Hill Heat: Stopping Keystone XL Isn't Just Smart, It's ImportantScience Policy Legislation Actiontag:www.hillheat.com,2005:TypoTypo2013-11-11T12:57:02-05:00Brad Johnsonurn:uuid:782edab9-fa41-4c45-8454-8208b7dba0482013-11-10T17:00:00-05:002013-11-11T12:57:02-05:00Stopping Keystone XL Isn't Just Smart, It's Important<p><em>Below is an editorial comment from Hill Heat editor Brad Johnson, a new feature. In addition to occasional commentary from leading climate voices, Hill Heat will continue its aggressive and accurate reporting on climate politics and policy.</em></p>
<p><img src='/files/mckibben.jpeg' style='float:right;margin-left:10px' />I just read Ryan Cooper’s <a href='http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_11/cut_bill_mckibben_some_slack047734.php'>excellent post</a> on Bill McKibben, 350, and the climate movement. His rejoinder to Jonathan Chait’s <a href='http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/keystone-fight-a-huge-environmentalist-mistake.html'>misguided screed</a> was spot on and well needed. As someone who has engaged in the professions of <a href='http://www.thinkprogress.org/person/brad'>blogging</a> and <a href='http://www.forecastthefacts.org/'>organizing</a>, I have to say Ryan hit the nail on the head on how much harder it is — or at least how much a different set of skills is required — to help build a movement than it is to be a pundit:
<blockquote>Organizing a mass movement is hard. I’ve done a bit of organizing myself—I started a chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy in college, and I was extraordinarily terrible at it. Like many pundits (not necessarily Chait), I’m cynical, easily discouraged, lazy, and most importantly, an absolutely atrocious leader. By contrast, sitting in my chair writing blog posts, while not exactly easy, is compelling and interesting and satisfying in a way that makes it no problem to sit and work for hours.</blockquote></p>
There’s one dissonant note in Ryan’s piece. At one point, he fell into a classic pundit trap: he qualified his defense of the Keystone XL opposition with this “expert” criticism:
<blockquote>Second, Chait is indeed correct that new <span class="caps">EPA</span> regulations which phase out coal-fired power plants would have a much larger impact on carbon dioxide emissions than stopping Keystone XL.</blockquote>
<p>Despite the conventional wisdom, a little investigation finds that this claim doesn’t hold water.</p>
<p>According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s own regulatory filing for the proposed new-plant <span class="caps">CO2</span> standards, “the <span class="caps">EPA</span> projects that this proposed rule will result in <a href='http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/20130920proposal.pdf'>negligible <span class="caps">CO2</span> emission changes</a>, quantified benefits, and costs by 2022.”</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s new regulations aren’t expected to have any significant impact on <span class="caps">CO2</span> pollution because new coal plants aren’t economically competitive with other forms of electricity generation (or efficiency efforts) in the United States. By contrast, the Obama administration’s long-delayed limits on traditional pollutants will have a much greater impact on the nation’s coal fleet. The importance of the new-plant <span class="caps">CO2</span> regulations is largely symbolic — an initial stake in the ground that greenhouse gases are pollution that needs to be regulated.</p>
<p>Whereas the <span class="caps">EPA CO2</span> regulations are expected to have a negligible impact, the Keystone XL pipeline, if constructed, will have an annual carbon footprint of <a href='http://priceofoil.org/2013/04/16/cooking-the-books-the-true-climate-impact-of-keystone-xl/'>120-200 million tons of <span class="caps">CO2</span></a> from operating plus its tar-sands crude output. Thus, the pipeline’s impact would be equivalent to the <a href='http://environmentamericacenter.org/sites/environment/files/reports/Dirty%20Power%20Plants.pdf'>ten biggest existing coal-fired power plants</a> in the US (179 million tons of <span class="caps">CO2</span> per year), or the equivalent of about 40 average US coal plants.</p>
<p>So Ryan is right that mobilizing to stop Keystone XL makes sense politically. It also makes sense policywise.</p>
<p><b>Update</b>: Ryan Cooper <a href='https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/399728603279417344'>responds</a> on Twitter: “I agree that <span class="caps">KXL</span> is worth stopping, but in there I meant to refer to <em>potential</em> regulations that would apply to existing plants.”</p>
<p>The Obama administration has just held a series of “<a href='http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/public-listening-sessions'>public listening sessions</a>” about possible regulation of existing power plants, but has made no proposals.</p><p><em>Below is an editorial comment from Hill Heat editor Brad Johnson, a new feature. In addition to occasional commentary from leading climate voices, Hill Heat will continue its aggressive and accurate reporting on climate politics and policy.</em></p>
<p><img src='/files/mckibben.jpeg' style='float:right;margin-left:10px' />I just read Ryan Cooper’s <a href='http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_11/cut_bill_mckibben_some_slack047734.php'>excellent post</a> on Bill McKibben, 350, and the climate movement. His rejoinder to Jonathan Chait’s <a href='http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/keystone-fight-a-huge-environmentalist-mistake.html'>misguided screed</a> was spot on and well needed. As someone who has engaged in the professions of <a href='http://www.thinkprogress.org/person/brad'>blogging</a> and <a href='http://www.forecastthefacts.org/'>organizing</a>, I have to say Ryan hit the nail on the head on how much harder it is — or at least how much a different set of skills is required — to help build a movement than it is to be a pundit:
<blockquote>Organizing a mass movement is hard. I’ve done a bit of organizing myself—I started a chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy in college, and I was extraordinarily terrible at it. Like many pundits (not necessarily Chait), I’m cynical, easily discouraged, lazy, and most importantly, an absolutely atrocious leader. By contrast, sitting in my chair writing blog posts, while not exactly easy, is compelling and interesting and satisfying in a way that makes it no problem to sit and work for hours.</blockquote></p>
There’s one dissonant note in Ryan’s piece. At one point, he fell into a classic pundit trap: he qualified his defense of the Keystone XL opposition with this “expert” criticism:
<blockquote>Second, Chait is indeed correct that new <span class="caps">EPA</span> regulations which phase out coal-fired power plants would have a much larger impact on carbon dioxide emissions than stopping Keystone XL.</blockquote>
<p>Despite the conventional wisdom, a little investigation finds that this claim doesn’t hold water.</p>
<p>According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s own regulatory filing for the proposed new-plant <span class="caps">CO2</span> standards, “the <span class="caps">EPA</span> projects that this proposed rule will result in <a href='http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/20130920proposal.pdf'>negligible <span class="caps">CO2</span> emission changes</a>, quantified benefits, and costs by 2022.”</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s new regulations aren’t expected to have any significant impact on <span class="caps">CO2</span> pollution because new coal plants aren’t economically competitive with other forms of electricity generation (or efficiency efforts) in the United States. By contrast, the Obama administration’s long-delayed limits on traditional pollutants will have a much greater impact on the nation’s coal fleet. The importance of the new-plant <span class="caps">CO2</span> regulations is largely symbolic — an initial stake in the ground that greenhouse gases are pollution that needs to be regulated.</p>
<p>Whereas the <span class="caps">EPA CO2</span> regulations are expected to have a negligible impact, the Keystone XL pipeline, if constructed, will have an annual carbon footprint of <a href='http://priceofoil.org/2013/04/16/cooking-the-books-the-true-climate-impact-of-keystone-xl/'>120-200 million tons of <span class="caps">CO2</span></a> from operating plus its tar-sands crude output. Thus, the pipeline’s impact would be equivalent to the <a href='http://environmentamericacenter.org/sites/environment/files/reports/Dirty%20Power%20Plants.pdf'>ten biggest existing coal-fired power plants</a> in the US (179 million tons of <span class="caps">CO2</span> per year), or the equivalent of about 40 average US coal plants.</p>
<p>So Ryan is right that mobilizing to stop Keystone XL makes sense politically. It also makes sense policywise.</p>
<p><b>Update</b>: Ryan Cooper <a href='https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/399728603279417344'>responds</a> on Twitter: “I agree that <span class="caps">KXL</span> is worth stopping, but in there I meant to refer to <em>potential</em> regulations that would apply to existing plants.”</p>
<p>The Obama administration has just held a series of “<a href='http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/public-listening-sessions'>public listening sessions</a>” about possible regulation of existing power plants, but has made no proposals.</p>