A government report shows that alternatives to the Keystone XL pipeline “are worse” for the environment.
Ralph Reed during a segment of CNN’s “Crossfire” on Feb. 3
Republicans are rejoicing over a new government report about one of the biggest controversies of the day: the Keystone XL pipeline.
As liberal host Van Jones argued against President Barack Obama approving the project recently on CNN’s “Crossfire,” conservative activist Ralph Reed said a U.S. State Department study clears the air about the project’s long-term effect on the environment.
“What the report shows, Van — and this is irrefutable; the science is clear — is that the alternatives to the pipeline are worse,” he said. “If you use primarily tanker trucks to transport this shale gas, climate emissions will be 28 percent higher than the pipeline. If you use primarily rail, they’ll be 40 to 42 percent higher.
“So if you’re protecting the environment, you should build the pipeline.”
PunditFact, an affiliate of PolitiFact, wanted to check out his claim that the pipeline is better in terms of climate emissions than the alternatives, including doing nothing.
Some Keystone background
The Keystone pipeline would stretch from Western Canada to Steele City, Neb., moving 830,000 barrels of heavy, diluted Canadian tar sands per day to refineries on the Gulf Coast with help from existing pipelines.
Because it crosses international borders, a presidential permit is required. As part of the process, the president directs the secretary of state to determine whether the project “serves the national interest.” Secretary of State John Kerry has not yet issued his recommendation.
The issue splits environmentalists and labor unions. Republicans and labor unions tout the pipeline’s construction jobs and reduced dependence on oil from other continents, while environmentalists want Obama to send a strong message about climate change.
Back in June, Obama said the country’s national interest “will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” Some see a finding in the State Department report — that the project would not significantly contribute to carbon pollution — as an opening for Obama to give approval.
That does not mean the project is without impact. The report examined the greenhouse gas effect of the project, finding that the emissions would be comparable to about 300,000 cars operating per year.
An important thread in the debate is an assurance from Canadian officials and oil producers that oil will reach the U.S. marketplace even if the pipeline is not built. So the State Department compared the environmental impact with other methods of moving the oil.
Some alternatives
Producing crude oil from oil sands is complicated. The sands include an asphaltlike material called bitumen that is too dense to traverse pipelines on its own. It is diluted with lighter substances and heated to make it easier to move.
The State Department investigated three alternatives to Keystone:
- Rail and pipeline: Heavy crude oil would be transported via railroad to Oklahoma. From there, it would be transported to refineries near the Gulf of Mexico using existing pipelines.
- Rail and tanker: Heavy crude would be moved by rail to a western Canadian port, where it would be loaded onto tankers and sent through the Panama Canal to a Texas port. Bakken crude, meanwhile, would be shipped via rail.
- Rail to the gulf: Oil would be shipped from Saskatchewan and North Dakota using existing railroads to the Gulf Coast.
Reed’s numbers for carbon emissions from the alternative scenarios pretty much align with the State Department report, but he mixed them up. He said, “If you use primarily tanker trucks to transport this shale gas, climate emissions will be 28 percent higher than the pipeline. If you use primarily rail, they’ll be 40 to 42 percent higher.”
In reality, using primarily rail raises carbon levels 28 percent more than the pipeline, and using primarily tankers raises carbon levels 40 percent, the report said. Reed also said tanker trucks, when the report is actually speaking of tanker ships. Using a combination of rail and existing pipeline would yield 42 percent more carbon emissions.
Not exactly a clean bill of health
Reed is broadly onto something, but environmental activists criticized his statement, saying the science is hardly clear.
Reed’s statement dismisses the fact that the project would generate more greenhouse gases than the alternative desired by environmentalists: doing nothing to expand tar sands production.
“It’s all worse” for the environment than doing nothing, said Eddie Scher, a Sierra Club spokesman. “The argument here is that crack is somehow worse than heroin.”
Extracting oil from tar sands is more “carbon intensive” than other crude oil. If Keystone XL is rejected, “tar sands expansion will slow,” said Anthony Swift, National Resources Defense Council international program attorney.
Our ruling
Reed said the State Department report shows “the science is clear” that “alternatives to the pipeline are worse,” pointing to higher emissions from alternate transportation options.
He didn’t pull the numbers out of anywhere, although he did mess them up a bit. As to his general point that the pipeline option is better in terms of carbon emissions than other transportation options, yes, those alternatives are worse.
Reed assumes that the pipeline should be built, but environmentalists say the best alternative would be to do nothing and slow tar sands production.
His claim is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True.
About the Author
