The Keystone Victory

Last Friday Barack Obama followed the recommendation of the State Department that the Keystone XL pipeline would not "serve the national interest of the United States," and thus he rejected it. I didn't think that would happen, so Obama's decision came as a mild surprise. 

And now a curious thing is happening. Environmental activists are celebrating, certainly, but victory in this case simply highlights the fact that Obama's rejection of the pipeline will have only a trivial (if any) effect on humanity's climate change problem. Whoops!

And so Dave Roberts, who is perhaps the most thoughtful climate change journalist working today, felt compelled to write a long defense of the Keystone campaign (hat tip, reader Jeff). Roberts' defense is convoluted, but I am not going to review it because it is also silly.

The same invisible elephant—the inevitable consequences of global economic growth—is still taking up a lot of space in the room, and humans continue to tip-toe around it.

What did "Wild Bill" McKibben and his activist friends hope to accomplish by stopping the Keystone pipeline? They wanted a victory over Big Oil, who they blame for wrecking the planet. Curiously, Robert's defense of the Keystone campaign contains the word 'oil' only once, and mentions Wild Bill only one time.

Wild Bill leads the way

Roberts alludes to the not-so-hidden agenda which drove the protests at the end of his article.

That's what the Keystone campaign was, what all supply-side campaigns are: sand in the gears. The question is not what effect this particular pipeline loss will have on this particular fossil fuel source. The question is, what effect will it have on fossil fuel investors to realize that any new supply-side proposal risks being met with a loud and furious grassroots movement that has hundreds of thousands of people on its mailing lists and a few high-profile victories under its belt?

What effect will it have on the economy, and on society, when fossil fuel companies lose their social license?

Sand in the gears? Of what? Some mythical machine which runs the world?

Roberts' colleague Brad Plumer wrote about the worldwide rise in coal-fired capacity in July, 2015. Let's talk about India.

Coal-fired capacity in various stages of development in India

Ultimately, countries like India are building coal plants because they need access to low-cost electricity to help light up homes, offer an alternative to indoor wood-burning, power heavy industry, and lift people out of poverty. The only way they'll shift away from coal is if cleaner alternatives become available that can help these countries accomplish those goals. That's the real challenge here. Renewables like solar and wind can sometimes help, particularly in off-grid rural areas, but they've still got a long ways to go.

If we believe Wild Bill and Dave Roberts, then every time India proposes a coal-fired plant, that proposal will be "met with a loud and furious grassroots movement that has hundreds of thousands of people on its mailing lists and a few high-profile victories under its belt."

But you can't have a loud and furious grassroots movement against lifting people out of poverty. You can't have a movement against alternatives to burning wood, or lighting up people's homes, or the jobs created by heavy industry.

And you can't launch a loud and furious American grassroots campaign against fossil fuel companies in India.

So you focus on Big Oil instead, or, as Roberts implies, powerful fossil fuel companies with unconstrained social license. This is like the drunk who lost his keys in an unlit park but looks for them under a lamp post because that's where the light is.

Also, I see that nobody at Vox has written, at least so far, a single word about the upward revision in China's coal consumption. All that additional coal burning doesn't magically disappear if you don't write about it 

Looking over what I've written here, I realize that the keyword is silly.

Comments

[Jeff]

Thanks for picking that up. I was so flummoxed by the inanity of the Roberts article as it tripped all over itself-- it felt like a long-winded way so saying, "I dunno, gotta protest something." As in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IUxK_0WLbg

But you nailed it: it's just plain silly.

And today we hear that there is a record drop in coal consumption:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-08/global-coal-consumption-headed-for-biggest-decline-in-history

and also a new record high CO2 ppm:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/09/earths-climate-entering-new-permanent-reality-as-co2-hits-new-high?CMP=twt_gu

I wonder which story will get more play...