THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE AS A POLITICAL SYMBOL

2 PARAGRAPHS 4 LIBERTY: #357

As has been written several times in this column, “In politics reality is irrelevant; it is only the voters’ perception of reality that counts.” And that is ever so true regarding the issue of the construction of the Keystone Pipeline, which has become a key political symbol. Namely, in the eyes of voters who consider themselves in favor of the “Green Revolution,” anyone who favors the construction of the Keystone Pipeline is almost automatically a “Climate Change Denier” who doesn’t care about the environment. And in the eyes of voters who favor the construction, anyone who opposes it is almost automatically a “Naïve True Believer.” Thus on this issue the merits have almost nothing to do with the “discussions.”

In reality, the closing down of the construction of this pipeline, which would bring crude oil from North Dakota and Canada down to oil refineries in Texas, was a colossal mistake for our economy, the environment and individual citizens as well. Why? Because that oil will still be transported from those places to Texas, but on railroads and trucks. So how is this more harmful? Because this way of transporting the oil will burn much more fuel in the process and spew many more pollutants into the atmosphere than would the pipeline – which would spew virtually none. And the cost? Transporting it this way drives up the price of gasoline and other petroleum products, which results in many adverse effects upon us all, and especially the poorer economic classes. But that’s not all, because at this point our country lives upon fossil fuels, and will continue to do so for quite a few years to come. So now, instead of being oil independent, we must import oil from places like Russia and Saudi Arabia, which is often much lower quality than that from the North Dakota and Canada. And now that we have (appropriately) cut off Russian oil for political reasons, we are now (believe it or not!) talking to the despots in Venezuela and maybe even Iran about us importing their oil – which will also be much more expensive financially as well as environmentally!

So how should we approach this issue? Like virtually every other environmental and financial decisions in our world, we should use a “Cost/Benefit Analysis.” That means, since life is complicated (You heard it here first . . . .), that we should focus upon and weigh the benefits and expenses that will result from whatever decisions we make. Thus it should be a weighing process. Yes, if we were to shut down all gas-burning vehicles at this point in our country it would reduce the carbon monoxide and dioxide emissions we send into the atmosphere, but what actual difference would it make to the global atmosphere and what would be the financial costs to our society? Those are the questions that are virtually completely being avoided in the present political discussions. So we need to use our political clout to make those issues front and center and get away from the silly litmus test political symbolism!

Seen on a sign in Sonoma County: “Sonoma is to Wine as Napa is to Auto Parts”