OPINION: Keystone pipeline: choosing between job creation and saving oil
In 1543, two Portuguese adventurers arrived in Japan with primitive firearms. This was Japan’s first introduction to guns, and it had an immediate impact. Japan adopted the new technology and greatly advanced it. By 1600, Japan boasted the best guns in the world. Guns, however, were ungraceful weapons and ran contrary to the Samurai tradition. The government began restricting their production, and, fairly quickly, Japan virtually abolished them. The decision to abandon firearms later cost the Japanese dearly when cannon-wielding U.S. fleets bent the nation to its will.
What does this story have to do with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline? Despite what it may seem, the firestorm of protests surrounding the pipeline are not about the project itself — they are about oil development in general. Wherever oil production goes, activists follow. Yet, if they had their way, new oil fields and development would cease. Slowly, as the production value of older fields drop, cheap energy would begin to fade in the U.S. the way firearms did in Japan. OPEC, and other nations willing to develop their lands, will be able to undermine U.S. sovereignty, as we were once able to do to Japan. The lesson is simple: Nations that abandon developmental advantages are eventually overrun by their competitors.
The thinking behind those that wish to phase out oil production is that we will replace it with newer and greener technology. The fact is, though, that there is no green technology to supersede oil. Wind has reached the end of the road as far as efficiency goes; solar has potential but isn’t there yet technologically; and the political hurdles facing nuclear energy are arguably greater than the scientific ones facing solar. There are, of course, other realms of energy exploration, such as cold fusion and tidal energy, but these amount to little more than pipe dreams. Economies run on energy, and there is no source of green energy that can be a viable alternative to oil.
“But wait,” you say, “phasing out oil production will increase market demand for alternative energy sources, leading to new innovations.”
This is a common belief rooted in the false assumption that necessity is the mother of invention. Most history-changing technologies we have today — airplanes, light bulbs, computers, etc. — were invented prior to any perceived market need. These goods were only seen as a necessity after they were fully integrated into the market. Booming economies are the mother of invention. The number of patent applications rise in response to increases in GDP. Like it or not, we have an oil-based economy. If we hope to stimulate a market of invention, the worst thing we can do is put the economy in a chokehold by barring projects like the Keystone Pipeline.
Do not misunderstand me. I believe in cheap, renewable energy. The fact of the matter, though, is that a clean energy future depends on dirty oil. Plunging the economy into depression, or handing over national sovereignty to oil cartels, by refusing to develop our own resources is a foolish strategy toward solving energy or environmental issues. Oil development is essential to our future, and if in the process we can take money out of the hands of oil cartels and put it into that of American workers through projects such as Keystone XL, all the better.
— Mike Burnham is a junior majoring in international relations and economics. His interests include studying international peace and security. Comments can be sent to him at mike.burnham@gmail.com.