More from Nathan Lemphers available More fromavailable here

There has been much debate in the United States lately over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Recently, opposition has galvanized around concerns about the climate implications of the increased oilsands production required to fill the pipeline.

At a time when the U.S. is hyperaware of the seriousness of climate change — because of the recent devastation caused by ‘Superstorm’ Sandy, the rapidly melting polar ice sheets, and reports that the U.S. recently experienced its hottest year on record — it’s not surprising to see climate concerns topping the list of reasons Americans are opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline. Those concerns were explored in further detail a news conference in Washington, D.C. Thursday, organized by three prominent U.S. environmental groups: the Natural Resources Defense Council, 350.org and Oil Change International.

Yet here in Canada, the climate impacts associated with Keystone XL have been getting much less attention. New analysis by the Pembina Institute shows that should not be the case.

Consider this: Producing enough bitumen to fill the Keystone XL pipeline (which would connect Alberta’s oilsands with refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast) would lead to a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions and undermine Canada’s ability to meet its climate targets. That fact alone should be enough to start a serious debate here at home about projects like Keystone that would enable further oilsands expansion — particularly given the growing evidence that industry and our governments are failing to adequately manage the impacts of current oilsands development.

Our perspective at the Pembina Institute is that Keystone XL should not be approved until industry and governments implement a credible plan for the responsible development of the oilsands, one that would mitigate greenhouse gas emissions growth to a level that would allow Canada to meet its international climate commitments.

Yet despite the evidence that oilsands development is not happening in a responsible way today, regulators in Canada already have approved enough projects to triple the current level of production to over 5.2 million barrels per day.

To realize this growth, new pipelines are needed — but many of the other proposed pipelines are smaller than Keystone XL, in the early stages of planning, or facing significant public opposition. Even if all of the pipelines currently proposed were built, there still would be a need for even more pipelines to realize industry’s extremely ambitious growth plans.

If approved, Keystone XL alone would require oilsands production to increase by 36 per cent. While this growth might align with the industry’s ambitions, it’s critical to consider the corresponding cost of this growth in terms of the climate consequences, and how supplying the pipeline with bitumen would affect Canada’s ability to meet our emissions reduction targets.

This is the focus of the Pembina Institute’s research on the Keystone XL pipeline. Planned oilsands growth will cause a doubling of emissions by 2020. This new emissions growth is troubling, because emissions from the oilsands are expected to increase by 72 megatonnes (Mt) at a time when the rest of the economy is expected to reduce emissions by 67 Mt by 2020.

As it stands, Environment Canada reported this past summer that Canada is on track to miss our 2020 target by 113 Mt.

Our analysis shows that Keystone XL, if filled with oilsands bitumen, would cause an additional 22.4 Mt of greenhouse gases to be emitted in Canada. This is the equivalent in carbon emissions to building 6.3 new coal-fired power plants, or putting 4.6 million more cars on the road. (The numbers are even higher when additional emissions from upgrading and refining the bitumen in the U.S. are considered.)

In other words, the emissions enabled by Keystone XL alone would be responsible for nearly 20 per cent of the gap in reaching Canada’s 2020 climate target.

For the United States, the jury is still out on Keystone XL. The release of a draft environmental impact statement on the pipeline, which takes into account the revised route through Nebraska, is expected any day now. The draft statement will be open for comments for 90 days; after that, the final environmental impact assessment will be published and the U.S. State Department’s final decision on the pipeline will follow shortly thereafter.

In the meantime, the best thing the oilsands industry and the Canadian government could do to improve their chances of having oilsands pipelines approved would be to show Canadians and the U.S. — our biggest customer — that they are committed to delivering on their promises of “responsible resource development” by taking swift and serious action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, address environmental impacts, and meaningfully consult with aboriginal and non-aboriginal people whose lives and livelihoods would be affected by these projects.

Until that happens, it’s unlikely we’ll see any decline in opposition to projects like Keystone XL, or any of the oilsands pipelines proposed on this side of the border.

Nathan Lemphers is a senior policy analyst in the Pembina Institute’s oilsands program. Since 2009, Nathan has examined the topics of oilsands economics and environmental management. Nathan’s research has focused on the liability management of oilsands mines, the economics of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, the macroeconomic effects of oilsands development and the transboundary environmental impacts of the oilsands.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.