US State Department underestimates carbon pollution from Keystone XL
by John Abraham
This is like the movie Groundhog Day. I seem forever forced to correct the State Departments errant analysis of Alberta tar sands emissions. Now, however, other people are agreeing with me. A recent paper published in Nature Climate Change reviewed the State Departments accounting and found it deeply flawed.
The authors, Peter Erickson and Michael Lazarus of the Stockholm Institute included the impacts of Keystone on the global oil markets. This inclusion tripled the climate change impact of the Keystone pipeline compared to the State Departments analysis. Lets get into the study to see the reason for the change and also to understand why even this new analysis is flawed.
First, the State Department assesses the impact of tar sands by assuming it will merely displace, barrel for barrel, some other oil extracted somewhere else on the planet. Therefore, the State Department analysis only counts the incremental emissions for tar sands. Tar sands are approximately 17% worse in terms of emissions than other fuels (it depends on which fuel is the reference); the State Department only counts these extra emissions.
What the new study does is ask, how will the Keystone pipeline increase oil extraction globally? For instance, if oil prices decrease because of Keystone, then more oil will be extracted (up to 0.6 barrels more per barrel of tar sands). They reason, correctly, that an honest account must include the increased extraction.
more
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/aug/28/state-department-underestimates-keystone-carbon-pollution