No Keystone XL If It Would Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

In his much-anticipated speech on climate policy, President Obama made an important statement about the approval process for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project. He said that the project should not be approved if it would if it would “significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”  One question that this raises is whether the same standard would be any less applicable to other project approvals at the federal level. How about drilling leases? New coal mining operations? How about new or expanded highway projects? The list goes on.

But the ultimate question, of course, is: how much of a net change in greenhouse gases is enough to be declared significant? For several years now, California has included greenhouse gas considerations in its environmental review of new projects. Setting a level of significance that would trigger full environmental review and mitigation requirements has always been controversial. In these times when carbon reduction is the critical objective, there is a strong argument that any net increase in emissions resulting from a project should be considered unacceptable. It will interesting to see if this is the standard that the federal government will apply to the approval of Keystone XL and other federal actions.

, , ,

Reader Comments

2 Replies to “No Keystone XL If It Would Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions?”

  1. All oil and gas production increases greenhouse gas emissions. Obama is incompetent and a hypocrite but who cares? He’s yo president

  2. bqrq is right on that one. I reckon the only way producing oil from tar sands wouldn’t lead to a net increase in CO2 emissions is if it replaced coal to produce electricity. I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

    According a transcript, what Obama said was, “Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. It’s relevant.”

    He sounded like he was raising the bar, but the language actually allows for a lot of ‘net’ increasing.

Comments are closed.

About Steven

Steve established and directed the Energy Law Program at Berkeley Law. He is currently a Lecturer at the Goldman School of Public Policy.…

READ more