Never mind that the Canada-to-Gulf Coast pipeline might create jobs for more than 100 Indiana companies. Never mind that it would reduce dependence of oil from the Mideast and lessen the need for tankers that could go aground. Never mind all the impact poltically and economicall from 700,000 barrels of oil a day that would be carried the 1,700 miles. There could be a leak, which would be an "ecological disaster!"
Hoosier Environmental Council Executive Director Jesse Kharbanda said Indiana should keep its focus on industries more tied to the state.
"An approach that puts more of an emphasis on modernizing the automobile sector would be extremely beneficial to a manufacturing state like Indiana," Kharbanda said.
Sure, like they'd suddenly love cars that pollute less. This is just same "any old pie in the sky option to avoid dealing with reality" approach typically offered by the environment-above-all crowd. A Canadian puts the issue in perspective nicely.
"We've made the case that you have the option of getting oil from Canada or from a petro-dictator in another country. To us it's a pretty straightforward equation," said Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Gary Doer, who attended Tuesday's conference on energy jobs.
This broaches the topic of "ethical oil," which has been making the rounds of late.
We've heard the oilsands called unethical, dirty and even nasty. One propagandist actually called it “blood oil”.
But look at the alternatives: oil from places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela and Sudan. I don't compare the oilsands against some fantasy fuel of the future that is perfect in every way. When someone invents solar-powered airplanes or wind-powered cars, let me know. Until then, let's leave that to science fiction.
Because if the oilsands were to be shut down tomorrow, the United States would simply replace our petroleum with petroleum from somewhere else. Along with the emerging economies of India and China, they're going to fill their gastanks with oil from somewhere.
So if the choice is not between the oilsands and perfection, but between the oilsands and OPEC, we can have a serious discussion.
We need oil. But we can still try to get it in the cleanest way possible, from places who don't have repressive regimes. It seems slightly demented to protest such efforts.
This just in. USA Today gets it:
The nation burns 19 million barrels of petroleum a day, much of it to fuel the quarter-billion cars, trucks, buses and other vehicles on the nation's roads. To satisfy that demand, the U.S. imports about half its oil, which puts the nation at the mercy of the mercurial world oil market. Imports from Mexico and Venezuela, two of the USA's biggest suppliers, are declining, and that's projected to make the nation even more reliant on producers in the unstable Middle East and Africa. The Keystone pipeline would provide about a half-million more barrels a day from one of this nation's closest and most reliable allies.
[. . .]
For all the need to wean the United States from its dependence on imported fossil fuels, it's important to be realistic about meeting the nation's energy needs in the meantime. Saying no to the Keystone pipeline is an empty gesture that would undermine U.S. energy security.
