The arguments in this article are popular on left blogs right now. But anyone who reads it carefully should observe the large hole in the logic of applying gross (predicted??) externality costs to a particular project's economic feasibility in a particular market. Oil spills on the ocean of oil sourced by a pipeline Also, what is the projected risk of the DAPL pipeline? "We crunched the numbers" doesn't quite do it, given the ideological assumptions.
The "economics" in the piece first serve and are dependent upon a set of ideological positions opposed to ANY fossil fuel growth. Real fossil fuel usage and growth -- under the most optimistic projections, assuming the most rapid likely development of alternative energy -- will remain the largest global source of energy for decades. So a "put all the oil companies out of business" will fail as public policy barring effective nationalization. Even nationalization begs many questions about the impact on government of its control over all energy, including the power to turn it off, or on. It can be a curse as well as a blessing, as recent history illustrates.
I predict Trump will offer the Sioux reservation some $$ before he runs it through.
Pay the losers in these matters is actually the right policy, as it is with trade, automation, and all other structural adjustments required in the face of constant change -- a global feature that will not slow down either in human or environmental domains. The payment must be big enough to turn the losers into winners. And it must be big enough to reflect a principle of equity in the distribution of wealth. That would be a very large payment to the Sioux nation, one of the most impoverished communities in the US.
Be assured. If the the pipeline does not satisfy a return, directly or indirectly, to the investors, no oil will be transported and the project will be an economic loss.
DAPL Doesn't Make Economic Sense
-- via my feedly newsfeed