File this one under “unintended consequences.” A proposal that would greatly increase oil tanker traffic in Washington’s Salish Sea — an idea that has drawn the wrath of Gov. Jay Inslee — can be directly traced to rejection of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline two years ago. The lesson is that blinding opposition can often leave us unable to see clearly.
For years, environmental groups have opposed the Keystone project that would carry crude from Alberta in central Canada through the middle of the United States to the Gulf of Mexico. Portions of the pipeline have opened, but President Obama opposed the project, and the pipeline has not been completed.
Support for the Keystone project does not come without worries. Last year, about 400,000 gallons of oil leaked from the pipeline in South Dakota, providing further ammunition for opponents. But in weighing the risks and the costs of the pipeline, it is evident that alternatives are even more problematic.
That has become clear with the latest proposal for getting oil from Alberta to global markets. Canada’s federal government has announced a $3.5 billion purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline that carries crude from the center of the country to British Columbia, with the intention of tripling the pipeline’s capacity. That would increase tanker traffic through the Strait of Juan de Fuca that runs between Washington and Vancouver Island. Oil tankers through the region are expected to increase from five ships a week to 34 ships a week.
“By purchasing this pipeline, Canada is aligning itself with a giant fossil fuel project that would take us backward in profoundly damaging ways,” Inslee wrote in a statement. In an opinion piece for The Seattle Times, Inslee wrote: “This project runs counter to everything our state is doing to fight climate change, protect our endangered southern resident killer whales and protect communities from the risks associated with increased fossil-fuel transportation — by rail and sea.”
British Columbia officials, who have a history of working with West Coast states in battling climate change and promoting environmental concerns, have opposed expansion of the pipeline. Officials in Alberta, who understandably desire to produce and sell as much oil as possible, have supported the proposal.
As intersectional disagreements over the Trans Mountain pipeline continue, the issue rests upon immutable facts. One is that the world demands oil; while we support efforts to reduce consumption and mitigate climate change, it is unrealistic to expect leaders of an oil-rich region to ignore that demand. It is possible to promote and build a clean-energy economy while acknowledging that the world still needs fossil fuels. Another is that the Keystone XL pipeline remains the safest and most reliable manner for getting oil from Alberta to ocean waters. It is preferable to the Trans Mountain pipeline or the tanker trains that had been supported by Obama.
This is not simply not-in-my-backyard politics. It is a recognition that the economy along the Gulf of Mexico has been built around the oil industry while the Northwest has eschewed fossil fuels — such as rejecting a proposed oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver. Regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline, Inslee said: “I have expressed my concerns about this project repeatedly, and I believe this is the wrong direction for our region.”
Expanding the pipeline would, indeed, be taking the Northwest in the wrong direction. And it would be an unintended consequence of a poor decision from the past.
