While there are arguments on both sides, the concern for the government and investors is the approximate $7 billion cost to the project and how any delay would disrupt the progress and possibly force parties to scrap the project. Countering this argument is not difficult to do.
We were spending approximately $720 million a day according to 2007 research done by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph E Stiglitz. The National Priorities Project research, states that *budget spending in Iraq and Afghanistan amounted to $797.3 billion and 459.8 billion respectively in the 2011 FY. Thus it is a difficult sell, that a mere $7 billion would force governments or corporations to scrap the Keystone XL project; given there appetite for the black gold.
Why should this project be delayed? Based on US consumption of oil that is a tough one to answer. How many US residents are prepared to make significant reductions in their consumption of oil and oil/petroleum based products– in this economy, not many is the likely answer.
Reason for Pause
The Department of Energy in May 2011 conference stated that they recorded the highest levels of CO2 emissions ever; yet another indicator to be concerned about is the fact that seven the 7 billionth human was born on October 31st. Each of these indicators tells us indifferent ways, that exploitation of nonrenewable energy sources (petroleum, coal, and nuclear) will be in greater demand if we extrapolate these records.
Further slowing the pace of the Keystone XL project will allow more time to review the riffs of the project from an economic standpoint. Externality costs are the unmentioned cost to things like the environment; they look less from the revenue-generating perspective and more at the human and eco-welfare perspective.
Perhaps a truly progressive idea would be to initiate a campaign similar to a campaign against smoking. It would pre-use the projected cost of the environmental impact (after a reliable assessment); allocate those funds for the campaign, and educate people about the cost these externalities (i.e., the environment as well as human health).
If we look back at the advent of fossil fuels as a source of energy for human consumption, it seemed like a really good idea; at the time developing societies required faster moving parts to grow. Lack of such growth meant in some cases (and still does) either you grow or are conquered. The difference in knowledge today however is that we can anticipate certain factors; we have a better understanding of the impacts. The infrastructure and mindsets in the past, did not have the capacity to think forward in these terms. Thomas Edison (quote below), was an exception. Today is quite different; we know more about the limited resources and about what certain numbers mean. Being proactive through conservation and preservation would serve well, the quality of life to all living things.
It is easier to not to say who is right and who is wrong, but what is the best decision to make from were we are going forward. The best minds in the world always seem to have sound reasoning on their side.
*Chris Helman: Senior War Analyst at National Priorities Project; over a decade of war analysis and research.
* We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our house for fuel when we should be using Nature's inexhaustible sources of energy — sun, wind and tide. ... I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.
- In conversation with Henry Ford and w:Harvey Firestone (1931); as quoted in Uncommon Friends : Life with Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, Alexis Carrel & Charles Lindbergh (1987) by James Newton, p. 31
No comments:
Post a Comment