Home » Blog » NYT makes the narrow case against Keystone XL
Blog
NYT makes the narrow case against Keystone XL
By Andrew Ottoson
Sunday, April 03, 2011
In its April 2 editorial, the New York Times unites a broad case against tar sands development with a narrow case against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project. In doing so, it exposes the absence of a credible argument in favor of the pipeline itself.
The editorial assigns a measure of credibility to the overarching argument put forward by tar sands development advocates: “a steady supply of oil from a friendly neighbor is the answer to rising oil prices and turmoil in the Middle East.” Without equivocating, the Times applies the broad counterpoints put forward by environmentalists who oppose tar sands development in principle: deforestation, global warming and the explicit “major threat to water supplies on both sides of the border” have not been met with adequate responses from the industry. Andrew Leach is right; failure to mount an effective response to the substance of environmental objections—particularly the water issue—has jeopardized the broad application of the energy security argument. But having set out a broad argument against tar sands development, the Times stops well short of stating a position; like Leach, the Times appears to accept (however grudgingly) that tar sands development is the “legitimate engine of the Canadian economy.”
Tagged with: keystone xl, transcanada, new york times
