Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
Keystone XL would not have made us more energy-independent. Aside from the environmental and safety issues, the oil produced would mostly have been exported. Reports commissioned by both the Obama and Trump administrations concluded US gas prices would not have been reduced by it.
One of the reasons is that, even leaving Keystone XL aside, oil exports from the US have been increasing for decades. Limited refining capacity is a primary reason. Another is variations and fluctuations in what different types of productions different types of oil are used for.
The only logical economic fashion to proceed is, and has been for decades, drastic reduction in fossil fuel consumption because the cost of not doing that is far higher than the cost of doing it. Every year that passes without a concerted global effort makes the situation that much worse, as we continue to devastate the world that future generations will live in for the sake of our own present convenience.
|
You are close, but a couple of points require clarification. As I am sure you aware (being someone who is obviously knowledgeable about the topic), KXL actually does not produce more oil, but facilitates the distribution of oil. And I know the KXL would amount to only a very small percentage of the daily world consumption. However, the issue at hand is that of perception. Showing weakness with energy policies only emboldens thugs like Putin who has lots of oil. This certainly would have been a better “plan” than releasing 1M barrels from petroleum strategic reserve (daily).
The notion that KXL increases the USA carbon footprint is debatable. We all know Keystone was shutdown to score political points. I’m sure if you took a poll here, no one would object to transitioning to clean energy. But that needs to occur with a strategic plan. To do otherwise causes problems in the free market enterprise system and causes potential geopolitical issues.