Editorial: Pipeline undermines climate objectives

This past Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 252 to 161 on a bill that would allow the government to move forward on the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The oil pipeline would potentially  move oil from Canadian oil sands to refineries in the Gulf Coast — eliminating many transportation costs for the oil companies involved. Oil companies would then export the petroleum from the Gulf to other nations for use.

By passing this bill, the house has implied a long-term interest in using and investing in fossil fuels.

But this paradigm is in direct contrast with the ideas and concerns discussed at last week’s G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia.

At the summit, President Obama conveyed urgency to other nations regarding climate change — this came in the wake of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report that recently called the effects of climate change, “severe, pervasive and irreversible.”

Obama has publicly recognized the pertinence of the report and reflected this in his actions at the G20 summit this year. In fact, Obama announced a pledge at the summit between the U.S. and China to initiate a joint effort to reduce carbon emissions. Obama also announced at the conference that the United States will contribute $3 billion to the United Nations Green Climate Fund, which facilitates poorer countries’ investments in clean energy.

Consequently, Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, said the G20 conference, Obama and other world leaders “have breathed new life into global climate action.”

However, if Obama wants this commitment to the combatting of climate change to be a long-lasting, international effort, he must veto the aforementioned pipeline bill if it passes the Senate — which it most likely will.

He must veto the bill because the pipeline undermines the urgency climate change requires — an urgency Obama displayed at the G20 summit. Obama advocated for an international effort to combat climate change, and that the U.S. would be willing to lead the way in that effort. However, we cannot do this while perpetuating the very things that cause climate change at home.

If the pipeline is constructed, it will reflect the United States’ long-term interest in fossil fuels — even though the IPCC says most of the world’s energy must be produced by low-carbon sources by 2050. Not only would this display a ambition contrary to the one argued in the G20 summit and by the IPCC, but the eventual exportation of oil will also incentivize other countries to use more fossil fuels, and undermine the progress made at the summit.

Therefore, if the Obama wants the United States to spearhead the international effort against climate change, he must veto the bill. Not just for the sake of his reputation, but for the sake of future generations to come as well.