.
Greens call out Keystone XL deal
“It’s bulls—,” said Sierra Club President Michael Brune. “This is no way to run a government. We’ve got Republicans in Congress who are willing to hold the entire government hostage simply to give a Christmas present to industry.”
For greens, the fact that the Keystone pipeline was back on the table five weeks after Obama had seemingly punted it until 2013 is causing considerable heartburn with an administration that hasn’t been as green as they once wished.
Keystone XL Pipeline: What’s Next?
A provision included in the payroll-tax package approved by the Senate and expected to be sent to President Obama by the House next week, would require the administration to issue the permit within 60 days or explain why the 1,700-mile, $7 billion pipeline is not in the national interest.
« click
The project would carry 700,000 barrels of tar-sands oil per day from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast; many environmentalists say it would threaten sensitive lands and waters in the middle of the country while production of the carbon-heavy oil would significantly contribute to climate change.
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., a chief sponsor of the bill to force a quick decision, said State’s “characterization of our Keystone XL legislation is blatantly misleading,” as the language in the legislation would deem the NEPA requirements fulfilled by the final environmental impact assessment (EIS) issued for the project in August. Lugar’s bill states that State’s final EIS “satisfies all requirements” of NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act and that “no further Federal environmental review shall be required.”
Canada opts-out of Kyoto Treaty because of tar-sands project
Canada agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce CO2 emissions to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, but its emissions of the gases blamed for damaging Earth’s fragile climate system have instead increased sharply.
Saying the targets agreed by a previous Liberal administration were unattainable, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government last year unveiled its own measures aimed at curbing emissions, in line with US efforts. Pulling out of Kyoto now allows Canada to avoid paying penalties of up to CAN$14 billion (US$13.6 billion) for missing its targets.
The EU has provisionally imposed penalties on import Canada’s filthy oil
Nor would it provide much in the way of jobs, which is the cover story its proponents use.
Huh? How do you figure that?
The pipe has to be manufactured and installed.. hundreds of miles of pipe. There’s a good number of jobs right there.. good paying union jobs for the welders, construction workers, etc.
The pipe has to be trucked to where it is going.. there’s more jobs.
The oil has to be refined when it gets to the gulf.. there’s more jobs, maybe the refinery adds a third shift.
The real ammo here is not that the project only creates a marginal number of jobs- it’s where is the gasoline going after it is refined- to U.S. consumers?
My understanding is that it’s not, but I need to confirm.
That’s the bigger cover story- that the tar sands oil is going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil– but this is bullcrap if the refined gasoline is sold to markets outside of the U.S.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Thanks, Oui for covering for my usual laziness… 😉
I heard a guy on the Ed Schultz radio show point out today the U.S. is exporting alot of oil lately– due to decreased demand caused by high gas prices.