Great opinion piece, Jim! Jane Clark From: Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Redmond, Jim Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:13 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: anti-XL Guest editorial OTHER VOICES: President Obama should reject Keystone XL pipeline appears in Sunday, Feb 16 Journal Jim Redmond SIOUX CITY JOURNAL Jim Redmond There are so many flaws and omissions in the State Department's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of the Keystone XL pipeline that neither President Obama nor the average American can rely on it to make a decision. An inspector general's investigation is under way to see if the consultant who prepared the study is too closely aligned with Big Oil. Teased by talk of XL leading to "energy independence," the disappointed American consumer will be paying higher prices as American oil products are shipped to China and other global markets. As pipeline opponent and businessman Tom Steyer notes: "Keystone is a pipeline that runs through - but not to - the United States." Tar sands oil is not a premium product, so developers have to heavily discount it at home. By constructing the pipeline across our landscape to export refineries, Big Oil hopes to fetch higher prices abroad. Big Oil is having difficulty because some Americans have upset the supply/demand ratios by moving to fuel-efficient vehicles. At the same time the tar sands exploitation uses extreme amounts of energy to extract and ship the tar sands crud, we see destruction of one of the last functioning ecosystems on the planet, the boreal forest. The Environmental Impact Statement does not mention the value of that natural storage of carbon or how it offsets some gas emissions. A huge swath of the continent is being strip-mined for tar sands; there's absolute devastation in parts of Alberta, truly a crime scene. Canada's First Nations/tribes were among the first victims of the tar sands project and are among the most committed to stopping this industrial destruction of the Earth. "But even if the president turns down the pipeline, the world will continue to warm." So said a Lincoln, Neb., Journal Star editorial published in the Journal on Feb. 7. You can sense the fatalism in that statement. Where is the American spirit in facing challenges? Three percent of the tar sands have been strip-mined. Rejection of the pipeline helps lock up the fossil deposit, avoiding 50 years of damage to our landscape and our atmosphere. The true question is whether we will slow down the rate of fossil fuel emissions rather than embrace our destruction by increasing the burning of fossil fuels. Human industrial activity for more than two centuries is at the center of our problem; human knowledge can address that history and design a human future that transforms our industry so that renewables replace fossil sources. For example, political and economic leaders in Iowa lead the country in developing wind generation. Our state and country can lead global efforts to find and use other sources of energy. We can limit CO2 in the atmosphere by identifying and plugging the holes in our wasteful use of fossil fuels. "All greenhouse gas emissions of the same magnitude contribute to global climate change equally, regardless of the source or geographic location." (FEIS) Not true. Log the Amazon or destroy the boreal forest and carbon will remain in the atmosphere because we have destroyed natural processes for cycling it. One fallacy in the FEIS is rail can be considered as an alternative to the pipeline project. Between 2011 and 2013, rail transport of Western Canadian crude has multiplied eight times (FEIS), not without serious questions about railway safety. Only one out of six tanker railcars meet current safety standards. A month ago a derailment created huge explosions in North Dakota and a year ago 47 people in Lac Megantic, Quebec, died in a tanker explosion. By forcing a choice between the pipeline or rail, the study authors set up a false dilemma between an unsafe mode (rail) and a slightly safer pipeline. "New data and analysis indicate that rail will likely be able to accommodate new production if new pipelines are delayed or not constructed." (FEIS) Given the age of our tanker fleet, this sounds like a threat. Rejecting the XL pipeline will be followed by a global effort to reduce to safer levels all fossil fuel use. Instead of settling for the title of the world's biggest carbon polluter, America can assume its role as leader in a campaign we can't afford to lose. Rejecting the XL pipeline is a potent action, signaling the rest of the world that America will join with governments immediately to control CO2 emissions, not wait until 2075. While we still have the tools of an advanced culture, let's transform ourselves and protect our planet. The rejection of the XL permit will be celebrated around the world. Call the president by March 7 and ask him to reject the XL pipeline: 202-456-1111. Jim Redmond, of Sioux City, is chairman of Northwest Iowa Group, Sierra Club. http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/opinion/columnists/other-voices-president-o bama-should-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline/article_bd3a627d-b8f6-5a26-a3ab-f25f 71813b7e.html [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp