Oil rail disasters easily prevented
Saturday’s explosion of a runaway train loaded with oil shouldn’t become a tragedy to be exploited. The Quebec town of Lac-Megantic, just 20 miles from the Maine border, was devastated by the blast. There are 24 confirmed deaths, with many more expected, as the 26 still missing are presumed dead.
But as The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens rightly opined in his Tuesday column, it is a tragedy that should be learned from, as it provides yet another hard lesson for radical environmentalists — which perhaps explains why they haven’t been frothing at the mouth to condemn this environmental disaster in the making. The crash allowed 26,000 gallons of crude to spill into the Chaudiere River, and Mr. Stephens notes that oil could reach far more populated Quebec City, as well as the St. Lawrence River.
So where is the outcry from staunch environmentalists? It’s been tempered by the fact that disasters such as this one are almost completely avoidable — oil doesn’t have to be transported predominantly by rail. The 72-car train was shipping oil from North Dakota to a major refinery in the port city of Saint John, New Brunswick. That’s how most oil is transported these days, because limited pipelines are at full capacity, and environmentalists have determined that new pipelines (Keystone XL, anybody?) will worsen phantom global warming. They’ve managed to gain the backing of the regulation-happy Obama administration, despite a lousy economy that should dictate otherwise.
Facts should dictate otherwise, too. As Mr. Stephens noted, just five years ago, the U.S. rail system transported 9,500 carloads of oil. Last year, that figured had grown to a whopping 233,811. In that same time span, the number of rail spills jumped from eight to 69. Pipelines, on the other hand, had half the spillage rate of railways, on a gallon-per-mile basis. And pipelines tend to go around exposed population centers. Take a look at the proposed route of the Keystone XL pipeline. It would cross hundreds and hundreds of miles of wide-open space in the middle of nowhere.
By no means are environmentalists to blame for the tragedy in Quebec. But their undying desire to kill pipeline projects doesn’t serve them or the environment well, because oil will continue to be pumped, and it will be shipped by the path of least resistance, which right now is rail — which though relatively safe is not nearly as safe as pipelines. Unless you outlaw oil, you can’t keep it from the marketplace.
Environmentalists assert that those who don’t support their cause are in favor of dirty air and dirty water, accusing them of being the extremists for trying to grow the economy and maintain our standard of living. But that intransigence often creates more environmental problems. Of course energy companies and businesses want clean air and clean water. Right now, Lac-Megantic has less of both.
As Mr. Stephens put it, it’s time for an environmental movement “that is capable of reasoned thought.” Environmentalists need to come to the table and offer some give and take, instead of an uncompromising, religious assault on the economy. The goal of getting rid of oil — particularly shale — isn’t going to happen, and with the rise of railway crude transports, the next Lac-Megantic is just down the tracks.
