Pipelines prove the growing divide among environmentalists

Environmental activists come in many stripes. Some engage in pragmatic political action while others chain themselves to trees and destroy equipment.

Representing the latter camp, Bold Alliance president Jane Kleeb recently said, “Obviously the best means of transportation of oil is none,” but if she had to choose, she would “rather see it go by train” than pipeline.

{mosads}Kleeb’s statement represents a lack of understanding regarding transporting energy resources. A study released earlier this year from the Manhattan Institute found that accident rates are much higher for trains than they are for pipelines. Annual accidents between 2007 and 2016 were over three times greater on rail than via pipeline. Per billion ton-miles of oil and gas transported, the accident rate for oil pipelines was 0.66 and for railroads it was 2.20.

Not only will pipelines decrease accidents and potentially decrease human injury and death, they’re also better for the environment. When transporting large quantities of crude oil over long distances, the carbon footprint of a pipeline is about 61 to 77 percent smaller than rail.

Kleeb’s apparent “rail vs. pipe” stance is just a ruse to stop production. The position she expresses represents a viewpoint that is at best impractical.

Kleeb’s environmentalist camp opposes the development of infrastructure and domestic energy resources altogether. It’s a point of view that says no to economic development and advancing opportunities for humanity, especially for the poor who are more sensitive to fluctuating energy prices than the wealthy.

Her comments underscore new lengths some groups are willing to go to in order to oppose the development of domestic energy resources and exemplifies a widening rift among environmental activists.

This other camp of environmental activists are interested in acting as stakeholders in safe pipeline construction and they are willing to work with energy companies on sensible solutions. They care about balancing a healthy environment with responsible development. Rather than viewing our natural resources as something that should be left untouched, and therefore stunting human progress and wellbeing, their strategy reflects a positive and uplifting view of humanity. Humans are entirely capable of and perhaps even meant to develop natural resources in such a way that advances mankind while respectfully caring for the environment for future generations. Seeking common ground and common sense reforms is what contrasts the pragmatic environmentalist from the rest. Some will only be satisfied when pipelines construction and oil production ceases to exist.

Infrastructure development is a necessary process that invites input from a variety of stakeholders. Anti-energy rhetoric, however, does little to further the conversation and makes reaching an agreement with energy companies and regulators nearly impossible. Not only is anti-energy rhetoric useless in working with energy companies on environmental safety, it runs contrary to reality that the advancement of fossil fuel use has improved the lives of billions of people around the world.

Activists should take note that working with energy companies and government regulators as key stakeholders is the best means to reach a sensible solution that will ensure domestic energy development is done in the most environmentally sensitive way possible.

Craig Stevens is the spokesperson for Grow America’s Infrastructure Now, a national coalition focused on promoting key infrastructure investments. Follow the Coalition on Twitter @GAINNowAmerica.