Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
State Department's Environmental Analysis Gives Pipeline an Initial Green Light
WASHINGTON - The U.S. State Department says TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline poses no major risks to the environment and will not spur further oilsands production in Alberta, moving the controversial project one step further to a final decision by the Obama administration.
The State Dept. report was not a surprise to the American environmental movement, for whom opposition to the pipeline has become a passionate rallying cry in the aftermath of failed climate change legislation last year. (Photo: Ben Powless for Tar Sands Action/CC BY) Insisting repeatedly that its long-awaited assessment was "not a rubberstamp," the department's Kerri-Ann Jones said Friday there's no evidence the pipeline will significantly impact the six U.S. states in its path as it carries crude from northern Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries in Texas.
"This is not the rubberstamp for this project," said Jones, disputing several big American environmental groups who immediately decried it as such.
"The permit that is required for this project has not been approved or rejected at all ... it should not be seen as a lean in any direction either for or against this pipeline. We are in a state of neutrality."
Canadian officials intend to continue to develop technologies that will lessen the greenhouse gas emissions associated with oilsands production, according to the analysis.
"We are working closely with them," Jones told a conference call in the U.S. capital. "We closely follow what's going on in terms of international regulations in this area."
She added that oilsands production will continue with or without the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Obama administration now has 90 days to determine whether the controversial project is in the national interest of the United States. In that determination, Jones said, State Department officials will consider the environmental assessment as well as the economic impact of the pipeline and "foreign policy concerns."
The outcome wasn't a surprise to the American environmental movement, for whom opposition to the pipeline has become a passionate rallying cry in the aftermath of failed climate change legislation last year.
Leading environmentalists say the State Department has refused to fully assess the risks.
The Natural Resources Defense Council accused the State Department of failing to study pipeline safety measures or examine alternate routes that would avoid the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska, a crucial source of water in the state.
In fact, the State Department report said TransCanada needed to conduct more study, and possibly add more anti-spill precautions, around the aquifer.
Jones add that alternative routes had also been studied.
"We feel that the proposed route of the applicant is the preferred route ... alternative routes were either worse or similar," she said.
The NRDC's Susan Casey-Lefkowitz expressed dismay at the State Department's assessment in a statement.
"It is utterly beyond me how the administration can claim the pipeline will have 'no significant impacts' if they haven’t bothered to do in-depth studies around the issues of contention," she said.
"The public has made their concerns clear and the administration seems to have ignored them. If permitted, the proposed Keystone XL tarsands pipeline will be a dirty legacy that will haunt President Obama and Secretary Clinton for years to come."
Jim Lyon, senior vice-president of the National Wildlife Federation, said the analysis was "strike 3 for the State Department" after two "failed rounds" of environmental review and warned of legal woes ahead.
"The document still fails to address the key concerns for landowners and wildlife," he said. "It is almost certain to be scrutinized in other venues, including a probable legal challenge. This only escalates the controversy in a process that is far from over."
The State Department analysis comes as anti-pipeline activists continue a two-week civil disobedience campaign outside the White House.
More than 300 people, including Canadian actress Margot Kidder, have been arrested as they try to convince U.S. President Barack Obama to block the pipeline. As many as 54 more were arrested on Friday.
Environmental activists say Keystone XL is a disaster waiting to happen, pointing to several recent spills along pipelines, and are opposed to Alberta's oilsands due to the high levels of greenhouse gas emissions involved in their production.
Proponents, meantime, say the pipeline will create thousands of jobs and help end U.S. reliance on Middle Eastern oil.
TransCanada president Russ Girling welcomed the State Department report.
"Support for Keystone XL continues to grow because the public, opinion leaders and elected officials can see the clear benefits that this pipeline will deliver to Americans," he said in a news release.
"The fundamental issue is energy security. Through the Keystone system, the U.S. can secure access to a stable and reliable supply of oil from Canada where we protect human rights and the environment, or it can import more higher-priced oil from nations who do not share America's interests or values."

60 Comments so far
Show AllWhere is Al Gore?
Yeah. Where IS Al Gore?
he's still hunting Man Bear Pig.
Some one has to stay out of jail...
:-)
Ha! Ha! ... funny, good point though, LJG100 ...or who would be left to fight?
OMG.... I'm hearing trhat blond for the oil companies spew her propaganda about oil and gas.... I freakin' hate that commercial.....I know a lot of people here do not have TV...my husband and kids would not go with out it... but it does give me a chance to compare and critique various news..... I do like MSNBC.... even though they still go not go quite far enough... but they are close....
Who cares? This just in....
The Obama administration gave an important approval yesterday to a controversial pipeline that will pump oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the Texas coast.
In a blow to campaigners, who have spent the last week at a sit-in at the White House, the State Department said the proposed 1,700-mile pipeline would not cause significant damage to the environment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/26/obama-approves-pipeline-alberta-texas
The White House just doesn't care a whit about what the non-Tea Party Americans want.
We are as dust in the wind and our opinions don't make any difference at all.
Remember, remember next November. Don't let the well-financed PR machine make you forget.
Some environmentalists are calling for an alternate route. A different route is NOT a solution. Oil sands is a corpse. Leave it where it lies.
Shocked, shocked I am that the Obama administration would place the interests of oil companies above those of human beings and the biosphere.
What's truly amazing about Obama is how he can service so many special interests at the same time: bankers, the MIC, oil, coal and nuclear interests, Wall Street, Big Pharma, the health insurance industry, you name it.
He's like a political porn star, humping and sucking away with a corrupt interest stuffed into every available orifice at all times.
Regrettably, he's still got fluffers volunteering left and right.
Yup!
He's the Tiger Woods of politics and we the people are getting f'd up real bad.
Environmentalists fight an uphill battle with increasing overpopulation, resource depletion and concentrating wealth/power
Yes. - Now it's uphill all the way down.
Stephen Lacey has a good article about this over at Climate Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/26/305591/ignoring-climate-change-state-department-report-concludes-keystone-xl-has-no-significant-impacts/#more-305591
Last month Wikileaks revealed collusion between the State Department and Canadian tar-sands developers, prompting this response from an angry Bill McKibben:
"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."
Did anyone honestly expect anything different?
Honestly, no. But that is not stopping me and others from joining the protest. In fact, the very expectation is one of the key motivations.
What do you expect from a government that daily shows that it is no more than a mouthpiece for the fascist oligarchy that has bought this country and government for a song, lock, stock and barrel and, like any predatory company, is dismantling it, raiding its pension funds, selling off its hardware and stock to enrich their own coffers?
When the destruction is complete, they will go on to other ventures, never even looking back on the devastation they have caused.
"Nothing personal, it's just business."
"...a legacy that will haunt President Obama and Secretary Clinton for years to come." If only the horrific things that our politicians do would haunt them for years we would be in a much better place. There will be no haunting - they are soul-less beings who are completely comfortable with their riches and future rewards bestowed for their part in the destruction.
When will our "leaders" begin to value the rights of future generations? When will there be leadership that says " This is enough." To argue that tar sands extraction, the delivery of the oil and its ultimate use, does not pose a significant threat to the planet- is insane. To approve this pipeline is criminal.
My comment from the "sheep" thread is apropos here:
Yet another example of the utter end-game shamelessness of today's corporatists and their puppets.
We need some utter end-game PRIDE, to get ourselves to stand up BAMN and no matter what it takes, to wrest power from these murderous wolves who no longer bother to wear sheep's clothing.
No this does not surprise me one bit, either. This administration is no better than the Cheney-Bush administration, it is only disguised a bit better-or was. How on earth can I vote for this pesident again? The sad thing is that for the first time I will be literally looking to vote AGAINST someone else who represents something even darker, the Far-right/Tea Party movement, which right now owns the Republican Party (see Perry, Rick or Bachmann, Michelle, for more info on that). And that is the one thing I despise even thinking I have to do, unless I just say the Hell with it and write in Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, or Alan Grayson.
With Wall St bail outs tax cut extensions,Drone attacks increasing, Libya,etc., and now apparently this kiss-up to big oil, what else can Obama do to screw me/us over? Answer=not much.
It is NOT saying the Hell with it to "write in Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, or Alan Grayson". Don't allow the Dems to spin away your vote by saying, "But look what will happen if you don't vote for us".
It cannot get any worse. So vote your conscience. Always vote your conscience. To Hell with expediency.
Where is Jack Layton?..Just a test....Rest his soul......
Thomas
You could see this coming, couldn't you? The arguments will be: 1. National security: we will be less dependent on uncertain oil from other countries. 2. The harmlessness of the pipeline--it constitutes no danger to the environment. 3. The oil will be taken out anyway--why shouldn't the US get it? 4. Canada is our neighbor--how we could stiff them when we have such a close relationship? 5. Politics: Canadian oil will mean cheaper gas--and that by itself constitutes the most obvious reason for building the pipeline.
The arguments opposing the pipeline do not have much traction in the United States: 1. Environmental damage in extracting and processing the oil. 2. Likelihood of accidents--both natural and man-made--in transporting tons of oil through the pipeline. 3. The pipeline only reinforces our dependence on fossil fuel, dirty fossil fuel at that.
I am NOT saying opposition is not worth doing, but I am saying it was a foregone conclusion that the pipeline would be accepted by the various agencies charged with approving the project. The only way projects like this pipeline will be overturned will be through the market--gas has to get so expensive that consumers will get their transportation by some other means. Wind-power electricity and electric vehicles seem the most likely replacements for petroleum-based transportation to me.
The Seattle Mariners are in last place in their division. More people drive to the game than all the pipeline protesters in DC. Look at any freeway, walk into any mall or box store. Most folk don't give a damn about the environment. If we could only convert the seemingly endless quantities of bull shit produced in DC to energy we could quickly end our dependence on foreign oil.
All the major diverse and competing environmental groups in the US issued a common statement opposing the pipeline and supporting the Tar Sands Action. Now if that momentary cessation of territoriality could be developed into a stronger and more permanent coalition, that would be something.
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/nations-largest-environmental-organizations-stand-together-to-oppose-oil-pipeline/
The fundamental issue is climate security. Through the keystone system, the US can secure access to a means of flooding the atmosphere with more carbon emissions, from Canada, weaken human rights, and use climate change to make war on the entire world, the poor and the environment. The increased monetary and environmental costs of the oil will eventually beggar the entire economy, and make it impossible to afford development of sustainable alternatives. Climate change takes precedence over oil security. Having a future takes precedence over killing it now. The proponents of the pipeline are world killers and must be stopped at all costs.
Why in the hell was the State Department studying it. Why not the CIA or Defense Dept? Seriously, don't we have a Dept of Interior and an EPA. And, I guess the bloated Homeland Security Dept. has no concern about dangers to the natural environment that sustains our life.
Lots of contractors doing pipeline security in Iraq...bet they never thought this line of work could lead to a career.
The State Department is being run by the Zionist Lackey-In-Chief.
Remember that "Hellary" also said recently that the melting of the Arctic Ice presents a new opportunity for gaining access to areas in that region that can exploited for oil and minerals. There was no mention by this shill of the enormous environmental damage and the threats to future generations that this melting represents. I grow more despairing that we are "lead" by soulless corporate whores who simply don't care about the externalities of their horrible policies. And she still thinks that she might get to be President someday.
As to alternatives ---- why have I never yet seen mention of an Italian physicist named Rossi who claims to be ready to market an energy producing product based on the "discredited" work of Pons and Fleischman back in 1989? Unless there is some kind of grand hoax at play or unless his work is somehow buried by the interests now providing fossil fuels all of this is unnessesary. Check out LENR/CANR energy at Google. A whole new world awaits. Also read Wired magazine article about "Cold Fusion" published 6/11/11. It is quite interesting. dh
Here we go again ... technology will save us while we continue to live an unsustainable lifestyle. More precisely, a capitalist consumption lifestyle where capital growth needs to be compounded at 3% per year - forever.
Please stop this nonsense.
"The fundamental issue is energy security. Through the Keystone system, the U.S. can secure access to a stable and reliable supply of oil from Canada where we protect human rights and the environment, or it can import more higher-priced oil from nations who do not share America's interests or values."
Protect human rights and the environment? America's interests or values? Is that an oxymoron I see before me? Ye Gods...they just lie and lie, don't they!
As an aside, but here in the UK I know people with diesel cars who use vegetable cooking oil in their tanks now for fuel. It's half the price of diesel and much better for the environment. A bit of a well-known secret, but worth passing on. :D
National Geographic ran an article suggesting that a lot of this oil getting piped to Texas may end up getting shipped to China:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/08/110819-keystone-xl-canadian-oil-and-chinese-market. Kinda reminds me of the fact that mountaintop removal is not necessarily about meeting supposed energy demands for the U.S., but also about producing coal for export abroad: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Mining-the-Mountain.html. So, it's about making money for certain corporations, endangering lives and livelihoods of countless people living here, more than it is about meeting energy needs.
It's all about the spin isn't it. Thanks for the links. I guess some of those jobs it'll be creating are in marketing and shipping to China. Or perhaps temporary clean up jobs when the pipeline leaks.
I just read this article published by AlJazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/08/201182519415657837.html. The article quotes someone as speculating that the China market wouldn't have much to do with the oil from Canada because China doesn't have much refining capacity. However, the author of the article seems to forget that Texas, especially in the southeast part on the Gulf, is home to quite a lot of oil refineries (some of the biggest in the world). All one has to do after the oil is refined is send it on its merry way via tanker to whatever destination it's intended to reach. Anyway, it's not like China or other nations interested in getting at more oil (including the U.S., of course) wouldn't be able to build more refineries if the supply of crude increased. In fact, there are probably more than a few oil industry types already salivating at the prospects of increasing oil infrastructure, not just in Canada but, as you point out, in the realms of shipping and marketing. Increasing the cost of oil production just allows the oil companies to pass along the cost to their customers. Isn't that convenient? The oil companies were the same about Iraq - the more the cost of the operation of finding and extracting the oil, the more they could charge for their product. What do the oil company upper managements care if it's more expensive to get oil from location A than B when they can find ways to eliminate the costs for them? As long as demand for oil keeps increasing, the oil company upper managements will never see any of the monetary costs for their business (I don't think they'll ever see the human or environmental costs, regardless, even though the oil companies do hire and abuse undocumented and/or underpaid workers aplenty here in the States).
Energy security means rationing scarce and diminishing oil and gas to the big machinery that produces and delivers food - and to other 'essential services.'
It means changing lifestyles and jobs.
The drivel emanating from the State Department and Trans Canada Pipelines is just that, and a recent editorial in the New York Times said as much.
I don't yet see any mass movement to change lifestyles and jobs in anything like a meaningful way, and I'm not sure there is even a basic awareness out there in our ill-informed and self-absorbed citizenry, where the democratic right to spew nonsense is confused with real information.
This is not any kind of a "New Age" - it is a Dark Age, and getting darker by the hour.
From Fukushima to Europe to Texas to Chile and back to China and the Middle East/North Africa - a black eye for humanity - and all too soon - we'll all be on life support - many of us actually dead.
That's a normal evolutionary response to mal-adaption and perversity, by the way.
It's actually surprisingly easy to die, or go extinct.
Manysummits
====
Given Obama's environmental track record I think we can be pretty sure how he's going to rule on this one. The article barely mentioned the amount of greenhouse gasses that will be a byproduct of the tarsands production. Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? Oh that's right, Obama doesn't really care about climate change. And possible spills -- who cares, it's just the environment and its pesky wild inhabitants that will suffer. Another stupid idea putting us on the fast-track to extinction.
"no major risks"
"no significant impacts"
Very scientific and precise!
So, what are "acceptable levels" of petroleum pollution and excesss carbon emissions these days?
"Acceptable levels" based upon risk assessment are always right!
No problems here.
Yeah, we all know how competent the goddam State Dept, is when evaluating environmental matters. Of course, Obummer will use this as a means of trying to deflect the outrage when he sells out to Big Oil and OKs the XL pipeline. What a shameless disgrace he is.
Are there ten percent of us who can think straight?
I'd be surprised!
What is one to make of all that has been happening in our lifetimes?
We talk a lot here, some hoping for some form of revolution.
Even if it happens, which I imagine it will, we are faced with the unpleasant fact that the revolution itself is proof positive that all systems have failed save the survival instinct.
Our vaunted civilizations - reduced as it were, to what?
Manysummits
======
_______________________________________
This is hardly a surprise. Our outage needs to be in the form of serious and persistent direct action campaigns. Whining about it incessantly is not a solution, and can in fact distract us from taking meaningful action. We need to organize in our own communities, by congressional district. We need to take ACTION in our own communities, and at some point begin to network with each other in concerted actions. It DOES NOT HAVE TO ALWAYS BE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. In fact that is a counterproductive strategy, for a variety of reasons.
"The fundamental issue is energy security. Through the Keystone system, the U.S. can secure access to a stable and reliable supply of oil from Canada where we protect human rights and the environment,.." And Canada's a lot closer to invade if if they don't play nice.
If you don’t like this administration’s growing list of disfunctional and deregulated business policies, then do not vote for them. What are they doing to make living in the US desirable? Obama does not deserve your vote.
"and possibly add more anti-spill precautions, around the aquifer."
You think?
Is this the same State Department that threatened US citizens that were participating with the Gaza Aid boats, the same department that felt dropping bombs on Libya was a humanitarian act? We should all note Hillary's part in our recent history.
If we get enough in the way of hurricanes, maybe there won't be any refineries around to process the goo from Canada.
This morning I learned from a newspaper article that there already exists a Keystone pipeline from Hardisty, Canada to Steele, St Louis, Patoka, and Cushing, USA but the article did not tell me how old it is and how many spills have occurred. Can someone provide me with that information?
We need the oil.
Our modern society in completely dependent upon oil.
What is the problem with this writer and people like her. She must be a trust fund child.
Until oil as an energy source becomes defunct, modern society will need and use oil. There is no alternative unless modern society is shut down.
Do you deny the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels on the earth's climate?
See:
Jerry Cope: Interview: James Hansen on the Tar Sands Pipeline Protest, the Obama Administration and Intergenerational Justice
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/james-hansen-on-climate-t_b_932512.html
James Hansen: Obama's Canada trip defines our critical carbon moment | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/17/barack-obama-canada-climate-change
James Hansen Speaks Out Against Tar Sands: Take Action Now! | Climate Connections
http://climate-connections.org/2011/06/06/james-hansen-speaks-out-against-tar-sands-take-action-now/]