By Len Coad
In the Calgary Herald

April 24, 2014


 

The announcement by the White House on Good Friday that it is indefinitely extending the time frame on the Keystone XL pipeline decision puts political expediency ahead of regulation.

The United States has a strong regulatory process, administered by state and national jurisdictions. Project reviews are meticulous. The resulting recommendations are strong and should be presumed to be based on the evidence presented. President Barack Obama’s own State Department has twice concluded the pipeline would cause no net harm to the environment.

What, then, is the rationale for setting aside those recommendations for an indefinite period? Is it simply to provide a chance for those whose evidence did not win the day in the regulatory proceeding to lobby and play to public emotions through the media? Are we transitioning from a system of balanced decisions based on evidence to a system in which politicians circumvent process for their own perceived gain?

The Keystone XL project, which would deliver crude product from Alberta’s oil sands to the Gulf Coast for refining and sale on the global markets, has become symbolic. For oil producers, it is a symbol of the market access that will be required to expand production. For landowners, it is symbolic of their role in safeguarding the environment. For carbon crusaders, it is symbolic of the greenhouse gas emissions that result from global hydrocarbon consumption. For celebrities and former politicians, it represents an opportunity to weigh in on the climate debate through symbolism and at no cost to themselves.

For me, it is symbolic of a governance system going sour.

Keystone XL has been reviewed by competent regulatory authorities. The project’s builder, TransCanada, has responded to criticisms by changing the pipeline’s routing, investing in local communities, providing additional information to everyone with a vested interest, and working to assure that everyone understands how environmental and social risks will be mitigated.

The regulators have made their recommendations. A Presidential Permit that once would have been issued as a matter of course remains pending.

The Keystone XL debate is less about the direct economic and environmental impacts of the pipeline, and more about the product it carries. Opponents argue that if you stop the pipeline, you will stop the oil sands. This in spite of the U.S. State Department’s finding that global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will not be significantly different whether XL is built or not.

A project whose proponent has gone to great lengths to hear and respond to the views of those directly affected has been effectively stalemated by the broader public debate on how to address GHG emissions. The wheels are off a regulatory process that was designed to find the balance between the local impacts of any given project and its benefits and costs to the broader public.

Consider the difference between a regulatory process and a political one. The regulatory process follows a set of rules, allows parties to present evidence, bases its findings on the evidence, and is open to legal challenge. The political process, on the other hand, follows a completely different set of motivations, driven not by objective merits but by desired political outcomes.

Those who are drawing such advocacy-based lines in the sand need to reflect on the consequences of their actions, not least of which is the public and environmental risk of moving oil in less reliable ways.

Western Canada relies on natural resources as a significant source of revenue. The industries that develop and market those resources are not perfect, but they do a solid job of balancing economic, social and environmental priorities. While the increase in oil sands production has driven up total emissions, the introduction of new technology has reduced the impact of that increased production. Alberta Environment reports, for example, that 39.9 million tonnes of reductions have been achieved through operational changes and investing in verified offsets. Canadians care about emission reductions, too.

Wouldn’t it be more constructive to focus on how to work together to further improve performance, rather than take extreme positions that the facts just don’t support? Let’s let the regulators do their job.

Len Coad is Director of the Centre for Natural Resources Policy at the Canada West Foundation, which exclusively focuses on policies that shape the quality of life in western Canada.