I’ll put my two cents in on President Obama’s decision to block the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Obama Administration has decided not to go ahead with a project that would boost employment and economic growth at the margins and, as its own determinations found some time ago, injure the environment not at all. For President Obama the decision is all pluses. It confirms his legacy as an opponent of anthropogenic climate change. It encourages rich environmentalist donors. Above all, it’s a purely symbolic action he can point to when he meets with the rest of the cool kids in Paris in a couple of weeks.
It might be hard-hearted of me but I’m okay with trading a little economic growth for a little environmental improvement. I’m not okay with trading a little economic growth in a purely symbolic action. For one thing I think that symbolic actions are over-estimated. I’m more interested in practical outcomes.
I wonder how much carbon dioxide will be produced as a direct consequence of the Paris conference. That’s not just a symbol but a practical, calculable outcome and IMO the symbolic value of the participants’ lack of concern about their own carbon production will outweigh the symbolic value of banning the Keystone XL pipeline.
Meanwhile, here’s a practical way the City of Chicago can do its bit to reduce the impact of carbon emissions: enforce the laws that are already on the books. Chicago city ordinance requires that one tree be planted every 25 feet in the parkway in residential areas. The “parkway” is the little strip of land between the sidewalk and the street.
Based on my purely anecdotal census of my own prosperous Northwest side neighborhood, Chicago is missing at least 100,000 trees. One tree absorbs about 40 lbs. of carbon a year so 100,000 trees could absorb about 2,000 tons per year. That’s about 10 times what the president will produce on his trip to Paris. That would be symbolic action but it wouldn’t be purely symbolic.
50 jobs a year. Real economic growth, or symbolic? There would be inevitable environmental costs associated with the pipeline, but they would be very small, one hopes. Why are they then symbolic, but the 50 jobs are not?
Steve
For President Obama the decision is all pluses. It confirms his legacy as an opponent of anthropogenic climate change. It encourages rich environmentalist donors. Above all, it’s a purely symbolic action he can point to when he meets with the rest of the cool kids in Paris in a couple of weeks.
Symbolic, political or legacy-forming — these are the three categories facing Obama when he either creates or commits to some kind of domestic or foreign policy idea/legislation. No where does he consider long term benefits, good for “all” people, strengthening the economy, lowering the partisan temperature and on and on.
The environmental review has been ongoing for years for this pipeline, and the impact on the environment is negligible to none. But, you have liberal elites and big dem donors, like Tom Steyer, coaxing their president to stall forever, and then say “No’ when the time is right to do so.
In the meantime another Obama supporter will be happy — Warren Buffett — as his trains (along with their carbon footprint) now can rule the oil transportation roost.
The fix is in.
The Obama Administration’s determination was that there would be no net environmental costs in building the pipeline. That was their determination, not mine.
And as to 50 jobs—it’s better than none, especially if one of them is yours. That’s what I meant by “at the margins”.
There is a larger issue that I should mention but don’t care to press. Why look for grand solutions? Build up the economy 50 jobs at a time. Stop looking for master strokes.
“There is a larger issue that I should mention but don’t care to press. Why look for grand solutions? Build up the economy 50 jobs at a time. Stop looking for master strokes.”
Further, a construction job is by definition temporary. Ever seen a house built over a five – ten – fifty year period? Me neither. The construction phase estimates I’ve seen range from about 6k – 14k jobs for two years. If I’m a construction worker, who lives to jump from project to project like lily pads, that looks pretty inviting. I’m sure steve knew that, but chose to ignore the very nature of construction and cite 50 permanent jobs. The intellectual dishonesty certainly does not surprise.
It appears that Steve chooses to ignore the gain of temporary jobs while stressing the eventual low number of permanent jobs gleaned from the project. However, isn’t there always collateral employment that arises around a primary project?
Meanwhile, oil and gas pipelines are being constructed all over the country following state and federal regulatory approval. For instance, this new line running from Southwest of Chicago to Oklahoma next to the pre-existing pipeline:
“Upon completion, the two pipelines together will transport more barrels per day of Canadian heavy crude than TransCanada’s controversial Keystone XL pipeline.”
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/new-pipeline-across-missouri-illinois-lot-keystone-have-you-heard-it
All of these other pipelines are subject to technocratic review, not political, I mean national security review.