Thank you Jim for pointing out so many facts and reasons to reject the
Keystone XL Phyllis
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:12:56 +0000 "Redmond, Jim"
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
OTHER VOICES: President Obama should reject Keystone XL pipeline
appears in Sunday, Feb 16 Journal
Jim Redmond
SIOUX CITY JOURNAL
Jim Redmond
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-presiden
t-obama-should-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline/article_bd3a627d-b8f6-5a26-a3a
b-f25f71813b7e.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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