Former President Jimmy Carter emphasized the “no” in Nobel on Wednesday when he joined with other laureates in urging the Obama administration to deny a permit for the long-languishing Keystone XL pipeline.

In an open letter signed by nine other Nobel Prize winners, Carter told President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that granting the permit would lead to “more climate upheaval” on a global scale.

The argument is similar to one many environmentalists have made against the $5.4 billion project since it was first proposed: the pipeline will expand production of Canadian oil sands. That production process, as well as the heavy oil it produces, generates more carbon emissions than conventional oil drilling.

The question that Carter and his fellow Nobel winners don’t address, which they should, is whether constricting supply will affect demand.

Canadian oil sands producers are already finding new, less safe, ways to bring their oil to market, such as shipping the oil by rail into the U.S. They may also export it to Asia or other countries that have fewer environmental protections, using tankers that have a higher accident rate than pipelines.


Saying "no" is easier than discussing alternatives (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As is so often the case in the Keystone debate, Carter’s position doesn’t deal in alternatives. Which is worse for the environment: oil sands or coal? Is it better to have oil shipped via pipeline from Canada or via tanker from Venezuela?

Typically, the environmentalist response to this questions is simply “no” to all. Denying our energy reality, though, isn’t a solution. Both the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Energy Information Administration have issued reports showing that world demand for oil will continue to rise.

Constricting demand at one point in the global oil market isn’t likely to alter that demand. It’s more likely to redirect it. The bigger challenge – the one that is so often ignored -- is reducing demand.

Robert Rapier analyzes this issue in more detail in his recent post on why ExxonMobil isn’t betting on a reduction in oil demand:

If you use oil, you are part of the reason ExxonMobil continues to profit from producing the oil. If you really want them to leave their oil in the ground, convince everyone to stop using it, and do so yourself. Then the asset will be stranded. But you aren’t going to have much luck stranding the asset when demand continues to grow.

Jimmy Carter, given his travel for speeches and other events around the world, probably consumes more oil than the average citizen. Factor in transportation for his Secret Service detail, and Carter, like many world leaders, burns a lot of oil every time he leaves the house.

Neither Carter nor other Keystone opponents have shown how blocking the permit for Keystone will reduce climate change, or even how eliminating a pipeline will slow the growth of carbon emissions. More important, they haven’t demonstrated how, for all the hyperbole and rhetoric, the pipeline is a greater threat to the environment than other fossil fuel consumption, namely coal.

Instead, they create a faulty cause and effect by implying that blocking a pipeline will reduce global oil demand, and therefore, slow climate change.

Rather than engaging in a serious discussion about reducing oil consumption, Carter and his fellow laureates have chosen to join the campaign of misinformation the continues to cloud American’s understanding of our energy reality.

Simply saying “no” doesn’t make it a noble cause.