Oil pipelines have become a wedge issue in this election, with people either against the entire concept or advocating as many pipelines as possible in order to move oil around the continent. The issue is one that has been marked with little talk about the relative benefits or disadvantages of pipelines over other methods of moving oil, instead it’s become about a judgement on oil itself, as a commodity.
Many environmentalists will reject pipelines without a thought, seemingly with the logic that they move oil so they must be bad. That’s a mistake, because oil still has to move. Without a pipeline, you’re moving oil by ship, train, truck or any other method that can get a big pile of flammable liquid from point a to point b, and that needs to be considered when we talk about pipelines. Since the oil has to move anyway, pipelines should be considered relative other options. Any method of moving it is going to come with risks, as any number of coastal oil spills or major train derailments can attest. As a result, when you talk about oil pipelines, you have to ask if it’s the best option, and do studies of environmental impact and so on to decide whether or not the pipeline will be an improvement over the methods of transportation that currently exist.
Naturally the many proposed pipelines is going to get support in the west, because this is where oil comes from and everyone in the oil industry wants to move their product. From an economic perspective, they’re great, and this area of the country is going to be all for them no matter what. The problem with this approach is that by ignoring environmental impact, you’re giving ammunition to everyone who doesn’t want any kind of pipeline out of pure hatred of oil. The idea that the oil industry will benefit is not going to win the hearts and minds of anyone who doesn’t particularly like the oil industry in the first place. At a certain point it has become a battle where nobody is arguing about the same issue, or trying to understand the other side.
The problem is that just rejecting pipelines out of hand ignores that the current methods of transporting oil aren’t particularly environmentally sound as is, and when the alternative is a train or boat we’ve got to weigh that against the risks of a pipeline. If we are moving towards replacing oil entirely, it’s not something that is going to happen overnight or really any time soon, human society has become too oil dependant to turn off the taps completely. If a pipeline is going to prevent a derailment like in Lac Megatanic a few years ago, then it might be worth it. That’s why it’s a bad idea to reject it out of hand. On the other end, if a pipeline is a high risk of causing a disaster down its own line, then it’s a bad idea to embrace it entirely due to the economic advantages.
This is a divisive issue where both sides of the argument are reacting in a knee jerk way rather than taking a calmer, more moderate approach. The solution is doing a thorough, independent study of the impact a pipeline could cause down its route, and whether or not this is going to be a safer option than what is currently in place. The results of any such study would tell us whether or not a pipeline is worth pursuing. As the sensible, middle of the road option, nobody’s going to take that, because we have become a bit too addicted to the extremes.
