EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama: Reject the Tar Sands Pipeline
The seven members of Congress who signed a strongly worded letter to an Obama cabinet official on October 5 raised serious concerns about the administration's cozy relationship with a high-profile energy company.
"Rather than acting as fair arbiters of [the company's] application…State Department officials appear to have acted as little more than cheerleaders for the company's bid," Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Tim Ryan (D-OH), and the other lawmakers wrote.
Is this the newest development in the Solyndra solar company's loan-guarantee debacle? No. The seven lawmakers were concerned about an energy project with the potential to do much more damage than a loan guarantee for a failed solar start-up ever could.
The letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faults the State Department for failing to adequately consider the environmental impacts of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. It would run thousands of miles from the oil sands of northern Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast of Texas, crossing hundreds of miles of sensitive farmland and aquifers in America's heartland.
Reacting to the release of e-mails between State Department officials and representatives of TransCanada, the oil company in question, the legislators questioned what they saw as an apparent pro-pipeline bias at the State Department. That TransCanada's chief lobbyist formerly worked as Clinton's deputy campaign manager was already common knowledge, noted by critics who found the government too eager to allow the border-crossing pipeline to proceed. But the plot thickened further when The New York Times reported that the State Department allowed TransCanada to "solicit and screen bids for the environmental impact study" of the pipeline.
No wonder, then, that when the Environmental Protection Agency conducted its own review of the State Department's impact studies, they were deemed "inadequate" and "insufficient" in assessing the environmental risks along the pipeline's route. That's exactly what concerned ranchers, farmers, Native populations, and elected officials representing the affected communities have been saying along. And that's the crux of the representatives' letter.
"Agriculture in Nebraska, and the United States as a whole, depends on the Ogallala Aquifer for clean, fresh water to grow staple crops for the United States and the world," they wrote. "A spill into that aquifer would put that supply in danger, and devastate farmers and the rural economy."
Just last year, a similar Enbridge Energy pipeline in Michigan fouled a 35-mile stretch of the Kalamazoo River with more than 800,000 gallons of oil. The waterway remains closed to swimmers and boaters, with an estimated clean-up cost of as much as $700 million, according to documents that Enbridge filed with the Securities Exchange Commission. And as the Billings Gazette reported, the clean-up of a July spill from an ExxonMobil pipeline in Montana was complicated due to initial reticence from Exxon in disclosing whether its pipeline contained "medium crude" from Wyoming, or "more toxic Alberta tar sands crude" — the same fuel the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would transport — which is much more difficult to clean.
What's more, producing a barrel of tar sands oil generates three times the greenhouse gas emissions as a barrel of conventional oil, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Considering both the dangers to farmers and the rural economy in the heartland and the devastating climate risks associated with tar sands exploitation, the Keystone XL pipeline shouldn't be built.
However, the State Department is widely expected to officially sign off on the project by the end of this year. Even if that happens, President Barack Obama will make the final decision. As a candidate, he pledged to "end the tyranny of oil" in the United States. By siding with these concerned members of Congress and his own environmental agency and choosing to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, Obama could begin to make good on that pledge.
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...
18 Comments so far
Show AllThe author assumes that Obama makes these decisions. Obama manages the decisions made by corporate America.
Hoa binh
So when does O sign the deal ... The night before the Thanksgiving holiday ... or the night before the Christmas- New Years holiday?
.
On to occupy toxic waste.
Obama and his handlers are considering this policy hand grenade very carefully & thoughtfully:
Will he get more corporate $$$$ & support by demonstrating his resolute allegiance to the Pipeline or could it be more beneficial to him to delay it temporarily in order to try and fool those voters actually concerned about the environment?
It's a tough one.
Fortunately, the environmental risks to Amerikans or the threat of planetary global warming play no part in the calculations.
Yes, a foregone conclusion he will approve, since the only negatives are destruction of the environment and devastation of actual people. OUR only question is what will we do next?
Yup, Obama is a monster.
I said a long time ago, that for anyone who wants to research it; Bo has already approved the pipeline.
1492 has it correct, Obama is just a puppet of the corportocracy.
Fossil fuels are all market failures - if the direct cost of environmental degradation, disease and death are rightly placed on these fuels, rather than on the community, they would cost much more than they could be sold for. You really have to be a communists to support fossil fueled energy.
In a government, of, by and for the people, we the 99% are the owners. We should fire all our politicians and rule the country ourselves.
Direct democracy
___________________________________
FORGET ABOUT OBAMA! He's a complete waste of time.
Hi there,
As I have posted on this subject on another thread, having grown up in Fort McMurray, which is where that tarsand is coming from, my ears always perk up when it is the subject of discussion. I thought I would mention a few things that I think people may not really understand.
First, I can assure you that you have already been burning gas and diesel made from tarsands for more than 30 years now in addition to using plastics made from the sand, and etc. (Sunoco is one example) This pipeline may change the destination slightly but there already exists pipelines that take Alberta oil and send it on to the US (through Montana I believe).
Second, NAFTA guaranteed the US essentially free access to the resources of Canada and today none of the firms mining the tarsand are Canadian. Exxon owns Syncrude, Sunoco owns Suncor, Shell has a plant, there are a couple from China, etc.
Third, back in the 80's the output was something like 100,000 barrels per day, today I believe it is more like 1,000,000 (I am only going from memory here so I could be off by a bit) and that oil is going someplace whether this pipeline gets built or not.
Now I am not saying don't oppose this pipeline, in fact I think it is smart to be very cautious about energy, but I am saying that you should not delude yourself into thinking that opposing this pipeline means that the tarsands won't be developed or that it will even prevent the tarsand crude to be used in the US. A lot of what I read regarding this subject seems to be rather inconsequential in nature and mostly chasing after shadows rather than substance and if one is going to oppose it, one should do so from a position of knowledge rather than simply stabbing out blindly.
"Blind stabbing" is more descriptive of extreme oil extraction (shale fracking, tar sands, deep water drilling) practices than opposition to it. "Game over" for climate change is not inconsequential.
Actually the history of the oilsands is quite instructive and it was never blind stabbing to find it as it is right there on the surface. If the subject interests you it is actually a pretty interesting to read the history of Sidney Ells Bitumount project and Karl Clarks efforts to find a way to get the oil out of the sand, as well as the many colourful characters that tried, and failed, to find the pools of oil under the sand.
While it is true that game over for the planet is not inconsequential, blocking this pipeline only affects who gets the profits, not whether the oilsands becomes fully developed. The plants there have continued to expand and the projected output by 2015 is 3 million barrels per day (I have my doubts on that one but that is what it was a year or two ago). That is what I mean by inconsequential. Last winter, for example, Idaho or Montana refused to allow a certain piece of equipment on their roads because it was incorrectly permitted. That was celebrated as a triumph. The only consequence was that the piece of machinery sat for a month in winter in a nice warm state rather than at -45C in northern Alberta. Since they do not do construction projects like that in the winter, it arrived, once the paperwork was done, in plenty of time to fulfill its' role and did not experience the frigid cold temperatures that are so hard on such machines. The victory was entirely illusory. If the goal of blocking this pipeline is to prevent the oilsands from being developed, good luck. That would only be true if this was the only pipeline and that a pipeline was the only way to get the oil from Canada to the US. Neither of those conditions are true.
Also, one thing that is not well understood is that the Alberta tarsands, even though it is thought to have contained 800 billion barrels of oil (not all recoverable), is only the second largest oilsand deposit in the world. The largest is in Venezuela at 1 trillion barrels (about half recoverable) and is almost untapped so far due to difficulties with refining it since it is so heavy. Once that technical hurdle has been overcome, which is also inevitable, Venezuela will have as much oil reserves as all of the conventional oil reserves on the planet today.
So if you believe that blocking this pipeline makes any impact on the carbon bomb that has been dropping for decades already, I am all ears. If, as I believe, the only thing this pipeline does is to change the hands that make the money (further enriching the Koch brothers it appears) then yes, this pipeline is utterly insignificant in terms of the more serious impact to the planet.
.
Support Fee and Dividend, Oppose TransCanada's
Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Canadian Arctic Loses Nearly Entire Ice Shelf" by Associated Press, September 30, 2011:
Two ice shelves that existed before Canada was settled by Europeans diminished significantly this northern summer, one nearly disappearing altogether, Canadian scientists say in newly published research.
The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say.
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Canadian Arctic Loses Nearly Entire Ice Shelf" by Associated Press, September 30, 2011:
Floating icebergs that have broken free as a result pose a risk to offshore oil facilities and potentially to shipping lanes.
The breaking apart of the ice shelves also reduces the environment that supports microbial life, and changes the look of Canada's coastline.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/09/30-5
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Ottawa Action Kills Notion of Ethical Oil", by Curtis Morrison, Waging Nonviolence, September 30, 2011:
According to Article 32 of the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Harper is required to cooperate in good faith to obtain:
free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting
their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection
with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other
resources.
“We’ve been informed and we do not consent.” said Chief Jackie Thomas of the Saik’uz First Nation, to the crowd during the rally. Her Nation is one of five nations making up the Yinka Dene Alliance. Enbridge Pipeline offered to give the Alliance a 10-per-cent ownership stake in the proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline, and the Alliance declined.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/30-6
* * * * *
My Comment:
It would be great if the Barack Obama administration or the Stephen Harper government would put a stop to the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline or the pipeline was somehow blocked by other means.
The Yinka Dene Alliance has rejected Enbridge Pipeline’s offer to give the Alliance a 10-per-cent ownership stake in the proposed North Gateway pipeline project from the Alberta tar sands to Kitimat, British Columbia. But that is unlikely to deter Enbridge.
When the Arctic Ocean becomes largely free of sea ice year round, there will also be an incentive to build a tars sands pipeline from Alberta to Port Churchill, Manitoba on the Hudson Bay.
On August 20, 2009, the U.S. State Department issued a presidential permit for an Alberta Clipper Pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin. The pipeline will be capable of carrying up to 450,000 barrels of crude oil a day to refineries in the U.S.
Clearly, a more comprehensive approach to preventing extensive exploitation of the Alberta tar sands, as well as reducing our dependence on other fossil fuels energy sources, is needed.
Canadians and USans need to overcome the opposition within their respective countries to government action to counter global warming, catastrophic climate change and the direct destruction of the environment, and force their governments to enact Fee and Dividend legislation.
.
.
Support Fee and Dividend, Oppose TransCanada's
Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline
- - - - -
Excerpt from "A Primer on Class Struggle" by Michael Schwalbe, Common Dreams, March 13, 2011:
"The most important arena outside the workplace is government, because it’s here that the rules of the game are made, interpreted, and enforced. When we look at how capitalists try to use government to protect and advance their interests -- and at how other groups resist -- we are looking at class struggle."
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/31-4
* * * * *
My Comment:
Support Fee and Dividend
How about getting nasty and forcing the U.S. Congress to pass Fee and Dividend legislation that puts an economy wide premium on the cost of fossil carbon products collected at the point of importation or extraction, where the proceeds from the fee are periodically returned to the people throughout the year?
Placing a premium on the cost of fossil carbon products through a Fee and Dividend system is the best approach to reducing fossil carbon emissions.
Fee and Dividend is specifically designed to protect the poor and the middle class (what's left of it) from the rising cost of fossil carbon and to enable them more directly to participate in the choice of alternatives to fossil carbon consumption, including their own efforts to manage their consumption through conservation and lifestyle changes, by adding a large premium to the cost of fossil carbon through the payment of a fee by corporations that import or extract fossil carbon, and then distributing the proceeds of that fee as a dividend to the people in the form of periodic payments during the year.
Sure, corporations may still obtain windfall profits on steeply rising oil prices as the market price changes due to fluctuations in "available" supply, speculation, and the dynamics of peak oil; but the large premium added to the cost of fossil carbon products as a result of the fee is transferred from corporations to the people as a dividend. Corporate windfall profits on fossil carbon based energy should be taxed separately.
The fee adds a stable and predictable premium to the cost of fossil carbon. Usually, Fee and Dividend proposals include provisions for the steady increase in the amount of the fee on fossil carbon importation and extraction with the passage of time. Presumably, the increase in the fee per unit of fossil carbon will correspond with reductions in fossil carbon consumption as more alternatives are developed. The initial fee should be large enough to make current alternatives economically attractive and to encourage the development of new alternatives.
Rather than simply letting large corporations manage the increase in fossil carbon costs and the development of alternatives for consumers in ways which perpetuate corporate control, Fee and Dividend puts money in the hands of the people, who can then more easily make their own choices regarding alternatives to fossil carbon consumption including conservation and lifestyle changes.
Instead of a "trickle down" approach Fee and Dividend transfers money from corporations to people; giving people the "carrot" that works with the fee based premium on the cost of fossil carbon "stick" to generate market incentives for the development of innovative alternatives.
Given what was once a consumer driven economy, the great disparities in wealth and income in the United States, and the fact that large corporations are essentially withholding $2 trillion in liquid assets from the real economy, just about any transfer of the ill gotten gains of wealthy people and wealthy corporations to the middle class and the poor is more likely to stimulate the economy and generate jobs than another tax break for wealthy people, the super rich and large wealthy corporations. When that transfer of funds also puts a premium on the price of fossil carbon, then there is an additional incentive favoring the development of a healthy economy.
Fee and Dividend in a Nutshell
1. Corporations and other types of businesses that import or
extract fossil carbon pay a fossil carbon fee per unit of fossil
carbon and choose whether or not to pass on the increased
cost to consumers or possibly develop a new line of business.
2. Corporations and other types of businesses choose whether
or not to pay the increased cost of fossil carbon and
other products and pass on the increased cost to consumers or
find more suitable alternatives.
3. People periodically receive the proceeds from the fossil carbon
fee as dividend payments, which buffer the impact on them of
the increase in fossil carbon prices due to the fossil carbon
fee and enable them more easily to purchase alternatives.
4. People choose whether or not to pay the increased cost of fossil
carbon and other products or find more suitable alternatives
using what funds they have available including funds from fossil
carbon dividend payments as they see fit.
Fee and Dividend is the approach to putting a premium on the price of fossil carbon that is favored by NASA climatologist James Hansen and many economists.
If Canadians get nasty too, maybe they can force their government to enact Fee and Dividend legislation.
Canadians and USans need to overcome the opposition within their respective countries to government action to counter global warming, catastrophic climate change and the direct destruction of the environment, and force their governments to enact Fee and Dividend legislation.
.
Obama? What's he got to do with anything?
Corporate poisoning of the Ogallala Aquifer is controlled by Two Brothers...
Obama will not only approve the project, he will order the assassination of anyone who protests or obstructs the pipeline construction.
.
Excerpt from "Obama: Reject the Tar Sands Pipeline" by Andrew Korfhage, OtherWords, October 21, 2011:
However, the State Department is widely expected to officially sign off on the project by the end of this year. Even if that happens, President Barack Obama will make the final decision. As a candidate, he pledged to "end the tyranny of oil" in the United States. By siding with these concerned members of Congress and his own environmental agency and choosing to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, Obama could begin to make good on that pledge.
* * * * *
My Comment:
Andrew Korfhage must have a taste for understatement.
Barack Obama will have to do a lot more than deny TransCanada a permit for the KeyStone XL tar sands pipeline to even begin to make good on his campaign pledge to "end the tyranny of oil" in the United States.
As Obama deliberately ignores what must be done and continues to service the interests and needs of wealthy people, and the wealthy corporations they control, including oil corporations; perhaps more and more people will realize that the phrase "tyranny of oil" in not a metaphor but a fact of life, and join the struggle to end the tyranny of those who profit from oil.
.