Hard to believe the writer used to work for Chevron as a chemical engineer — or maybe not.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Deborah Gordon writes at Politico:
The Keystone XL pipeline debate and the entire oil sands discussion is being framed as a choice between energy security and climate security. This false dichotomy masks the real issue: How to manage the climate effects of the shift from conventional oils to unconventional oils like oil sands — projected to comprise 40 percent of global oil supplies by 2040.
Environmentalists say approving the Keystone XL pipeline would lock the world into a global warming trajectory that guarantees economic destruction, widespread human suffering and species extinction.
Skeptics, even some who admit to concern about climate effects, say Keystone is not the problem. Instead, they suggest we focus on larger, structural issues — urban sprawl, inefficient energy use and inadequate investment in renewable fuels. The benefits of getting oil from our friends to the north rather than the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries outweigh any environmental worries.
Both sides are right…