Community | March 10, 2013 | 28 comments

State Department Keystone XL Report Written By TransCanada Hiree

source: http://www.care2.com/causes/state-department-keystone-xl-report-written-by-transcanada-hiree...

Image
MSII

http://www.care2.com/causes/state-department-keystone-xl-report-writt...

Shocking news. The government has been lying to us. (Is anyone really shocked or surprised? I know i'm not!)

The State Department’s draft environmental impact statement for the proposed Keystone XL tarsands pipeline was released last Friday and it was, to say the least, disappointing.

Climate activists had been hoping the statement would produce a document to persuade President Obama to do the right thing and say “No” to the pipeline.

Instead, as The New York Times puts it, the report “makes no recommendation about whether the project should be built but presents no conclusive environmental reason it should not be.”

It even goes as far as to say that the pipeline will be safe from the climate impacts to which it will contribute.

House Speaker John Boehner was quick to jump on the bandwagon and declare that there was no reason to block the pipeline any more, and that President Obama should waste no time in approving it.

Report Prepared By Contractor Hired By Owner Of Pipeline

Now we are learning that this document was not prepared by any neutral government officials, but rather by a private company in the pay of the pipeline’s owner. So it’s hardly surprising that the statement came out strongly in favor of the pipeline.

Time to take back your words, Mr. Boehner?

Obviously this is outrageous, but perhaps it is also an indication that TransCanada is getting desperate.

Grist reports:

Environmental Resources Management (ERM) was paid an undisclosed amount under contract to TransCanada to write the statement, which is now an official government document. The statement estimates, and then dismisses, the pipeline’s massive carbon footprint and other environmental impacts, because, it asserts, the mining and burning of the tar sands is unstoppable.

(…..)

Because the impact statement was written by a TransCanada contractor, not by State Department officials, it should come as no surprise that it presents a worldview of a global economy inevitably dependent on dirty fossil fuels that is entirely at odds with the expressed views of Secretary of State John Kerry.

As Secretary of State John Kerry said six years ago, “we’re on an urgent clock” to confront fossil-fueled climate change, which he compared to the threat of nuclear weaponry as a “man-made” and “uncontrolled” weapon with “the ability to change life as we know it on this Earth.” Kerry’s recognition of the scientific necessity to keep global concentrations of carbon dioxide below 450 ppm should preclude the possibility of building a pipeline designed to pump 7 gigatons of carbon dioxide worth of tar sands crude over decades.

Will President Obama Be True To His Promise?

Climate activists were delighted when President Obama made a strong stand dealing with climate change and the environment in his State of the Union address: “I will direct my cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

The dangerous tar sands pipeline would transport some of the dirtiest oil on the planet. That’s because producing this oil from sand leads to the destruction of vast swathes of Canada’s boreal forest, the pollution of hundreds of millions of gallons of water, and the contamination of pristine wilderness and other land as the oil makes its way from Canada to the Gulf Coast of Texas.

Now that the State Department’s “neutral” report has proven to be anything but, will Obama keep his promise and refuse to endorse this 1,700-mile monstrosity with its destructive effects on the environment?

We hope so, but meanwhile, please pass the word.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Green,   1 more
  2. tags:
    John Kerry
  3.     
    |

28 comments // State Department Keystone XL Report Written By TransCanada Hiree

  • Wetdog
    • -1
      Wetdog  

    • Here is a bit of fact to help you set things straight in your mind.

      Massive amounts of natural gas will be burned in mining the bitumen and seperating it from tailings to produce the tar from the Alberta tar sands.

      EVEN if we were to use the fossil natural gas to power our vehicles(we've been doing it for almost 100 years)----producing an equal amount of energy from natural gas produces 35% less CO2 than powering our vehicles with liquid petroleum.

      If all of the vehicles on the highways now were using CNG(compressed natural gas) doing exactly the same things being done right now-----the CO2 produced would be the equivalent of taking every third vehicle off the road entirely.

      Compared to using petroleum produced from tar sands---it would be comparable to removing more than 1/2 the vehicles from the roads.

      Doing exactly the same things being done now.

      Natural gas does not need to be refined in order to be used.

      And CNG costs the equivalent of about $1,70/gal. compared to gasoline. Less
      than 1/2 as much. And we do not need to import natural gas.

    • 2 months ago
  • MSII
  • Wetdog
  • MSII
  • Wetdog
    • -1
      Wetdog  
    • Image
    • MSII:

      You are refering to hydrofracing using water and toxic chemicals I presume?

      In answer to your question, the only requirement for fracing is a liquid for hydraulic pressure transfer. The liquid does not need to be water however, and the use of toxic chemicals is not necessary.

      Propane is a gas at normal temperatures and pressure, but a liquid under pressure. Propane can be mixed with non toxic gelling agents and used to transfer hydraulic pressure-----like self foaming shave gels. Then, when the natural gas is taken out of the well, the propane is recovered and reused, Propane is a component of natural gas that is already present----that is where we get it from in the first place.

      Propane is not toxic and not soluble in water.

      This process is already commercially available and in use now.

      See for yourself:

      http://www.gasfrac.com/

      Using this process, there is very minimal environmental impact to using natural gas.

    • 2 months ago
  • MSII
    • +1
      MSII  
    • Wetdog:

      ...talk to me about this again when they actually have STOPPED using the highly toxic super-secret-witches-brew they're CURRENTLY pumping into the ground, and endangering our water not to mention polluting the air with their evaporation pits, etc. I'm in PA. where our "governor" is owned by the fracker-SCUM. These SCUM our putting at risk our clean water, farm and forest-lands, and our air (I've been told by another member of this site that the air in Pittsburgh, due to evaporation pits in neighboring Ohio looks like the smog we see in footage from China with their massive pollution problems - and are causing alot of sickness).

    • 2 months ago
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  
    • MSII:

      Then bring pressure on the state of Pennsylvania to allow propane fracking and ban hydro fracking.

      If you want safe water and a clean environment----then work to get the way to have them adopted, and the methods that are not safe banned.

    • 2 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • MSII
  • coolplanet
  • MSII
  • letsliveinpeace
    • +1
      letsliveinpeace  

    • We don't want that toxic waste in our country I hope the president keeps his promise, but I'm afraid it's not looking good…. It’s looking more like Oops!

    • 2 months ago
  • MSII
  • truth_accessor
  • Leen61
  • mrpuma2u
    • +3
      mrpuma2u  

    • Foxes guarding the hen house. Same crap goes on in the FDA, dept. of Agriculture, both loaded with former big Pharma and former big Agra employees.

    • 2 months ago
  • MSII
  • jackhole
  • MSII
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
    • +5
      COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM  

    • Rotten! To The Core...and the heartwood. It's time to cut down that tree and let it re sprout from the roots and good earth that's left.

      It is shocking, and yet, since it's so par for the course, and so often repeated, it really shouldn't be. But, on an issue which has seen SO much public attention and controversy, the disdain and contempt which government has shown the public by perpetrating such a fraud and sham is as OUTRAGEOUS as any act George's government ever inflicted upon American colonists. This is more than another mere betrayal of the American People. This is spitting in the face of Americans and everything good America is meant to represent, and can't be tolerated or accepted. And this was initiated under Hillary Clinton's leadership! As one of the most ardent corporate promoters to occupy the State Department, this is very foretelling of what another Clinton presidency would be like. Good communicator, or not, Bill was a corporatist as well, and one who believed that the tide of corporatism and Bilderberg could not be turned back. Time will tell...

      Mr. President,

      We, the People, want your comment on this revelation and how it relates to Americans' inability to believe or trust, government!

      Horrified and Outraged,
      A very concerned citizen

    • 2 months ago
  • Swisher
  • MSII
  • northernexpat
    • +3
      northernexpat  

    • It's the same thing in Canada. They control the environmental message here too. They have managed to shut up any scientists who speak out against the Tar Sands. The number of government scientists and Environment Canada itself have been cut in half and they are made to toe the line. It just proves, once again, that big oil owns all governments.

    • 2 months ago
  • MSII
  • Gordon_Shumway
    • +5
      Gordon_Shumway  

    • "Obviously this is outrageous, but perhaps it is also an indication that TransCanada is getting desperate."

      Well, that or they are so complacent about the pipeline's approval, having purchased their desired outcome in the accepted fashion, that no one feels it's worth the effort to put on a convincing show for us any longer.

      We'll know which it is once Obama has approved the pipeline. Oops, I mean once Obama decides WHETHER to approve the pipeline. There, that's better.

      Silly mistake. Quite careless of me I must say ...

    • 2 months ago
  • Vic_Romano
  • MSII
    • +4
      MSII  

    • Shocked... hardly, wish I was, but no, par-for-the-course here in corporate-FASCIST-merika! Until we get money OUT of politics we're doomed to endless corruption... It ALL comes down to the election-finance system.

    • 2 months ago

top videos