Hello,

We noticed you're browsing in private or incognito mode.

To continue reading this article, please exit incognito mode or log in.

Not an Insider? Subscribe now for unlimited access to online articles.

Kevin Bullis

A View from Kevin Bullis

Why It’s Fine That Obama Didn’t Mention Tar Sands

A proposed pipeline from Canada won’t increase greenhouse gas emssions.

  • January 29, 2014

There’s one topic many environmentalists wish President Obama would have mentioned in his State of the Union Address: the Keystone XL pipeline that has been proposed as a way to get Canadian tar sands to market. Some environmentalists fiercely oppose it. They say that it will lead to a huge amount of carbon dioxide emissions, in part because producing oil from tar sands generates more carbon dioxide than producing oil from many other sources, and in part because it will make a big source of oil easier to get to market, which they think will increase oil consumption. They want the Obama administration to keep it from being built, and he’s supposed to make a decision soon.

It’s just as well that the president didn’t go into it, because it doesn’t really matter that much. It won’t increase greenhouse gas emissions, says Chris Knittel, a professor of energy economics at MIT.

For one thing, Knittel argues, even if Keystone XL isn’t built, a tar sands pipeline of some sort is bound to be built—there’s just too much money ($32 million a day [the original version had a typo and read “billion”]) to be made from building one to think that it won’t happen.

Whatever pipeline is built, it won’t actually increase oil production much, he says, because it will have only a tiny impact on the world oil market. It may lower prices a little, but not enough to increase demand. And if oil demand isn’t going to go up, neither are greenhouse gas emissions.

Actually, he says, if we build Keystone XL, greenhouse gas emissions will, if anything, go down. Any oil that come from it will displace the most expensive oil on the market right now, and that would likely be heavy crude oil from Venezuela that actually results in more carbon dioxide emissions than tar sands oil.

Reducing carbon dioxide emissions down to zero over the next few decades will require a lot more than blocking a pipeline. It will require breakthroughs in energy technology—and support for scaling up promising technology that already exists—that can allow clean energy to compete with fossil fuels. Obama is taking some steps toward this. His administration is working on limits to carbon dioxide emissions that will help level the playing field, essentially pricing in the cost of pollution. He’s setting up manufacturing innovation hubs that might help bring energy technologies to market.

But when Obama said his all-of-the-above energy strategy is working, he was wrong. Progress has been small in the U.S., and worldwide emissions are going up, not down. We need more support for innovation (see “Despite Funding Boost We’re Spending Too Little on Energy R&D”).

The AI revolution is here. Will you lead or follow?
Join us at EmTech Digital 2019.

Register now
More from Sustainable Energy

Can we sustainably provide food, water, and energy to a growing population during a climate crisis?

Want more award-winning journalism? Subscribe to Insider Plus.
  • Insider Plus {! insider.prices.plus !}*

    {! insider.display.menuOptionsLabel !}

    Everything included in Insider Basic, plus the digital magazine, extensive archive, ad-free web experience, and discounts to partner offerings and MIT Technology Review events.

    See details+

    Print + Digital Magazine (6 bi-monthly issues)

    Unlimited online access including all articles, multimedia, and more

    The Download newsletter with top tech stories delivered daily to your inbox

    Technology Review PDF magazine archive, including articles, images, and covers dating back to 1899

    10% Discount to MIT Technology Review events and MIT Press

    Ad-free website experience

/3
You've read of three free articles this month. for unlimited online access. You've read of three free articles this month. for unlimited online access. This is your last free article this month. for unlimited online access. You've read all your free articles this month. for unlimited online access. You've read of three free articles this month. for more, or for unlimited online access. for two more free articles, or for unlimited online access.