Yesterday I posted about the new State Dep’t. draft report that looks promising for backers of the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline. It was disheartening, to say the least, and worrisome to anyone who is concerned about bringing the dirtiest oil on earth through America.
Again, one argument for this potentially catastrophic project is profit. However, all the money in the world is meaningless if 1) nobody is around to enjoy it, and 2) it’s spent on health care that will become increasingly necessary to treat symptoms and diseases resulting from a toxic environment.
The “Earth may be near tipping point.” However, we know why the GOP insists that there’s no climate change. Nevertheless, the GOP insists on pushing a dangerous project like Keystone despite the fact that it would create very few long term jobs, gas prices would increase, dependence on foreign oil would not lessen, and Bill McKibben and NASA’s Jim Hansen both warn that it would be “essentially game over for the climate” if this crackpot project gets the go ahead.
A required State Department report on Friday said the "construction and normal operation" of the latest proposed route would have no significant environmental effect. [...]
Environmental advocates, however, see it differently, as does Jones, who was a special adviser to Obama on the topics of green jobs, enterprise, and innovation at the Council on Environmental Quality. [...]
The reason is that tar sands, a particularly raw form of oil, would be traveling through the pipeline, and Jones described it as "the most corrosive nasty fuel on the Earth."
The study also says that a barrel of oil sands crude would release about 17% more greenhouse gases than one of conventional crude oil refined in the United States in 2005.
Still, the study states that approving or denying the permit for Keystone XL would not have any effect on the development of the oil sands because companies would use rail, trucks and other pipelines to bring the Alberta crude to the U.S.
Opponents of the pipeline strongly disputed the conclusion, asserting that Canada and the oil industry have said that Keystone XL would be critical to the expansion of oil sands development. The opponents have also said that with the pipeline would come greater greenhouse gas emissions.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer did his level best to defend the pipeline, but thankfully, Van Jones would have none of it:
"This report now says 3,900 temporary jobs." [Not hundreds of thousands, as has been claimed.]
"The pipeline takes it THROUGH America, not TO America, and then sends it to China."
"This is a foreign corporation... Canadian foreign company that's gonna actually take land from American farmers and then send the dirtiest form of energy through America overseas."
"It's going through the United States to China. We won't get a drop of it. So we risk our water, risk our farmland and get no oil - bad deal for America."
"What happens if you've got the 'Obama Pipeline'? Now it's the 'Obama Pipeline,' and it leaks. His legacy could be the worst oil disaster in American farmland history. He's got to make a tough choice."
As the L.A. Times reported, the State Department will officially determine whether to issue a permit, but "Obama indicated in 2011 that he would make the final decision."