Many a talking head has been left puzzled by the war of words in the United States over Keystone XL. At face value, it seems an odd choice for battle lines to be drawn. Oil can be moved by rail and Canada has other ways it could get its oil to markets. Why all the fuss over this one pipeline?
For starters there’s the real, practical climate implications of the project. Sending all that carbon into the atmosphere is grounds enough for making Keystone XL a hot issue. But there’s more to it than that simple answer. Opposition to the pipeline is as much a symbolic and strategic fight as a practical one. It’s worth taking a look at why exactly the climate movement has rallied around stopping this particular project.
Defeating new fossil fuel infrastructure makes victory more likely
Building more pipelines when science shows we need a drastic departure from fossil fuels is true insanity. More than the real emissions these projects create, their existence makes reducing emissions harder. Keystone XL will cost Trans Canada at least $5.3 billion. It will be years before the company breaks even. New climate policies in Canada or the U.S. could make this investment all for naught. Construction of the pipeline, then, changes the cost-benefit analysis of any new measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
In the fight for a livable future, halting Keystone XL is a first strategic strike. This battle has the potential to make winning the war much easier for the climate movement. Victory over new fossil fuel infrastructure makes eventual measures like a carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme more politically and economically possible. And though the fight for such sweeping action is temporarily stalled in North America, it is sure to be back with a vengeance in coming years. Until then, the climate movement is staking out the high ground by blocking Keystone XL.
Climate campaigners needed a win
Before launching its Keystone XL campaign, the climate movement had had a few rough years. Disastrous defeat in 2010 of landmark cap-and-trade legislation in a democrat-held senate was a huge blow to environmental groups. Years of lobbying, heaps of manpower and plenty of funding had all amounted to nothing. President Obama bolted from the issue for the rest of his first term. Neither the president or his opponent would even dare to mention climate change in the 2012 election debates. Environmental NGOs had given it their all on this most crucial issue and left in defeat.
Licking its wounds the climate movement had to move on. Not only had they blown substantial human and financial resources on a failure, but the loss meant more. Donors and volunteers want to see their efforts pay off. Nobody wants to give their time and/or money to a lost cause. Defeat of this landmark legislation could very well have been a death blow. Recovering from it would require injecting some energy into the climate movement once again. Galvanizing around opposition to Keystone XL was a brilliant strategy.
Keystone XL was a winnable battle
Passing climate legislation had to be tried. Cap-and-trade would have been a huge win for the climate movement and something similar still must be achieved. Trying to pass a bill in the U.S. Congress is a monumental effort. Nobody could have expected the wave of anti-government sentiment that swept the U.S. in 2010 and terrified democratic senators who were up for reelection. Environmental groups’ efforts should be commended despite the failure. Putting it behind them, what they needed was a fight they could win.
Picking a battle over Keystone XL was a natural choice. Fighting a pipeline project is everything cap and trade legislation wasn’t. It’s a real, tangible object rather than an obscure economic instrument. This battle engages the grassroots instead of taking place behind closed doors in Washington D.C. It offers the possibility for grand symbolic gestures like blockades and mass arrests over unheard speeches by supporting senators. It brings a diverse array of allies – from indigenous communities in South Dakota to farmers in Nebraska. Frankly this fight is a lot more fun.
Far more important than all that Keystone XL offers environmental NGOs is who makes the call. Congress’ 535 members can hardly agree on anything, let alone putting a price on carbon emissions. Getting one sympathetic president to reject a foreign-owned project is simple in comparison. Activists chaining themselves to the White House fence illustrates this facet of the anti-Keystone campaign beautifully. Put the screws to Mr. Obama and you have your victory. All signs point to his administration rejecting the project and the pressure is already on Hilary Clinton to come out against it. When Keystone XL is defeated, it will be a huge win for the climate and an equally important win for the climate movement.
