The wrong battle for the climate The proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from western Canada to the US has become the Stalingrad of the American environmental movement. Of limited strategic importance in itself, it has been ferociously contested because of its symbolic value to both sides. After more than five years of fighting, it is time for the Obama administration to bring the battle to an end. For opponents of Keystone XL, blocking the pipeline curtails the development of Canada's oil sands, which threatens to have a catastrophic effect on global warming. For the oil industry, the pipeline is essential to realising the full potential of the North American oil boom, and safeguarding US energy security. Neither side's arguments stand up to much scrutiny. The environmentalists are right that extracting heavy oil from the sands creates more greenhouse gas emissions than crude from some other sources. But if Keystone XL were blocked, US refineries would use heavy crude from other sources that also have higher emissions. Nor are the project's opponents right that if they block the pipeline, they can stop oil from the sands coming on to the market. New investments in train loading facilities and tanker cars will enable increased volumes of heavy oil to be carried by rail. There are also other pipeline proposals, including the planned Energy East route to refineries and export terminals in eastern Canada. Those plans also expose the hyperbole from the industry about how badly Keystone XL is needed. Other options may be more expensive, but they are perfectly viable. As for energy security, Canada's oil sands have become a sideshow compared to the spectacular developments in US shale production. Keystone XL would carry very little of that new US crude. Still, the pipeline would create tens of thousands of jobs while under construction, ease the path to US markets for oil from a friendly neighbour and provide a transport route with less risk of serious accidents than rail. These benefits, set against a marginal long-term difference to greenhouse gas emissions, mean the Obama administration should approve the project when it comes to make a decision early next year. Climate change is a genuine threat and a price on carbon is the right way to address it. Failing that, regulations such as fuel economy standards or the administration's proposed limits on emissions from power generation can play a role. Keystone XL, however, is not the battle to fight.