Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Scientists Confirm: Arctic Sea Ice 'Collapse' at Our Door
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- Worse Than Obama's Kill List? American Support for It
- Genetically Engineered Meat, Coming Soon to a Supermarket Near You
- Nearly 50 Climate Activists Arrested Outside Obama's White House
- Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question?
- A Presidential Decision That Could Change the World: The Strategic Importance of Keystone XL
- Watch a City-Sized Glacier Collapse
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- DOJ Kill List Memo Forces Many Dems Out of the Closet as Overtly Unprincipled Hacks
Popular content
Today's Top News
Silence Is Deadly: I’m Speaking Out Against Canada-U.S. Tar Sands Pipeline
The U.S. Department of State seems likely to approve a huge pipeline, known as Keystone XL to carry tar sands oil (about 830,000 barrels per day) to Texas refineries unless sufficient objections are raised. The scientific community needs to get involved in this fray now. If this project gains approval, it will become exceedingly difficult to control the tar sands monster. The environmental impacts of tar sands development include: irreversible effects on biodiversity and the natural environment, reduced water quality, destruction of fragile pristine Boreal Forest and associated wetlands, aquatic and watershed mismanagement, habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, disruption to life cycles of endemic wildlife particularly bird and Caribou migration, fish deformities and negative impacts on the human health in downstream communities. Although there are multiple objections to tar sands development and the pipeline, including destruction of the environment in Canada, and the likelihood of spills along the pipeline’s pathway, such objections, by themselves, are very unlikely to stop the project.
An overwhelming objection is that exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts. The tar sands are estimated (e.g., see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) to contain at least 400 GtC (equivalent to about 200 ppm CO2). Easily available reserves of conventional oil and gas are enough to take atmospheric CO2 well above 400 ppm, which is unsafe for life on earth. However, if emissions from coal are phased out over the next few decades and if unconventional fossil fuels including tar sands are left in the ground, it is conceivable to stabilize earth’s climate.
Phase out of emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix, it is essentially game over. There is no practical way to capture the CO2 emitted while burning oil, which is used principally in vehicles.
Governments are acting as if they are oblivious to the fact that there is a limit on how much fossil fuel carbon we can put into the air. Fossil fuel carbon injected into the atmosphere will stay in surface reservoirs for millennia. We can extract a fraction of the excess CO2 via improved agricultural and forestry practices, but we cannot get back to a safe CO2 level if all coal is used without carbon capture or if unconventional fossil fuels, like tar sands are exploited.
A document describing the pipeline project is available here. Comments, due by 6 June, can be submitted here, or by e–mail to keystonexl@cardno.com or mail to Keystone XL EIS Project, P.O. Box 96503–98500, Washington, DC 20090–6503 or fax to 202–269–0098.
I am submitting a comment that the analysis is flawed and insufficient, failing to account for important information regarding human–made climate change that is now available. I note that prior government targets for limiting human–made global warming are now known to be inadequate. Specifically, the target to limit global warming to 2oC, rather than being a safe “guardrail,” is actually a recipe for global climate disasters. I will include drafts of the following papers that I recently co–authored:
Paleoclimate Implications for Human–Made Climate Change that can be found here,
Earth’s Energy Imbalance that can be found here, and
The Case for Young People and Nature that can be found here.
I will also comment that the tar sands pipeline project does not serve the national interest, because it will result in large adverse impacts, on the public and wildlife, by contributing substantially to climate change. These impacts must be evaluated before the project is considered further.
It is my impression and understanding that a large number of objections could have an effect and help achieve a more careful evaluation, possibly averting a huge mistake.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


55 Comments so far
Show AllBelow is the letter that I sent. I feel that it is important to remain polite and to ask to be placed on their mailing list about hearings and documents issued in the process of making the final decision and to request a copy of the final decision. I included my mailing address.
Dear Decisionmakers;
Please follow NEPA guidelines in evaluating the Keystone XL project. This includes immediate impacts on human and non-human life. This includes cumulative impacts from how this project adds to other projects that impact the human and non-human life.
Among the impacts that need to be evaluated are the damage to downstream water quality at the site of extraction and along the pipeline route, the effects on aquatic, terrestrial life, and migratory bird species. Also needed to be evaluated are effects on farming and other human activities along the pipeline route.
A cumulative impact needing evaluation is effect on the atmosphere and the near and long term effect on life on earth through the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere and the destruction of CO2 capturing forest both on site and along the route of the pipeline.
Please place me on your mailing list for the decision document and other documents and hearings pertaining to this issue.
Sincerely,
Here are two links for interesting reading. One is about the dangers of the Arctic ice melting off and methane gas releasing and the other is about geothermal energy benefits.
ttp://www.planetextinction.com/index.html
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html
Yes scribe and that was just in the Siberian Shelf area of the Arctic.
In 2009 they conducted many very precise and technical studies and determined there were a trillion tons of methane gas in that area of the Arctic alone. Several trillion tons are estimated in the entire Arctic region.
Drs Shakova and Semiletov led the ISSS teams of 400 scientists from all around the globe and most were Earth scientists, Geologists, Ocena bio-chemists, many having earned Phds and they did hands on, on site research, not computer modeling. What happened to them?
Thak you for the link scribe.
I'm sure Fukushima will be in ALL of the news at some time this year and we are not going to like hearing that news... It is far, far worse than they are releasing. They are scared shitless and that's becaues they don't have any idea at all of what to do. It is quite obvious it is totlally out of control.
That report of Dr. Semiletov is really old news and all I can find too. His 2009 Arctic methane report was published in the March 5, 2010 edition of Journal Science and it was grim. Not a peep from the ISSS since then. Someone must have gagged them.
Dr. Semiletov has been doing research of the Arctic methane for about 30 years and I cannot beleve he would just up and stop. He had 400 other scientist working with him... Maybe they are all trying to leave the planet? .
Drs. Semiletov and Shakova are both Russian but are American citizens and both are professors at the U of Alaska , Fairbanks. But Russia most likely has a great deal of influence on the issue.