KXL would not increase global carbon emissions by any significant amount unless one thinks the absence of that pipeline would trigger a US (or world) reduction in oil consumption. There is however no reason to think that avoiding KXL would be related to a reduction in oil consumption. So without KXL, oil from Alberta will flow through other means, and oil not produced in Alberta because of the limited export capacity will be produced in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil (or in African countries with rising production such as Angola). Such alternative sources of oil are not good news for the climate.

It is therefore irrelevant to try to assess KXL against climate scenarios - because KXL is irrelevant to oil consumption. Consumption of oil is the core of the problem, not its production, especially when other non-conventional or heavy oil sources are worse, as bad or nearly as bad as oil sands.

 I almost completely disagree with both of the above statements. Blocking KXL need not decrease emissions for the building of KXL to increase them. Blocking KXL prevents increases. This is "playing defense". Just because it would not decrease emissions does not mean it is not of value, and it certainly doesn't mean that the building of the pipeline should be allowed.

The question is not whether the world will use Canadian oil, or oil from somewhere else. The question is whether the world will transition away from fossil fuels in time to avert severe climate disruption. Given increasing demand for energy from emerging markets, increased production in Canada will likely be consumed in addition to oil produced elsewhere rather than in place of it. This means that emissions would increase and the world would run through its carbon budget more quickly. This means that we would have less time to make the extrememly challenging changes that need to happen before its too late, in order to avert severe climate disruption.

Yes, consumption does need to be reduced. For this we need to do everything we can to make clean energy cheaper than dirty energy. However, this in no way means that KXL should be condoned. Please let me know if any of this is unclear. I have yet to see a sound reason why KXL would not increase emissions.

It is US oil consumption that is the principal source of carbon emissions, and the source of those barrels is of little consequence.

 While I agree that blocking the pipeline will not reduce emissions and is therefore not a solution to the climate crisis, I don't know that I would go so far as to say that opposing the pipeline is ill-concieved. It is playing defense- attempting to prevent increases in emissions. Whether it should be a focus of the climate action movement is debateable. We clearly need to work on implementing solutions such as a carbon tax or a feed in tariff. One thing is clear, whether blocking the pipeline should be a focus of the movement or not, the pipeline should certainly be opposed.

Based on the previous comments, which are quite consistent with my independent thoughts, I cannot follow the "logic" that experts agree KXL would increase Alberta oilsands extraction. Further, the comments definitely provide counter logic that  KXL would increase the global carbon emissions, when compared with emissions from other sources (Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, etc.).

Here is the logic:

The pipeline will allow more oil sands to get to market. The more capacity the oil companies have to bring the product to market the more they can profitably produce, and the more they therefore will produce. I believe this is clear. If there is something wrong with my logic please spell it out for me because I have not yet seen what that would be.

What of the arguments posted here that the real issue is overall oil consumption, and only a reduction in consumption will lead to a reduction in carbon emissions? 

I agree that consumption of carbon-emitting energy is what determines the extent of emissions. I think the important thing to remember is that the more production, the more oil there is available to be consumed. We are at a point where there are emerging markets with growing appetites for energy consumption. As long as oil is a competitively priced energy source, that growing appetite will be fed by increased oil production if that increased production is allowed to occur.

Unfortunately, consumers cannot be counted upon to put aside their short term economic interests for the sake of mitigating the climate crisis. After all, as long as you understand yourself to be acting more or less alone rather than part of a larger and genuinely viable effort to acheive meaningful emissions reductions, you as a consumer could be forgiven for  considering your efforts to be a waste. Therefore, if you want to reduce consumption of carbon-emitting energies, the most important thing you can do is work toward making clean energy use cheaper than dirty energy use. This is why policies like a carbon tax or a feed in tariff, or a withdrawal subsidies from the fossil fuel industry have been advocated by those hoping to avert climate disruption. Increased transportation infrastructure for fossil fuels is a step in the wrong direction because it will make competitively priced fossil fuels more widely available to the market for comsumption, thereby causing increased consumption.

Increased production clearly means increased carbon emissions.

What of the arguments posted here that the real issue is overall oil consumption, and only a reduction in consumption will lead to a reduction in carbon emissions? 

Based on the previous comments, which are quite consistent with my independent thoughts, I cannot follow the "logic" that experts agree KXL would increase Alberta oilsands extraction. Further, the comments definitely provide counter logic that  KXL would increase the global carbon emissions, when compared with emissions from other sources (Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, etc.). 

Seems like most survey responses suggest approval of Keystone XL would increase future oil sands production, while most of the online discussion comments suggest KXL will not necessarily increase global carbon emissions because the real issue is consumption. Do you think the other sources you mention (e.g. Venezuela and Nigeria) would be more carbon-intensive than Alberta oil sands?  

What would you say to people who say oil sands are more carbon-intensive than other sources of oil? 

I would ask them how much more, and ensure they included California heavy crudes (thermally produced), North Dakota crudes (flared natural gas) and Nigerian crudes (flared and vented natural gas) as comparative examples. I think they would find that in total carbon emissions the differences are small, oil sands production is not the worst, and the real issues respecting carbon emissions arise from oil consumption, not oil production. I hope and expect they would re-focus their efforts. 

It is US oil consumption that is the principal source of carbon emissions, and the source of those barrels is of little consequence.

What would you say to people who say oil sands are more carbon-intensive than other sources of oil? 

The oil sands are land-locked and need pipeline (or, less desirably, rail) access to get to market. As such, I agree that transportation constraints can limit extent of oil sands production. However, I believe the view of many members of American public, and public pressure on President Obama to not allow this pipeline, is ill-conceived as it does not reduce oil consumption by a single barrel in the US. It is US oil consumption that is the principal source of carbon emissions, and the source of those barrels is of little consequence. Now, if the US were to impose a carbon tax and if Canada were to follow suit, that would reduce US oil consumption and have some bearing on oil sands producers as well. That would truly have an impact on global carbon emissions, and would be an effective policy. Opposing the Keystone pipeline is a distraction that allows some members of the American public to avoid the real issues.

Based on the previous comments, which are quite consistent with my independent thoughts, I cannot follow the "logic" that experts agree KXL would increase Alberta oilsands extraction. Further, the comments definitely provide counter logic that  KXL would increase the global carbon emissions, when compared with emissions from other sources (Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, etc.).   

I would tend to agree that the proposed pipeline will have no lasting impact on aggregate GHG emissions, as they seem to be more demand-side driven as opposed to created from incremental supply. As long as the pipeline is not considered to have a permanent impact on crude oil pricing, it is hard to see how global or even North American crude oil demand is affected. Supply will simply come from other sources to meet aniticpated demand, and ultimately, that supply may come from other unconventional oil sources which are hardly better with repect to GHG intensity.

KXL would not increase global carbon emissions by any significant amount unless one thinks the absence of that pipeline would trigger a US (or world) reduction in oil consumption. There is however no reason to think that avoiding KXL would be related to a reduction in oil consumption. So without KXL, oil from Alberta will flow through other means, and oil not produced in Alberta because of the limited export capacity will be produced in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil (or in African countries with rising production such as Angola). Such alternative sources of oil are not good news for the climate.

It is therefore irrelevant to try to assess KXL against climate scenarios - because KXL is irrelevant to oil consumption. Consumption of oil is the core of the problem, not its production, especially when other non-conventional or heavy oil sources are worse, as bad or nearly as bad as oil sands.

Increased production clearly means increased carbon emissions. Making projections of emissions or production with and without KXL would be extremely complex as well as further complicated by other moving parts such as the extent of the adoption of rail for transport, and whether other pipeline projects are approved. My sense is that this calculation is unnecessary to make, because it is so clear that access to additional markets means increased production and increased production means increased emissions.