Tonight, 62 Senators voted for an amendment to the Fiscal 2014 Budget Resolution that attempts to give Congress the power to approve the Keystone pipeline. This is despite the fact that the pipeline would do nothing to make the country more energy independent, and would create far fewer jobs than its supporters claim.

While some conservatives may claim the pipeline would create “more than 20,000 direct jobs,” the most recent State Department impact assessment found that the pipeline would directly create only “3,900″ temporary construction jobs. After construction is complete, the operation of the pipeline would only support 35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs, with “negligible socioeconomic impacts.” Moreover, only 10 percent of the total workforce would be hired locally. For perspective, our country had 3.4 million green energy jobs in 2011 and it was the fastest-growing industry in the country.

The State Department’s report also made clear that at least some of the Keystone oil will be refined and then exported, in response “to lower domestic gasoline demand and continued higher demand and prices in overseas markets.” This means the pipeline adds nothing to U.S. energy security, a key talking point used by proponents. It also means that the pipeline is a way for the industry to get access to steeper oil prices in foreign markets. So why the intense push in the U.S. Senate to get this project approved?

Perhaps it has something to do with campaign contributions from the oil industry. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the 10 co-sponsors received $561,539 on average in contributions from the oil industry compared to the other 89 voting senators who received $224,777.

The budget is unlikely to make its way into law. CREDO Political Director Becky Bond said “the only thing today’s nonbinding, symbolic vote underscores on Keystone XL is the fact that this is President Obama’s decision alone and his alone.” LCV President Gene Karpinski said “Big Oil may have bought themselves this meaningless vote, but the decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline remains where it’s been all along — with Secretary Kerry and President Obama.”

By Michael Northrup, via Huffington Post (emphasis added)

Another thing about the Keystone XL pipeline: It will result in only 35 permanent jobs. – Ed.

So, why do we want President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry to approve construction of the Keystone pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico?

• Because it will allow Canada to double and then triple production of tar sands and send it to thirsty Asian consumers.

• Because it will encourage Wall Street to increase investment in tar sands mining; they’re worried now that increased amounts of tar sands can’t get out of Canada without more pipeline capacity. All the other new pipeline routes are currently being blocked by citizen campaigns in Canada and the U.S.

• Because, if we wait too much longer, Americans will realize this has nothing to do with U.S. energy security. In reality, only a small portion will be used in the United States. Oil companies can get a higher price for these fuels in Asia.

• Because it will allow Canada to say once and for all that it is no longer possible for their country to commit to a national greenhouse gas reduction target.

• Because it will create a strong incentive for Canada to continue obstructing international climate negotiations. Canada definitely doesn’t want to look like a laggard if others are moving forward. Far better to continue slowing the international process as it has been doing the last eight years.

• Because it will embolden Canadian oil industry and government representatives to continue interfering with American clean energy policymaking that offers incentives for cleaner fuels and vehicles.

Read more

Rio Grande del Norte in New Mexico

President Obama plans to use his executive authority to permanently protect five new national monuments next week.  This marks a significant step for the administration: It is now willing to step in and protect special places when Congress refuses to act.

The new monuments will be:

-  Rio Grande del Norte, in New Mexico

-  San Juan Islands, in Washington

-  First State, in Delaware

-  Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad, in Maryland

-  Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers, in Ohio

Of particular note is Rio Grande del Norte, which at 240,000 acres is the largest monument that the administration has designated thus far.  Also, First State National Monument in Delaware will change the fact that the state is the only one in the U.S. without a national park unit.

The announcement of these designations under the 1906 Antiquities Act fits well with President Obama’s challenge to Congress during his State of the Union address:  “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”  The last Congress was the first since World War II that failed to protect a single new acre of parks, monuments, or wilderness, despite millions of acres proposed for protection by adjacent communities.  As John Podesta, Chair of the Center for American Progress put it, “The last Congress was the most anti-environmental in history, so President Obama is right to respond to the calls of local communities that want their public lands protected.”

The permanent protection of hundreds of thousands of acres is also critical because it is the administration’s next step towards putting the conservation of public lands on equal ground with energy development. In the president’s first term, he leased 6.3 million acres of public lands to oil and gas companies, while only 2.6 million acres were protected by Congress and the executive combined.   Last month former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt called on the administration to permanently protect one acre for each one drilled.

Today’s news is welcome for any American who see the economic, health, and other long-term benefits of protected public lands, and is an important advancement for the president in the establishment of his conservation legacy.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

“Folks, last week, President Obama cynically used the inaugural address to push his radical pro-survival agenda. Folks, I didn’t think this part of his speech would get any traction, because there’s no national consensus on climate change. It’s like if JFK announced the Apollo program, but half the country denied the Moon exists.” -Stephen Colbert

“And reality has a well-known liberal bias.” -Stephen Colbert

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has a subpanel on the environment — and it has become a strange thing to watch this year.

Its new chairman is a climate denier. It scheduled a hearing about climate change featuring climate deniers but since most of Washington DC shut down for a blizzard that manifested itself in the city as a lot of rain, they postponed it. Other committees, like the House Energy and Commerce Committee, have been refusing to hold hearings on climate change. Therefore this subcommittee is becoming the only option to hear in person what the House of Representatives thinks about climate change (short of catching a one minute speech on the House floor from the Safe Climate Caucus).

On Wednesday, the subcommittee on the environment investigated the EPA’s Science Advisory Board. This is the EPA’s scientific body it consults as it writes regulations — such as clean air and fracking rules.

Last year, the House GOP introduced legislation to reform the board because it said there is not enough industry representation, and too many scientific experts on the board receive EPA grants. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse showed in 2008 how industry (i.e. ExxonMobil and Dow) can gain harmful influence over scientific panels. During this hearing, the members debated similar legislation for the new congress.

Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists testified that the draft bill would not help the integrity of the scientific process:

This draft bill contains provisions that would slow the work of the Scientific Advisory Board, remove longstanding and widely accepted practices for dealing with conflicts of interest and reduce the expertise of Scientific Advisory Board members.”

This debate appears to be more an instance of lawmakers seeing data they do not like, and going back to the drawing board to change the rules to get a different result. There is scientific consensus that humans cause climate change, that it is a serious threat to our civilization, and we need to act now.

Subcommittee Chairman Chris Stewart (R-UT) finished his statement noting he was just here to help: “If the EPA scientific process is viewed as being biased, or less than willing to consider every point of view, their credibility suffers.” This would have been more credible if he had not just introduced the EPA as a job-killing monster:

Whether it is promulgating air quality regulations that could shut down large swaths of the West, undertaking thinly veiled attacks on the safety of hydraulic fracturing, or pursuing job-killing climate regulations that will have no impact on the climate, EPA’s reputation as a lightning rod for controversy is well known here in Washington and throughout the country.

When a series of doctors tell a patient about a serious health condition, accusing the doctors of bias does not heal anything.

NOAA says this spring will be warmer than average for most of the U.S., with expanded drought conditions for large portions of the South and West, and river flooding expected to be worse than last year in the upper Midwest [NPR, Climate Central]

NOAA issued the three-month U.S. Spring Outlook today, stating that odds favor above-average temperatures across much of the continental United States, including drought-stricken areas of Texas, the Southwest and the Great Plains. Spring promises little drought relief for most of these areas, as well as Florida, with below-average spring precipitation favored there. Meanwhile, river flooding is likely to be worse than last year across the country, with the most significant flood potential in North Dakota.

Organizing for America, formed from Obama for America, has asked supporters to to sign a petition for a “clean budget” in the Senate, warning of Republican amendments “designed to destroy environmental protections and set back decades of progress.” [The Hill]

Sally Jewell’s nomination to become Secretary of the Interior was approved overwhelmingly by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee yesterday. [Washington Post]

Senator Roy Blunt filed a budget amendment requiring a 60-vote threshold for any carbon price legislation. [The Hill]

Another amendment filed by Senator Barasso would stop federal agencies from including greenhouse gas emissions from exporting fossil fuels in carbon rules. [The Hill]

The 2010 Icelandic volcanic eruption seeded the ocean with clouds of iron particles, which some geoengineering supporters say would reduce carbon dioxide levels, but a new study says it did no such thing. [Daily Climate]

Traffic increases carbon dioxide levels, and a new study finds it also increases chronic asthma cases in children. [LA Times]

Apple’s largest data center is now running on 100 percent renewable energy, increasing the proportion of renewable energy used by the entire company to 75 percent. [Reuters]

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is urging China — along with other countries with high emissions — to price carbon and stop subsidizing fossil fuels. [Wall Street Journal]

By a vote of 221-207, Republicans passed Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget for the third consecutive year. The House Republican budget slashes funding for poverty programs and dramatically transforms Medicare for seniors, all while it grants tax breaks to special interests like Big Oil.

Ryan’s budget could mean a $2.3 billion additional tax break for the five biggest oil companies, according to a Center for American Progress analysis. Republicans would still maintain the industry’s $4 billion annual tax breaks at the same time they slash research and investment in clean energy.

According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, Republicans who voted for Ryan’s budget have received more than $38 million from oil and gas over their careers. On average, the “yeas” received over four times the career oil cash as the “nays”:

Career contributions:

221 Yeas (221 Republicans) – $38,056,766

207 Nays (197 Democrats and 10 Republicans) – $7,830,295

The 221 members who voted yes received more than $12,400,000 in the 2012 cycle alone, compared to nearly $2 million for the no votes. The vote makes the 113th Congress no different from the 112th, when House members voting for a polluter energy package received $38.6 million.

Big Oil hardly needs the help from taxpayers. While consumers faced record gas prices in 2012, the oil industry earned an outstanding $118 billion profit (and a trillion dollars over a decade).