few lobbyists and columnists may be forced to start talking about things that are actually ethical in more than just name.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
03:41 AM on 11/19/2011
Baloney, they will just import more from Nigeria, resulting in much more pollution than if they imported it from Canada.
photo
Wild Thing
Say What?!
09:17 AM on 11/19/2011
You need to think a lot deeper Canuckistan. How can tar sands oil be "ethical" when it is so wasteful of natural gas and water, and so emitting of carbon? How much has US and earlier British foreign policy and hegemony contributed to putting the "conflict" in "conflict oil"? In the 1950's the US and Britain installed their favorite despot, the Shah of Iran, and thereby crushed a thriving democracy. The modern equivalent is Stephen Harper, although it's being done a lot sneakier. Conservation is a lot better way to go, but of course that won't do because, like, how would that feed your greed, right?
09:14 AM on 11/19/2011
"Without Keystone, America will have to become less reliant on oil."

How? This does not lower demand OR supply, it just increases cost which is spent on the oppression of women.

Either way, both sources of oil hurt the environment, but one goes the further step of making women illegible to drive.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:36 PM on 11/19/2011
Yup.
The mayor of Ft. McMurray is a single mother living with her boyfriend.
That would carry a death sentence in Saudi Arabia.

Women in the oil sands earn over $100,000.00 a year driving mining trucks, in Saudi Arabia they go to jail for driving a car.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
A radical leftist with a JS Woodsworth avatar.
02:17 AM on 11/20/2011
Increasing cost will force the US to become less reliant on oil.
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
06:25 PM on 11/18/2011
OIL ISSUE #1:
the tarsands and its impact on the Chipewayans of Northern Alberta:
http://www.keepersofthewater.com/home.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-frightening-facts-about-canadas-booming-tar-pits-from-hell-2010-7#an-estimated-billion-gallons-leak-from-the-waste-water-ponds-every-year-11

OIL ISSUE #2:
Tell me who are the real "have" and "have not" provinces? Of the one billion dollars committed to "green projects" in the March 2010 federal budget about 420 million will go to carbon capture and sequestration. Transfer payments anyone?
The tarsands has crippled the rest of Canada's Economy:
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/08/13/TarSandsEconomicFate/
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE67A3JK20100811

OIL ISSUE #3:
The provision in bill C9 that makes the National EnergyBoard the overseer of oil projects in Canada
http://www.globe-net.com/articles/2010/july/13/parliament-passes-amendments-to-environmental-assessment-act.aspx
http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/environment-07-12-2010
Dick Cheyney in the USA with the creation of the Mineral Mines and Management Services and look what happened in the Gulf of Mexico

OIL ISSUE #4:
At the Pittsburg G8-G20 in 2009, countries were asked to phase out oil subsidies. The Honourable Jim Prentice (previous Minister of the Environment) is on record as urging the PM to do so. Canada is not phasing out oil subsidies and our oil subsidies are almost double of what was originally reported.
http://www.iisd.org/media/press.aspx?id=179
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
06:23 PM on 11/18/2011
specifically regarding treaty rights in Alberta & Sask.

Bill C-37

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2330952&File=30&Language=E&Mode=1

Parliament on 512 treaty rights + mineral rights + Alberta

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Search/Results.aspx?language=E&hide_desc=False&encoding=utf-8&search_term1=treaty+rights+%2B+mineral+rights
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
06:21 PM on 11/18/2011
http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2008/04/seventh-generation-fund-at-un.html

&

April 19 /2011

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/session_10_crp_6.pdf

&June 2011

"Together, we discuss, negotiate and design collaborative strategies for advancing the sovereignty of indigenous nations, securing their human rights, protecting sacred ecosystems, and affirming the birthright of unborn generations to lives of honor, beauty, and cultural vitality.

Many far ranging environmental issues have been brought forward to the UNPFII over the last ten years, including mining of ores and minerals, the nuclear stream, oil development, and more recently, the devastation of
hydrolic fracturing, or fracking.

To Indigenous Peoples, all environmental issues are multi-faceted and intersect with other critical concerns—such as sacred sites, sacred species protection, and issues of pollutants and toxic contamination—regarding the continuity of ecosystem and cultural health."

http://yournec.org/content/perspective-indigenous-peoples-advocate-water-united-nations

&

Brief & resources listed on right hand side..
http://www.ienearth.org/water.html
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
06:19 PM on 11/18/2011
Why not GULL ISLAND instead?
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
06:18 PM on 11/18/2011
For those thinking : "Alberta oil just became cleaner and more valuable"

I don't see how.

The oil sands production still:

a) uses 40% of Alberta's natural gas total usage, driving up natural gas prices;

b) diverts twice the volume of water from the Athabasca River that the city of Calgary uses causing levels in Lake Athabasca to plummet;

c) takes 4 times the amount of carbon to produce a barrel than conventional methods and is one of the single largest emitters of carbon in the world;

d) produced 50 square kilometers of filthy, toxic tailing ponds deadly to wildlife.

It doesn't matter how many oil rigs sink, that isn't going to change the fact the oil sands is one colossal environmental stink bomb, and that the big oil companies, that get special tax breaks for developing them from the Harper government, want to triple production.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:37 PM on 11/19/2011
"b) diverts twice the volume of water from the Athabasca River that the city of Calgary uses causing levels in Lake Athabasca to plummet;"

----------------

Liar.
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
06:44 PM on 11/26/2011
In order to produce one cubic metre of synthetic crude oil from oil sands, it has been estimated that 2-4.5 cubic metres of water must be used. Currently, oil sands mining projects are licensed to withdraw 370 million cubic metres (2.3 billion barrels) of freshwater per year from the Athabasca River. However, production from this resource is expanding, and taking all of the planned mining projects into account, water withdrawal would increase to 529 million cubic metres (3.3 billion barrels) per year.

Stakeholders have agreed that this volume of withdrawal would not be sustainable because the Athabasca River does not have sufficient flows.

http://ess.nrcan.gc.ca/ercc-rrcc/theme1/t7_e.php?p=1

&

http://canadians.org/trade/documents/CETA/briefing-CETA-tarsands.pdf
&

Jen Grant et al, Clearing the Air on Oil Sands Myths (The Pembina Institute, June 2009), 3, http://www.pembina.org/pub/1839.

&

"Post-Stakeholder Comments" at http://www.albertainnovates.ca/media/15768/post%20workshop%20stakeholder%20input.pdf, particularly
the submission from Bergerson, Keith and MacLean.

&

see the technical points raised by Simon Mui of the Natural Resources Defense Council at

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/studies_confirm_tar_sands_dirt.html.

&

Rick Hyndman, Comments on Proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulations (April 22, 2009, Via Electronic Submittal),

http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocID=151109.
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
06:16 PM on 11/18/2011
Listen to Lindsay Williams he knows what he's talking about

http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2011_03_19_archive.html

I am listening to this man right now.. & here are some of what he speaks about..
listen from 22:51re: olifields

* Dirty 4:Texaco/Shell/ Standard Oil/Chevon)/ 1903Ford automobile assembly line gas was 0.15 -0.25 per gallon, oil was found in the middle east & dirty 4 divided up those countries & built the oilfields & payback & quid pro quo would be no american oilfields /Kissinger deal was : America will buy Arab oil & portion of the $ paid will be reinvested in American Federal Reserve Notes/T-Bills /Treasuries...all planned way back 50-60 yrs. ago.

Two nations wouldn't sign: IRAQ & IRAN..

* The American government secretly backed leading figures behind the Egyptian uprising who have been planning “regime change” for the past three years, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

* Ted Benna + Congress & IRS the demise was known & planned about revenue shortfalls 401K & T Bills
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:37 PM on 11/19/2011
Your point?
photo
Wild Thing
Say What?!
03:31 PM on 11/18/2011
Keystone passed the environmental safety test? WRONG. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the State Department's impact studies, and deemed the studies inadequate and insufficient in assessing the environmental risks. In fact, seven members of Congress wrote: "Rather than acting as fair arbiters...State Department officials appear to have acted as little more than cheerleaders for the company's bid". The members of congress fault the State Department for failing to adequately consider the environmental impacts of the pipeline.

Now I will use one of your lines, but change a few words to make it more recognizable to most people on this planet: "We have come to expect exaggerations and fabrications from [the Republicans/Oil Industry], but there is something deeply unethical about their reckless exploitation of innocent people's fears -- for their livelihoods and their lives -- in the selfish pursuit of...fossil fuels."
03:12 PM on 11/18/2011
To say "there just isn't an alternative fuel that can power our cars, trucks, planes and ships as oil does. There are no solar powered 747s. Big rigs can't run on geothermal energy." is just hogwash.
There are numerous companies creating green solutions to ALL of this, including jumbo airliners that consume no oil.

And if Alberta oil is so ethical, why don't we use any of it East of Ontario? We are still importing from conflict countries.
And even if Canada used only Alberta sourced oil, there is nothing ethical about Alberta oilsands regardless.
04:32 PM on 11/18/2011
More than that, explain how any oil can be ethical? Shell, for example, profits from both conflict oil and so-called "ethical" oil. In fact, conflict oil is extracted and processed so cheaply that it subsidizes the extraction and production of "ethical oil". When you buy "ethical" oil you are still lining the coffers of a tyrant corporation, and supporting their inhumane activities in Nigeria, for example.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
03:44 AM on 11/19/2011
It's not exactly rocket science.
You gomers run on and on about fair trade coffee and non conflict diamonds, but we are supposed to beleive you can't grasp the concept of ethical oil?

Quit lying.
09:01 AM on 11/19/2011
Why don't you ask your politicians why they don't use oil from Alberta? Better yet, why don't you ask your politicians why you don't use natural gas to heat your homes in the maritimes? A whole lot cheaper than oil.
What's ethical about Alberta oil is that it comes from our own country. Our country benefits from the production. Governments collect royalty tax. Men and women work in the industry and make excellent wages. There are hundreds, likely thousands of small to medium sized independent businesses that are spun off from oil sands production. They hire people to work.
Using our own oil, in fact any of our own resources is ethical. Buying crap from countries like China to stuff Wal Mart stores with is not ethical. Buying oil from countries that suppress the rights of women and children and that generally have a dislike for our democratic, capitalistic western way of life...is not ethical.
photo
Wild Thing
Say What?!
03:55 PM on 11/19/2011
Westcanguy, I totally agree with the benefits of keeping our own production, so why don't we? Why is Alberta oil piped to the US to be sold on the world market? Why don't we keep all that we can use nationwide so we can all get off foreign oil, then keep the remainder to create a strategic oil reserve? Why don't we have a national energy policy? These things are at odds with the oil industry's claim that we need to develop our own oil for our own energy security. Why aren't we doing a lot more to develop alternative energy sources? I don't think asking Stephen Harper would do any good since he's just a puppet.

There's also the deeper question of developing an energy source like the tar sands that is so polluting and consumptive of other valuable resources (natural gas and water) to produce. Although some believe tars sands oil is ethical now in the present political/cultural climate, is it ethical over the long term when thinking about future generations? The truth is that the oil industry, with support from shills like Marshall and Levant and lap dogs like Harper, is trying to sell us a lie so they can make bigger short term profits while liquidating the tar sands and paying the people of a peaceful country a pittance for their resource. It’s all about them, not about us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KSofen
12:42 PM on 11/18/2011
Great article. Probably the best one yet produced by ethical oil. It should be the centerpiece of the Presidential Election.
photo
Wild Thing
Say What?!
01:24 PM on 11/18/2011
Not a lot of hope for humanity when ignorance such as this abounds.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Creox
Life is too important to take seriously.
02:53 PM on 11/18/2011
She's a spin doctor who ignores the science from 99% of the climate scientists on the globe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cynthia Dudley
11:36 AM on 11/18/2011
It still makes no sense to ship the bitumen by pipeline to Texas only to have it refined there and then shipped to other states on order. The reason to ship to Texas is to allow transshipment to other countries.
Build the refineries in Alberta and ship the finished product to states on order.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:40 PM on 11/19/2011
Building refineries isn't cheap....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cynthia Dudley
11:20 PM on 11/19/2011
And a thousand mile pipeline crossing international boundaries is cheap?