Report: Keystone XL won’t add to carbon emissions reports:

Keystone XL would not add to greenhouse gas emissions, according to a study published Thursday by an independent research group that echoed the findings of government-backed reports.

The study found that the addition of the new pipeline connecting Canadian oil sands fields with the U.S. Gulf Coast wouldn’t make a substantial difference in emissions because U.S. refineries would get similar crude from Venezuela or elsewhere.

Production, processing and transportation of Venezuelan heavy crude results in about the same greenhouse gas emissions as oil sands crude, according to the study from energy-focused information and research firm IHS CERA.

Read more…

4 thoughts on “Report: Keystone XL won’t add to carbon emissions”

  1. The environmentalists think they can keep the Canadian oil in the ground if they stop the pipeline across America. On the other hand, not building the pipeline wouldn’t make a big difference. The oil will go to market, one way or another. It may be shipped less safely and less efficiently by train. It may be shipped by an all-Canadian pipe route. It may be shipped south by Keystone. Building Keystone or not isn’t going to make a huge difference. There would be more jobs in America if they’re forced to ship the oil by train. It’s not a big deal if the pipeline is or isn’t built.

  2. The Keystone XL will probably leave the US’s emissions about where they are or would be even without the Keystone. Our energy use is somewhere near “saturation point”; we could think of other ways to use energy but they’re going to be slight increases, I believe.
    The Keystone might help lower world energy prices and increase the use of petroleum in other markets. In fact I think it probably would do so. That would increase CO2 emissions related to higher standards of living among the world’s least-advantaged people. Since CO2 is a negligible climate forcing, that’s fine.
    Petroleum does have other pollution issues and those should be addressed. They are better than burning dung, though. Petroleum’s biggest use is as transport fuel, too, so less-costly transport means more markets and less dependence on aid in the long run. Why doe “progressives” want to deny these benefits to the world’s poor?

  3. It’s a sure bet Obummer will still drag his feet on this issue, notwithstanding this report. He’s an idealogue and must not be confused with the facts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.