Although a new report from a Swedish group called the Stockholm Environment Institute has gained a lot of attention from the anti-energy crowd, unbiased analysts dismiss its claim that Keystone XL could result in carbon emissions four times greater than U.S. State Department estimates.
Here’s part of what Forbes had to say in their article, Recycled Keystone XL Report Doesn’t Add Up:
Professor Andrew Leach penned an insightful article earlier this week titled, “A paper on Keystone’s Climate Impacts Would Fail Econ 101.”, calling out the economic miscalculations of the report. Professor Leach argues the recycled report based its findings on faulty assumptions, resulting in a report riddled with fallacies.
It is difficult to imagine how SEI’s report passes muster. In fact, the federal government has now authored five different studies on the subject. The reports support the claim the project will not adversely affect the environment. The KXL fight has been a “Green Herring” for years, lasting longer than American involvement in WWII.
Canadian oil is finding, and will continue to find its way to market. In saying this, every credible report reaches the same conclusion, bringing the oil to market via pipeline will remain the safest, greenest, and most efficient way to transport crude to market.
We can probably expect more attempts to discredit Keystone XL, as long as the Obama Administration continues to delay approving construction of this worthwhile project that is supported by over three-quarters of the American public.
Keystone XL is a crucial link in a long-range plan that could support 500,000 U.S. jobs and give us access to twice as much North American oil as we now import from the Middle East. It is a mystery to most of us why it is taking the Administration so long to make a decision.