The Keystone Principle

authordefault
on

This is a guest post by KC Golden, originally published on GripOnClimate.org

The big Presidentโ€™s Day rally on the National Mallย is more than a Keystone pipeline protest.ย  Itโ€™s a statement of principle for climate action.

After a year of unprecedented destruction due to weather extremes, the climate fight is no longerย just aboutย impacts in the future.ย  Itโ€™s about physical and moral consequences, now.ย  And Keystone isnโ€™t simply a pipeline in the sand for the swelling national climate movement.ย  Itโ€™sย aย moral referendumย on our willingess to doย the simplest thing we must do to avert catastrophic climate disruption:ย  Stop making itย worse.ย 

Specifically and categorically, we must cease making large, long-term capital investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure that โ€œlocks inโ€ dangerous emission levels for many decades.ย  ย Keystone is a both a conspicuous example of that kind of investment and a powerful symbol for the whole damned category.

Itโ€™s true that stopping a single pipeline โ€“ even one as huge and odious as Keystone โ€“ will not literally โ€œsolveโ€ climate disruption.ย  No single action will do that, any more than refusing to sit on the back of a single bus literally ended segregation.ย  The question โ€“ for Keystone protestors as it was for Rosa Parks โ€“ is whether the action captures and communicates a principle powerful enough to inspire and sustain an irresistible movement for sweeping social change.

Stopping Keystone nails the core principle for climate responsibility, by preventing investments that make climate disruption irrevocably worse.ย  Again, itโ€™s not just that burning tar sands oil produces a lot of emissions; itโ€™s that long-term capital investments like Keystone (and coal plants, and coal export facilities) โ€œlock inโ€ those dangerous emissions for decades and make catastrophic climate disruption inevitable.

Now, if you are a fossil fuel company, โ€œlocking in dangerous emissionsโ€ means locking in profits.ย  It is your business strategy, precisely.ย  For the rest of us, itโ€™s a one-way, non-refundable ticket to centuries of hell and high water.ย  We must not buy that ticket.

This is the Keystone Principle. ย It emerges from multiple lines of scientific and economic research, most notably the International Energy Agencyโ€™s 2012 World Energy Outlook, which starkly warned that the chance to avert catastrophic climate disruption would be โ€œlost foreverโ€ without an immediate shift away from fossil fuel infrastructure investment.

But it doesnโ€™t take a supercomputer to confirm that the Keystone Principle is basic common sense.ย  Itโ€™s step one for getting out of a hole:ย  Stop digging.ย  A comprehensive strategy for global climate solutions called โ€œDesign to Winโ€ put the point succinctly:ย  โ€œFirst, donโ€™t lose.โ€ย  ย The choice is clear and binary:ย  Do it and weโ€™re toast.ย  So donโ€™t.

In contrast, the many things we must do toย advance positive climate solutionsย โ€“ clean energy, more efficient cars and buildings, better transportation choices โ€“ are full of grey areas.ย  Implementing them is inherently slow, incremental, and subject to tradeoffs based on economic and other factors.ย  Should new fuel economy standards make cars 80% more efficient or 90%?ย  Over what period of time?ย  The answers are judgment calls, not moral absolutes.ย  But when it comes to stopping Keystone and other fossil fuel infrastructure investments, the choice is stark, clear.

โ€œClimate solutionsโ€ are millions of Yeses and many shades of green, over a long period of time.ย  But they also require a few bright red Nos, right now.ย  These Nos are, you might say, the โ€œkeystoneโ€ for responding to the climate crisis, as in โ€œsomething on which associated things [like, say, all efforts to avert catastrophic climate disruption] depend.โ€ย  No amount of clean energy investment will stave off disaster unless we stop feeding the fossil fuelย beast with capital now.

Most importantly, as we enter the era of climate consequences, the Keystone Principle has moral power. ย ย Many lives were lost, and millions disrupted, by Superstorm Sandy.ย  Most of the counties in America were declared disaster areas last year due to drought.ย  Last month, parents in Australia sheltered their children from โ€œtornadoes of fireโ€ by putting them in the ocean.ย ย  This is what climate disruption looks like.

Now that the faces of the victims are regular features of the daily news, what will we say to them?ย  And what will we say to our children โ€“ the prospective victims of still-preventable disasters?ย  Defying the Keystone Principle is like saying โ€œSorry, youโ€™re out of luck.ย  We will use our laws, our time, and our money to make itย irretrievably worse.โ€

President Obama has begun to carefully edge away from the moral bankruptcy of this position. ย As he said in his inaugural address:ย  ย โ€œWe will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.โ€

But no one will believe him, or us, until we stop making it worse. ย Thatโ€™s what Keystone is about.ย ย Itโ€™s not just a pipeline.ย ย  Itโ€™s a principle.

by KC Golden, originallyย published on GripOnClimate.org
ย 

Image credit: 350.org

authordefault

Related Posts

Analysis
on

What the country craves is fewer selfies and more action to confront the emergency.

What the country craves is fewer selfies and more action to confront the emergency.
on

A look back at the yearโ€™s manipulative messaging.

A look back at the yearโ€™s manipulative messaging.
on

Policymakers and industry say the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will create green jobs and slash emissions, but environmentalists see a ploy to keep fossil fuels in use.

Policymakers and industry say the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will create green jobs and slash emissions, but environmentalists see a ploy to keep fossil fuels in use.
on

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?