The State Department issued its final environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline today, finding that it would bring “no significant impacts” on the environment – even while substantially increasing greenhouse gas emissions and crossing major aquifers and wetlands across the country.
The Environmental Protection Agency criticized the last two environmental reviews from the Department of State, saying they lacked adequate study on almost every major environmental issue associated with building the pipeline. But the DOS worked closely with the EPA on this report.
The 1,700 mile Keystone XL pipeline would bring over 800,000 barrels of tar sands crude from Alberta to the Gulf Coast each day. The EPA estimates that carbon emissions from tar sands are 80% higher than the average crude refined in the U.S. The process of extracting tar sands oil requires strip mining, causing extensive damage to the boreal forest, creating “dead” water ponds filled with toxic chemicals, and requires four times more water to produce a barrel of tar sands oil than for conventional oil.
It seems the DOS has pulled the same maneuver as the Interior Department — admitting that greenhouse gases are a major issue, but still declaring the project environmentally sound. (Last month, Interior green-lighted Shell’s offshore drilling in the Arctic while ironically outlining the swift impacts of climate change on the region.)
From the DOS review:
[C]urrent projections suggest that the amount of energy required to extract all crude oils is projected to increase over time due to the need to extract oil from ever deeper reservoirs using more energy intensive techniques.
In spite of the increasing difficulty in extracting oil from the tar sands, the DOS estimates that greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands could stay flat in the coming years. However, a recent analysis from the Canadian government shows that emissions will likely double by 2020, cancelling out the country’s renewable energy programs.
The report does not determine a State Department decision; it is simply a final environmental review. After a 90-day public comment period, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will issue a decision.
Secretary Clinton said she would leave “no stone unturned” in the analysis of the pipeline. But last month, the objectivity of the agency was called into question when a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks showed a DOS official had been coaching the Canadian government on how to better “sell” the tar sands to the public:
The cable, obtained by WikiLeaks, describes the State Department’s then-energy envoy, David Goldwyn, as having “alleviated” Canadian officials’ concerns about getting their crude into the U.S. It also said he had instructed them in improving “oil sands messaging,” including “increasing visibility and accessibility of more positive news stories.”
Goldwyn now works on Canadian oil sands issues at Sutherland, a Washington lobbying firm, and recently testified before Congress in favor of building the 36-inch underground pipeline, Keystone XL.
Writing in response to the Climate Progress story on the issue, author and activist Bill McKibben lambasted the State Department:
This is outrageous behavior by the administration–it’s the same kind of thing that is outraging the British public today. You’ve got a federal official manipulating the media on behalf of a private concern, and then going to work for that concern? This is a menage a trois of corruption, and it should outrage even people who aren’t outraged by the implications of pouring vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
If you are outraged, go to tarsandsaction.org and sign up to get arrested.
Indeed, that’s exactly what people are doing. The protests against the pipeline continue at the White House this week, where almost 300 people have been arrested.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Would H. Clinton have been any better then BO on climate change? This answers all our questions.
We will have a chance to see whether both of the Democratic presidential hopefuls of 2008 care about the environment. First, Hillary Clinton will rule on the issue, and then Obama.
The current protests seem to be directed at Obama. How about Clinton?
Actually, Charles, we already got to see what both would do right after the election.
In 2009 Hillary Clinton as part of the state department approved the Keystone 1 tar sands pipeline to the US midwest – President Obama approved it thereafter. It opened in June 2010 and drivers in the Midwest are motoring around on tar sands based gasoline (without knowing).
There is alot of attention on the XL extension of the Keystone 1 pipeline, but effectively the horse already left barn, several years ago.
Entirely predictable, this administration has continued and extended nearly all of W’s policies. Obama will approve this pipeline.
It does beg the question how much of the idea that we would really do something about climate change (as in deny high CO2 fossil fuels markets in the US) after the 2008 election was just a naive fantasy of the voters played upon by the Democratic candidates.
Seems we weren’t going to get action no matter who won the primary.
Clinton would have worked for the same boss as Obama: Big Oil.
If corporations are really people, why doesn’t Big Oil just run for president? That might bring more people to the polls. They’d have a better sense of what is really going on than they can ever get from the main stream media.
Question: In a great deal of coverage of this issue (what coverage there is of it), we hear that President Obama has the final say and can approve of, or withhold permission from, Keystone XL. Other coverage, such as that above, speaks only of the State Department and of Hillary Clinton, implying that the State Department has final say or, at least, that the State Department’s decision is the means by which the final decision of the Administration will be conveyed.
Can someone please clarify this? In other words, are these two different things, or one and the same: the State Department’s recommendation and decision, and the President’s decision? Can the State Department say ‘yes’ in its final report, after the 90-day period, and Obama still say ‘no’, or are these things one and the same? Again, please clarify. And, hopefully future coverage will provide clarity as well.
Thanks,
Jeff
That conclusion only begins to work if the plan is to continue on the same path. And even then its not completely valid with respect to resource depletion/pollution rates.
It basically means this administration basically has no strong energy or climate change plan.
So its token renewables for the masses and a commitment to more coal, oil and gas. Economically too, its a dead end for the one technology sector America was excelling at.
I would like to see the sourcing and specific conclusions of the study.
If there is any way to participate in a tarsands arrest protest within three states of california please email me at raleighlatham@comcast.net. EVERY single environmental voter is looking at Obama and seeing whether he will become a climate criminal by allowing the pipeline through.
On mainstream news, on the Weather Channel and in this Huff post there are two words you will almost never see: Global Warming
Mention of it is tacitly forbidden. All weather people on air know this all too well.
Isn’t it amazing the biggest threat to human life and all life on this planet and we are forbidden to say the name of that threat.
This illustrates the degree to which we have been taken over by corporations.
Everything must be in the service of preserving and enhancing the profits of big business, even when our very survival (and theirs!) is at stake.
George Orwell had it right in his book 1984. Except he did not realize Big Brother would be sporting corporate logos.
@Bill G.: Everything, if you want to continue playing for the team and continue making above average salaries.
Honestly, I have no idea why anyone is surprised by this finding by State or the eventual approval of the KXLP.
If this administration kills the project, Obama and Dems in Congress will get pounded for it in the ’12 elections with the usual laundry list of right-wing lies and semi-lies. If the admin. approves it, then the only people who will be upset are the ones most likely to vote Dem anyway, and they’re overall a very small portion of the general population.
As always: Strip things down to power and incentives and do a brute force cost/benefit analysis, weighted toward short-term thinking, and the vast majority of energy and climate situations are depressingly easy to explain.
Very true Lou. But it’s still a bit shocking to see our President not just not act on climate change, but choose irreversible climate change for the country, the world and their future – I’m trying to think of what he could do that would be worse than large scale tar sands oil and there’s not much.
So much for wanting to be a great 1 term president, eh?
Regardless of which party is running the US government, it has become the Business Development Division of mega corporations. Take a look at the documentary, Consuming Kids, to see how these corporations are targeting our children and grandchildren:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uUU7cjfcdM
The real battle is between our children and the corporations.
Whose side are we on?
Obama’s fig leaf -
I might be a descenting voice here but how much can this project actually add to overall emissions?
We need global emission controls. If they even transpire then they will include this and similar projects.
As Al Gore once said, and I’m probably about to misquote, “Even a junkie will find veins in their toes”. We need a cure for the addiction, just another hit is small fry.
One estimate on another comment thread regarding this topic is that these reserves contain a few hundred gigatons of carbon. Not sure if that includes the carbon emitted in processing them. But a global system of control doesn’t seem in the cards at this point, and I wonder if projects like this make one even less likely. The more money at stake and the more resource there is available, the less impetus there is to implement constraints along with substantial and consistent incentives for alternatives.
Its a good question Lazarus. At a country level (United States) the existing Keystone 1 tar sands pipeline to the US midwest, which was approved by the State Department and Obama in 2009 currently accounts for 9% of all petroleum imports – and of course the emissions for that 9% are worse than if we were burning coal in all those cars.
The XL expansion of the pipeline doubles the total capacity (~20% of US Petroleum imports) and takes the tar sands oil to the gulf coast refineries – but is looked upon in the financial circles as a way to get the refined tar sands products exported to the world via tankers.
Its big and the emissions are unbelievably bad. Dr. Hansen had said previously that if we tap into the tar sands – it’d be impossible to avoid the worst of climate change – of course we already have one working tar sands pipeline to the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline
Secretary Clinton said she would leave “no stone unturned”
—
She sure didn’t. The only problem is that she ignored everything she found under the stones. She’s basically giving evidence in the report as to why the environ impacts are bad but sums it up with “no impact”.
A friend from Beverly Hills told me four years ago to forget about Obama and all of the “Change” talk. According to her, the big boys keep a stable of about 20 future leaders, starting in college (her boyfriend had been one of them). They have to be glib and bright, but those aren’t the main qualities they seek, nor do they care which party they join.
What matters is that they play ball, and don’t act against two key sectors: the “defense” industry and the oil companies. In exchange, they are granted wealth and power, including the also rans in the stable.
That’s why no Democrat since Kennedy has been progressive at all- Clinton’s environmental record is viewed as worse than Bush Sr. by some, and Obama’s support for Keystone and a 10 year oil war were inevitable.
Let’s stop being battered voters and go to the people on this, with our own media companies and allies in academia and the arts. It’s about time we wised up, and acted accordingly.
Chilling thought.
There’s a lot of truth to what you’re saying about the organized power of the status quo – as well as the unharnessed power of “battered voters”. Being purely cynical about corporations and greed, there’s also a lot of money to be made by innovators in energy efficiency and renewable energy – once people clearly state that’s what they want. Being purely cynical about politicians, Barack Obama has made it perfectly clear that he’s no shill for “big oil” IF the majority of the public strongly supports paying a price for carbon emissions. Where there’s demand, there’s supply.
According to the NY Times, Obama has used Irene as cover to greenlight the Keystone XL pipeline.
Expect many more Irenes as a result, only increasingly severe over the years and decades. As for centuries, fuggegetaboutit.
This is just horrible. From depth to depth. And yet Perry or any of the others in play are also impossible.
Assume that there is no top-down solution for our problems. We have to solve it from the bottom up, a la Tahrir square or the Anna Hazare corruption movement in India. It could be fun…
Just for reference, Shell and ExxonMobil (who else, right?) have the big investments in tar sands oil production.
The NYTimes article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/27/business/energy-environment/us-state-department-to-allow-canadian-pipeline.html?_r=1&hp) says the pipeline is expected to open in 2013. Says Canada is planning pipelines to the west coast of Canada for export to China to handle the expected expansion of tar sands production beyond the two pipelines (1 & XL) to the US.
Just looking at this, might be that it doesn’t really matter (other than on that moral level we don’t seem to have in the US govt. actions anymore), we’ve got one pipeline to the US already, Canada is going to China with this stuff as well (probably would have with or without US pipelines) – the horse left the barn, thanks to our President, long ago…in the end the XL doesn’t really matter – we’re (the world) burning every little bit of tar sands oil we can get out of the ground, XL or no XL, cause the money and power want that.
Another reason for history to hang the primary responsibility of making irreversible climate change happen (after we could have stopped) on the United States of America and this President in particular.
If Obama gives the green light, any environmentalist having anything good to say about him is no environmentalist at all.
I guess I’m feeling a little better about voting for McKinney. I know she wouldn’t have allowed this.
Still, not too happy with the overall outcome. Why do so many other people keep voting for these awful leaders?
The dems have shown over and over that they are right of center. They only appear left when compared with the extremely far right repubs.
Yet people keep voting for the righty dems expecting to get a lefty result. All because they are afraid of the even more righty t-pubs. It’s a sad situation.
If ever there were a time for pillow talk! Seems like it’s time for Bill Clinton, founder of the William J. Clinton Foundation (www.clintonfoundation.org) that launched the Climate Change Initiative, to walk his talk, and perhaps even have a more serious talk with Hillary. From the CCI website: “The William J. Clinton Foundation launched the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) to create and advance solutions to the core issues driving climate change. CCI takes a holistic approach, addressing the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions and the people, policies, and practices that impact them. Working with governments and businesses around the world, CCI focuses on three strategic program areas: reducing emissions in cities, catalyzing the large-scale supply of clean energy, and working to stop deforestation.”
Anne, that quote from the Clinton Foundation:
“CCI takes a holistic approach, addressing the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions and the people, policies, and practices that impact them. Working with governments and businesses around the world, CCI focuses on three strategic program areas: reducing emissions in cities, catalyzing the large-scale supply of clean energy, and working to stop deforestation.”
is way into the red on the BS meter.
Looking for the silver linings, at least critics of electric cars can no longer claim that they are just as polluting as gasoline.
Not that it was ever true, but now those gasoline powered emissions are going up by at least 80%.
It also means that Bachmann’s claim of $2 gas, while it was always a fantasy, is now even more impossible, since at that price the tar sands oil would not be profitable.
I am sure that Saudi Arabia does not like competition from this alternative oil source at all, because the reserves are significant.
If they had the ability to increase production, they could drive the price of oil low enough to make the tar sands production unprofitable and eliminate a large competitor. This is solid evidence that the Saudis do not have any significant reserve capacity, most likely because Ghawar is already in decline.
So now we are truly post-peak and seeing the beginning of the end of the age of oil.
The US assistant secretary of state, Ms Kerri-Ann Jones, should be deeply ashamed of using the false arguement “that Alberta will produce the crude anyway.”
Not only is this patently untrue, with a senior Alberta official having declared that the pipeline is the only feasible means to export that volume of crude, but also she employs the discreditable and wholly discredited ‘Nuremberg defence’ that the offence was “inevitable and my participation is thus irrelevant and excusable”.
However, Ms Jones is merely an assistant secretary of state – this shameful report is released under Ms Cinton’s authority. Her previous statements on the threat to US populations and interests of climate destabilization are a matter of record. As are the US DOD and Joint Chiefs’ statements on the military threats that it is now intensifying.
Thus it is Mrs Clinton who should be called to account for this disgraceful whitewash of the Keystone XL project’s impacts, and it is she who should be called on to withdraw the report.
Regards,
Lewis
ziyu, #14, of course Clinton cannot leave any stone unturned, else how would she turn over her own and get up every morning? Obama, as Mike Roddy at #15 observed, was recruited years ago, to serve as an agent of the wealthy (how else do you afford a political career in the USA, unless you have your own dosh, one reason Bloomberg makes sense from time to time). No-one even approaches the throne in the US system without being thoroughly vetted. Obama is, was and will always be a servant of his owners, and the ‘Hopey Dopey’ thing was a cynical and breathtakingly successful con. The only question now is do the real rulers of the US want Perry (ie are they barking mad and reckless)or do they fancy another four years of loyal service from their property Obama. If the latter, then Perry will be subverted, and Obama will pretend to deliver to the suckerati in the next term. Either way we’ll all be rooned.
Welcome back, MM! I still don’t agree with all your uber-cynicism, but I will defend your right to mock Obama until he actually does something on climate to prove you wrong!
Joe, are you going to participate in the protest?
News from the Gulf:
http://blog.al.com/live/2011/08/scientists_oil_fouling_gulf_co.html
The 82% greater emissions figure is a comparison of “well to tank” numbers. The bulk of the emissions take place after that. A more appropriate comparison is “well to wheels”.
Depending on how the “conventional oil” that the tar sand oil is being compared to is produced and where it comes from, the tar sand oil results in 5 – 15% greater CO2 emissions. http://www.economist.com/node/17959688
When citing Dr. Hansen, who says if we burn the tar sand and shale oil and all the coal it is a “dead certainty” we will end life on Earth, bear in mind that he called for the negotiations at Copenhagen to fail because if they succeeded, it would be a disaster.
Coal emissions are greater per unit of energy than tar sand oil.
The way to deal with CO2 is by pricing CO2 emissions.
Ah, but don’t forget the full GHG impact — diverting natural gas that Could otherwise be used to displace coal.
I’m just wondering how to maximize the effect of the civil disobedience.
Stating the issue as this tar sand oil is 82% worse than conventional oil, i.e. saying that’s why we are protesting this to the point of getting arrested, seems liable to diminish the effect in the minds of the average citizen.
My study of Gandhi, and my own limited experience as a civilly disobedient protestor trying to raise awareness in the late 1980s over ozone depletion, suggests that the most powerful protest points to a truth all observers of those who are doing the sacrificing know. You step up saying you can’t stand aside any longer no matter what the consequences are, and say what’s on your mind.
I don’t think many realize how seriously ruthless Gandhi was – he called on his followers to press their protest home to the point of being killed. He called out to all who believed his tactics were wrong, to go ahead and use whatever tactics they thought were superior, because the issue, the independence of India, was so serious and urgent that it required all to act immediately. He just said he thought his tactics were superior. He nonviolence would win against the British because he thought the British public could not stand knowing that they could not continue to rule India unless their troops were prepared to mow down thousands upon on thousands of unarmed nonviolently protesting Indian citizens, that using this tactic would be far cheaper in terms of Indian lives lost than armed insurrection. A lot of other forces threw themselves into the issue.
I respect those who are putting themselves forward at this time on this issue. I don’t say I know what anyone should do. I came to believe that the kind of power these protestors are seeking comes from truth.