tagged w/ tarsands
-
Canada’s caribou population are in steep decline. That’s due in part to the destruction of habitat through logging, expanding tar sands production, and other industrial development in the province of Alberta.
But rather than focus on habitat conservation efforts to protect threatened caribou populations in the province, Canadian officials are poisoning and shooting wolves that prey on caribou.
The practice is not new in Alberta. But the stunning decline in Caribou herds is forcing the Canadian government to ramp up culling efforts around Alberta’s oil sands — potentially resulting in the death of 6,000 wolves over the next five years, according to the Pembina Institute, a Canadian environmental think tank.
Government officials didn’t confirm those figures, but one Canada’s environment minister admitted it would be “very large numbers.”
Environmental organizations are hammering the Canadian government over the killing of wolves, saying that it is proof of the cascading environmental impacts of tar sands production. The National Wildlife Federation released a short report today on the issue:
Two particularly repugnant methods of destroying wolves – shooting wolves from helicopters and poisoning wolves with baits laced with strychnine – would be carried out in response to the caribou declines. Strychnine is a deadly poison known for an excruciating death that progresses painfully from muscle spasms to convulsions to suffocation, over a period of hours. Wildlife officials will place strychnine baits on the ground or spread them from aircraft in areas they know wolves inhabit. In addition to wolves, non-target animals like raptors, wolverines and cougars will be at risk from eating the poisoned baits or scavenging on the deadly carcasses of poisoned wildlife.
These methods have already been used in Alberta to kill hundreds of wolves. Now the Canadian government wants to use them to kill thousands more.
According to a report from the Alberta Caribou Committee, it is very possible that increased industrial activity in Alberta — much of it driven by expanding tar sands mining — will cause the complete collapse of caribou populations living in the Boreal forest:
Boreal caribou will not persist for more than two to four decades without immediate and aggressive management intervention. Tough choices need to be made between the management imperative to recover boreal caribou and plans for ongoing bitumen development and industrial land-use.
The Canadian government agrees that caribou populations around Alberta and British Columbia are “very unlikely” to survive due to decades of sustained industrial development in fragile habitat. The dramatic expansion of tar sands is becoming a key driver of this habitat loss.
But rather than slow this type of environmentally-destructive activity to prevent Caribou (and now wolves) from being eviscerated, the Canadian government only plans to continue aggressive expansion of tar sands.
More at the linkCanada’s caribou population are in steep decline. That’s due in part to... more
-
-
This is why activism matters.
Six months ago, the Obama Administration was set to approve one of the single most environmentally disastrous fossil fuel projects imaginable.
Today, it's dead.
The Keystone XL pipeline - designed to bring filthy tar sands oil from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas so that oil companies can profit by selling the oil overseas - was dealt a severe setback Wednesday when President Obama said no to an election year blackmail threat by the American Petroleum Institute and its lackeys in Congress.
But President Obama didn't reject Keystone XL because he wanted to. Or because he thought it was the right thing to do. Or because he thought it would help his reelection campaign. He rejected it because you made him do it.
It's a victory for activists. But because the President rejected the pipeline on a narrow technicality,1 in no way has he set down a clear marker against the pipeline or the carbon bomb that burning Canadian tar sands oil in China represents.
We want to thank the many groups and thousands of activists, who, following the inspiring call of Bill McKibben, joined us in putting massive public pressure on the President. In fact, CREDO waged the single largest activism campaign in our history.2
It was this pressure that forced President Obama to initially delay the decision in November. And it was this pressure, combined with the Republicans' overzealous and irresponsible demand of a 60-day deadline that forced him to reject the pipeline permit.
Our pressure overcame the lies and propaganda of Republicans and oil giants, and their threats of massive political consequences if he didn't approve it.
Rejecting this pipeline was the right thing to do. But by rejecting it purely on a technicality, there are many things President Obama did not do:
•He did not close the door to this pipeline once and for all. In fact, he specifically opened the door to the southern portion of Keystone XL, which would allow this oil to be exported overseas -- the real reason TransCanada wanted Keystone XL in the first place.
•He did not explain the imperative of stopping not just this project, but others that will expedite disastrous warming. Just the opposite -- he touted the need to expand oil and gas drilling and made no mention of clean energy.
•He did not refute the lies of Republicans and polluters, whose biggest "jobs plan" is a foreign oil pipeline whose chief purpose is to export oil overseas.
The time to lead us away from dirty fuels and prevent escalating global catastrophes from climate change is here. And President Obama still can.
Tell President Obama: It's time to lead on climate. Make the case in your State of the Union Address.
Until President Obama makes a clear and compelling case to the American people for sweeping action to reduce our dependence on any and all fossil fuels, the pace of our transition will remain slower than what is required to stem the onrushing danger of climate pollution.
Until he refutes the false choice presented by Big Oil and Republicans -- that we must choose between a clean energy future and a stable economy - he empowers and remains vulnerable to their attacks.
Until he shows his commitment to clean energy over dirty fossil fuels, the energy of progressive activists will be spent fighting individual bad decisions, instead of pushing to support needed progressive policies.
And ultimately, until President Obama takes the opportunity for a true moment of leadership that publicly raises the stakes on the fight to stabilize our climate, the State of our Union will remain deeply clouded.
More at the linkThis is why activism matters.
Six months ago, the Obama Administration was set to... more
-
-
By Bill Walker
Today’s decision by President Obama to reject, at least temporarily, the permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline — which would carry the most climate-wrecking crude oil on Earth from Canada’s tar sands to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast — is unquestionably good news. But by itself it won’t stop tar sands oil from flowing, or even keep it out of the United States.
This is not yet the death knell for the pipeline. Initial reports say TransCanada Pipelines may be allowed to reapply after a new route is selected that doesn’t endanger the Ogallala Aquifer, a vital source of fresh water for the Great Plains. TransCanada says it’s already got the new route picked out, although moving forward would require a lengthy environmental review process. And in the Senate, pipeline boosters are hatching a plan to hand the final decision back to Congress by invoking its power to regulate commerce with other nations.
But as the decision has been publicly framed, it’s always been a red herring.
Despite proponents’ claims, Keystone XL is not about the U.S. ensuring a secure supply of oil from a friendly neighbor, or creating construction jobs — a report by the Cornell Global Labor Institute says it would kill more jobs than it creates. Neither is it, strictly speaking, about keeping the oil in the ground, which NASA climate scientist James Hansen says is the difference between keeping alive any hope of stabilizing the climate or “game over.”
Existing pipelines already bring about 1.5 million barrels of tar sands crude a day to the U.S., making Canada — not OPEC, as many people believe — the nation’s No. 1 source of oil. Keystone XL would actually be an extension of an existing line that carries tar sands oil as far as Oklahoma. From there, most of it goes to Midwestern refineries. With Keystone XL’s approval now more in doubt, other companies are proposing smaller projects to carry tar sands oil from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. Increasingly, oil is also moving by tanker truck or rail — not as efficient as pipelines, but still profitable as oil gets more scarce and expensive.
Why is reaching the Gulf Coast so important to tar sands producers? Because oil from Keystone XL was never destined for Americans’ gas tanks. From massive refineries in Port Arthur, Texas, which have recently invested billions in upgrades to handle the thick, toxic crude oil from the tar sands, oil companies will produce fuel for export to Europe, where prices are higher, or to the growth markets of Latin America and Asia.
TransCanada, Canadian producers and the Canadian government have tried to brand the tar sands as “ethical oil” — in contrast to crude from the Middle East, violence-torn Nigeria or anti-capitalist Venezuela — although environmentalists question how ethical an energy source can be that disrupts the climate, destroys the forest, pollutes water and infringes on tribal lands. (Disclosure: Last year I worked for a coalition of environmental groups opposing the pipeline.)
The fact is that the U.S. doesn’t need tar sands oil. Fuel consumption is flat and will continue to decline as cars become more fuel-efficient. At the same time, domestic oil production is reaching historic highs. It just doesn’t make sense for TransCanada to invest $7 billion in a pipeline to supply a declining market. Tar sands oil production is projected to double by 2020, so the Canadian oil industry desperately needs access to growth markets.
To try to push the U.S. into permitting the pipeline, the Canadian government has threatened to play the China card. If Keystone is rejected, they say, they’ll simply sell the oil to fuel-thirsty China. Another Canadian company, Enbridge Energy, wants to build the Northern Gateway pipeline to carry tar sands oil to the West Coast for export to China and other Asian markets. That pipeline wouldn’t cross American soil, so U.S. approval is not needed.
However, opposition to Northern Gateway is even fiercer than the U.S. campaign against Keystone XL, and many observers doubt it will ever be built. That seems to support the argument that stopping Keystone XL will strand the tar sands oil — but there are other twists to the story.
Companies controlled by the Chinese government are quietly buying into Canadian tar sands ventures, and you have to figure that with or without a West Coast pipeline, they’ll find some way to get the oil to China. Finally, the Canadian government is exploring ways to ship tar sands oil through eastern Canada to the Atlantic for export to Europe.
It’s a complicated narrative, and we’ve barely scratched the surface. Bottom line: Keystone XL would mean Canada gets the money, China (or some other foreign buyer) gets the oil and the U.S. gets the pollution, the pipeline spills and the injustice of having a foreign company seize American citizens’ property.
For those reasons — which have little to do with halting global climate change — Obama’s decision was a no-brainer. But there is added symbolic importance. Permitting Keystone would have signaled that America was still committed to the dirty energy sources of the past. A final rejection of it would be a sign to the world that the U.S. is ready to lead on climate change.
More at the linkBy Bill Walker
Today’s decision by President Obama to reject, at least... more
-
-
-
Recent debate over the Keystone XL oil pipeline has turned a spotlight on Canada's controversial and oil-rich tar sands, which would be the source of crude oil flowing through the pipe to the Gulf of Mexico. Tar sands oil has faced stiff criticism from environmental groups, which say that it's far dirtier than its Middle Eastern counterpart despite claims from the Canadian government and industry groups that they keep a close eye on environmental impact.
But long before the Keystone XL became a cause célèbre, tar sands oil was already ubiquitous in America: It goes to fuel our cars and corporations' trucking fleets, and it's used in the production of products from aluminum cans to asphalt. Starting last year, San Francisco-based environmental advocacy group Forest Ethics launched a campaign to encourage American companies to boycott tar sands oil and, specifically, the refineries that process it (below).
Using data from the federal Energy Information Administration (which tracks imports of unprocessed crude oil), Forest Ethics compiled a list of nearly 50 US refineries that handle tar sands oil (MoJo made the above map based on that list). In these refineries, the heavy, molasses-like "bitumen" from the tar sands undergoes heating, blending, and other refining steps and comes out as useable fuel, ready to be pumped into a long-haul semi. What the map shows, Forest Ethics campaign director Aaron Sanger said, is that "unless you take action to take tar sands oil out of your footprint, you've got it in your footprint."
By "you," of course, Sanger doesn't mean you, dear reader: When you fill up at the local gas station, there's really no way to know from which refinery your fuel is coming. (Chances are it has been blended from several before reaching the pump.) Instead, he's referring to companies whose in-house or contracted trucking fleets buy fuel in bulk directly from refineries or through a broker (known as a "jobber" in industry parlance). Forest Ethics has persuaded 14 such companies, including Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, and LUSH Cosmetics, and Chiquita, to downsize their transportation footprint, in part by avoiding fuel from any of the refineries on the map.
"You and I as individuals don't have much leverage over the fuel sources," Sanger said. "But big companies do."
At stake is a serious chunk of change: The tar sands industry was worth $13.4 billion in 2009 (down from $20.5 billion in 2008), and oil from Alberta, the western Canadian province the tar sands call home, made up 15 percent of American crude imports, according to statistics from the Albertan government.
Consequently, applying that leverage is no easy task. Over the last couple years, Sanger and colleagues have reached out to 200 big companies, and in every instance when one agreed to investigate its fuel sourcing, there was tar sands oil in the mix, he said. TA Travel Centers, a major "over-the-road" fuel supplier to trucking fleets, found that it buys fuel directly from a quarter of the refineries on the map. For companies on the Forest Ethics list like Walgreens, cutting tar sands oil out means negotiating with fuel brokers and/or truck refilling stations and the possibility of not renewing contracts with those who are unable or unwilling to avoid tar sands oil. Sanger said that Trader Joe's, for example, has made avoidance of tar sands oil a contractual obligation for its distributors.
More at the linkRecent debate over the Keystone XL oil pipeline has turned a spotlight on... more
-
-
Durban, South Africa (6/12/11)–Members of the Canadian Youth Delegation and the Indigenous Environmental Network held a welcome party to formally receive Environment Minister Peter Kent and his tar sands pushers to the UN climate negotiations. As conference delegates entered the negotiations this morning, the welcoming committee handed out samples of tar sands on behalf of Kent, along with tourism brochures for
Canada’s scenic tar sands.
Canada’s refusal to commit to a binding climate agreement has made it a pariah state at the negotiations. Members of the Canadian Youth Delegation and the Indigenous Environmental Network hope their humble gifts will make the tar sands pushers feel right at home.
“Canada’s cozy relationship with oil industry has inhibited them from making real progress at these negotiations,” said Karen Rooney. “It’s clear that they have chosen to put the needs of polluters ahead of people.”
Over the past few months, Canada has been lobbying foreign governments to weaken both their climate policies and fuel quality standards to protect the trade of tar sands oil.
Meanwhile, the health and livelihoods of many Indigenous communities downstream from the tar sands continue to be threatened due to toxic tailings and the destruction of the boreal forest.
“Indigenous communities have been turned into sacrifice zones in Canada to feed our fossil fuel addiction. We are here to stand up for those communities against Canada’s pollution peddling and support just climate solutions,” stated Ben Powless, of the Indigenous Environmental Network.
A press conference will follow at 3:30pm in the Kosi Palm press room in the ICC.
More at the linkDurban, South Africa (6/12/11)–Members of the Canadian Youth Delegation and the... more
-
-
In Canada and the United Kingdom, Indigenous activists and their supporters targeted Shell today for violating agreements made with Indigenous communities in Canada. In Durban, site of the ongoing UN climate talks, activists from Canada joined activists from Africa to denounce Shell and their repeated violations of human rights and environmental regulations. Appearing outside a Shell refinery, a number of Indigenous activists joined with youth from Canada and Africa to support the community of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), who recently announced their lawsuit against Shell.
“Shell has left a trail of broken promises and ravaged eco-systems. They have been pushing their dirty fossil fuels plans on every country they can bully. It’s time to stand up and say get the Shell out of there, we don’t want your broken promises anymore,” declared Eriel Deranger, a community member of ACFN and director of Sierra Club Prairies.
“We’re drawing the line, and taking a strong stand against Shell. ACFN wants no further developments until Shell is brought to justice and our broader concerns about the cumulative impacts in the region are addressed,” stated Allan Adam, Chief of ACFN.
“The destructive tar sands operations by Shell and other big oil companies are destroying the land and violating our people’s rights to hunt, trap and fish. Canada is a willing partner in these crimes and other human rights abuses caused by fossil fuels and climate change,” noted Daniel T’seleie, an Indigenous youth from northern Canada, and a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation.
“Shell has a history of devastation across the African continent that we are well aware of. Our peoples and our environments have been turned into a colony for companies like Shell, who profit from our suffering. Knowing full well the extent of brutality that Shell has delivered to my fellow Nigerians, we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Canada standing up to say ‘get the Shell out of here’,” emphasized Nnimmo Bassey, director of Environmental Rights Action (Nigeria) and winner of the Alternative Nobel Prize.
“Ironically, Durban, the site of this year’s international climate talks, has struggled against the aging Shell refinery that is the symbol of climate change and environmental injustice. Shell has been responsible for crimes against local citizens, where refinery accidents are common and where rusting pipelines have leaked more than 1 million litres of petrol. We strictly oppose plans to bring Tar Sands oil to South Africa, and agree that Shell must be held accountable for its violations against communities,” claimed Bobby Peek, director of Groundwork in Durban.
More at the linkIn Canada and the United Kingdom, Indigenous activists and their supporters targeted... more
-
-
Republican lawmakers in Congress introduced legislation on Wednesday that would require the Obama administration to issue a construction permit for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days unless the president decided the project was not in the national interest.
Sponsored by Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, the legislation is a sharp rejoinder to the State Department’s recent decision to delay a verdict on approval of the $7 billion project for at least a year while it considers alternative routes that bypass environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska.
That announcement enraged supporters of the pipeline, who have accused Mr. Obama of seeking to placate his supporters until after next year’s presidential election in lieu of signing off on a project that will create jobs.
“Building the TransCanada Keystone pipeline now is a dramatic opportunity to change that energy and national security equation,” Mr. Lugar said in a statement. “President Obama has the opportunity of creating 20,000 new jobs now. Incredibly, he has delayed a decision until after the 2012 election apparently in fear of offending a part of his political base and even risking the ire of construction unions who support the pipeline.”
Dozens of Republican senators and leaders of the party are backing the legislation, which seems unlikely to pass in the Democratic-controlled Senate unless Mr. Lugar can muster bipartisan support for the bill.
The State Department put off the Keystone XL decision because of mounting pressure from lawmakers in Nebraska and from environmental groups that pleaded with the Obama administration not to allow the pipeline to traverse the delicate Sand Hills region of the state.
Soon afterward, the pipeline company, TransCanada, agreed to route the pipeline around the Sand Hills area. But the State Department has said it must nonetheless initiate a fresh environmental review process for any new route, a process that could take 12 to 18 months.
Opponents of Keystone XL condemned the Republican bill, pointing out that the State Department’s inspector general had opened an inquiry into the federal government’s handling of the environmental review of the pipeline proposal, which has been faulted by critics as lax.
“I will vigorously oppose any efforts by Republicans in Congress to legislate a rubber-stamp approval for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline,” Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, said in a statement. “At a time when the State Department inspector general is conducting a special inquiry into possible conflicts of interest related to the State Department’s handling of this project, it is completely inappropriate to try to short-circuit the thorough environmental review process federal law requires.”
House Republicans with the Energy and Commerce Committee have said they will discuss the Keystone XL delay at a hearing on the project on Friday.Republican lawmakers in Congress introduced legislation on Wednesday that would... more
-
-
Pipeline operator TransCanada Corp. said it would back the rerouting of a controversial US-Canada oil pipeline, after the Obama administration delayed its final decision on the project.
The company said it supported legislation in the US state of Nebraska that would ensure the Keystone XL pipeline does not pass through the state’s Sand Hills area, which features important wetlands and a sensitive ecosystem.
“I am pleased to tell you that the positive conversations we have had with Nebraska leaders have resulted in legislation that respects the concerns of Nebraskans and supports the development of the Keystone XL pipeline,” said Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president for energy and oil pipelines.
“I can confirm the route will be changed and Nebraskans will play an important role in determining the final route.”
Pourbaix said the proposed legislation “is a critical step” in moving the project forward.
Last week, the US administration said it would study an alternate route for the pipeline to bring petroleum from Canada’s western oil sands to the Gulf of Mexico, saying a final decision may not come until 2013 — after next year’s presidential elections.
After months of wrangling, the State Department said it needed more time to assess its environmental implications.
The department said its move was based on specific concerns about the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, which is along the proposed pipeline route from Canada’s Alberta province to refineries in Texas.
On Thursday, US officials said it was “reasonable to expect” that its review process “could be completed as early as the first quarter of 2013″ — after President Barack Obama bids for re-election in November 2012.
The project puts two of Obama’s goals — energy independence and cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions — at odds. It also pits environmentalists and labor, both usually key Democratic Party supporters, against each other.
Alberta Premier Alison Redford, in Washington to meet US officials about the project, hailed the latest news on the efforts to find a new route.
“I think it’s good news today, it’s different circumstances than we had last week,” she said.
“It’s something I can be more optimistic about now than I could have been this morning, as we all could have been this morning,” Redford said.
“So, back on track? I think that in terms of the regulatory process, while it had slowed down, I didn’t feel we were off track. So we’ll say that we’re optimistic still.”
More at the linkPipeline operator TransCanada Corp. said it would back the rerouting of a... more
-
-
PLEASE SHARE this Thought Bubble by RETWEETING:
TWEET:
#Canada hates unethical oil: http://clicktotweet.com/qZt7B | And so does @NaomiAKlein and @SapienceFilm. The world needs more Canada.
Alberta's Tar Sands are a true embarrassment for us Canadians; not only is it a human rights crisis for the Indigenous communities living in Alberta and British Columbia, but an environmental disaster of epic proportions.
Many pipelines transport this dirty oil all around North America, and our exports make us the United States' biggest provider of oil. In the last few years, a new extension to a current pipeline has been proposed to carry Tar Sands oil all the way to Texas, putting some of North America's most fragile ecosystems and waterways in serious peril.
Bill McKibben and his team at 350.org helped spearhead a movement called Tar Sands Action (http://www.tarsandsaction.org), enlisting the help of people all over the US and Canada willing to express their dismay and anger about this possible new pipeline.
As of November 6th, thousands of people have risked arrest, standing in front of the White House, as well as Canada's Parliament in Ottawa, to protest.PLEASE SHARE this Thought Bubble by RETWEETING:
TWEET:
#Canada hates unethical... more
-
-
With the Keystone XL pipeline on hold, the giant companies tapping Canada’s oil sands will turn to Plan B — existing pipelines to the United States.
Those pipelines, which now carry slightly more than 1 million barrels a day from Canada’s oil sands to the United States, can be expanded by adding pumping stations. Some companies, notably Enbridge, already have plans to boost the capacity of their lines and speed the journey of crude from Alberta to Texas.
.“It’s inevitable that it will get here. This oil will have to find a market,” said Fadel Gheit, oil analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. “All these competing pipelines are going to rethink their strategy.”
That would disappoint foes of the Keystone XL pipeline, who hope that the delay or defeat of the project would impede the growth in output from the oil sands, whose exploitation releases 5 to 15 percent more greenhouse gases than the average crude used in the United States.
Asked what the Keystone delay would mean for oil sands development, a spokesman for Chevron, which owns 20 percent of one of the oil sands projects, said: “The Keystone decision has no implications for Chevron.”
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers forecasts that oil sands output will nearly double from 1.5 million barrels a day in 2010 to 2.9 million barrels a day by 2020. Proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline warned that a rejection of the project would lead to exports to China via a pipeline to Canada’s west coast, or shipments to the United States using barges, trucks and railroads, thus creating a larger carbon footprint.
Many Canadians prefer a pipeline to be built from Alberta to eastern Canada, which still imports oil from Saudi Arabia.
But oil analysts said Friday that existing pipelines to the United States offer the easiest and most likely fallback plans.
Enbridge is a likely choice for oil companies seeking additional pipeline space over the next two or three years. The company’s 1,000-mile long Alberta Clipper line, which went into operation last year, goes from Hardesty, Alberta, to Superior, Wis., and has an initial capacity of 450,000 barrels a day. But it can be pushed up to 800,000 barrels a day, the company says. That alone would make up for half of the capacity Keystone XL would have added.
more at the linkWith the Keystone XL pipeline on hold, the giant companies tapping Canada’s oil... more
-
-
We need more than sound bytes in an election year. Now, I am really not too hopeful considering that BP will once again be allowed to drill in the Gulf and Shell is going to be allowed to drill the Arctic. So while this action alone even if it isn't approved won't actually stop the tarsands, or stop BP, or stop Shell, or stop Chevron, it will stop a catastrophe waiting to happen to our water, agriculture, climate balance and health. And President Obama, I don't really think you have any other choice. You need to make the right one, and not because it is close to an election year, but because you meant what you said in 2007 when you were running the first time. Actions speak louder than words.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/04/361628/keystone-xl-pipeline-ad/We need more than sound bytes in an election year. Now, I am really not too hopeful... more
-
-
The fight against the Keystone XL Pipeline is heating up, with many positive and important developments occuring this past week, excluding the disgraceful, though unsurprising decision by the Obama for President 2012 campaign team to bring a former TransCanada lobbyist, Broderick Johnson (husband of NPR's Michele Norris), onto its upper-level staff.
Six main big ticket items stand out, in particular:
~A call for a U.S. State Department Office of the Inspector General probe into the Keystone XL pipeline review process by 14 U.S. Congressional members.
~A call for a special session to occur on November 1 by Nebraska Republican Governor Dave Heineman regarding pipeline safety concerns.
~A meeting between leaders of the youth climate movement and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson on the pipeline.
~A recent massive anti-pipeline action that took place in San Francisco, in which 1,000 protesters greeted Obama at one of his fundraising events for his 2012 presidential run.
~An announced push-back of the Keystone XL pipeline final decision date by the State Department.
~An acknowledgement, at last, by President Barack Obama that he is taking into consideration the concerns voiced by citizens nationwide about the potential risks to public health, water supplies and the global climate if he approves the Keystone XL pipeline.
Congressional Probe
The request for the probe, announced in a letter signed by the 14 Democrats and sent to the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. State Department, calls for "an investigation into the State Department's handling of the Environmental Impact Statement and National Interest Determination for TransCanada Corporation's proposed Keystone XL pipeline."
Key excerpts of the letter read,
“Given the significant economic, environmental, and public health implications of the proposed pipeline, we believe that it is critical that the State Department conduct thorough, unbiased reviews of the project. Further, it is imperative that the State Department process be free of actual or apparent conflicts of interest…
(snip)
…[G]iven the importance of this project and the process regarding the State Department's review process to-date, a thorough investigation covering…any possible violations of federal law or improper conduct related to the State Department…a [probe is warranted]…for the Keystone XL “
While only 14 out of 435, it shows that the issue is, at minimum, high on the radar of some politicians inside the Beltway and the voices of grassroots leaders are finally being heard, at least by some.
Nebraska Special Session
Nebraska has, in many ways, been ground zero in the fight against the pipeline, led in the forefront by Jane Kleeb's grassroots activist group, Bold Nebraska.
Public opposition to the pipeline got the attention of the governor of a Republican Party generally uninclined to accept scientific reality.
Having already urged President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to deny the permit on a seperate occasion at the end of August, Heineman, hearing only the sound of silence from what DeSmogBlog has called "State Department Oil Services," Heineman called for a special sesssion regarding the pipeline.
"The purpose of the Special Session will be to find a legal and constitutional solution to the siting of oil pipelines within the state," according to a press release issued by Heineman.
Of chief concern, the current pipeline route runs directly over the Nebraska Sand Hills and the Ogallala Aquifer, both of which are vital pieces of the Nebraska economy.
Youth Climate Movement Meeting
Representatives of the youth climate movement met with EPA head Lisa Jackson - including former Obama volunteers, as well as the Energy Action Coalition, a coalition of 50 youth-led environmental and social justice groups working together to build the youth clean energy and climate movement. Keystone XL was among the topics of the meeting.
Activists' Push Against Pipeline Drawing Attention
The day after a protest in San Francisco, which drew a crowd of 1,000 anti-pipeline protesters to greet him, President Obama was again greeted by more protesters in Denver who interrupted his campaign stump speech.
Forced to acknowledge them, at last, Obama stated, "I know your deep concern about it…We will address it."
The decision process has been bottlenecked and pushed back by the State Department, which likely thought at first that, likely nearly all other ecologically destructive decisions it makes, it would be rubber-stamped.
Not the case this time around, though.
Upcoming next steps
This all comes ahead of a big November 6 action organized by the leaders of the Tar Sands Action movement, in a call to circle around the White House to demand that President Barack Obama reject the Keystone XL Pipeline.
As the late historian Howard Zinn once proclaimed, "What matters is not who's sitting in the White House, but who's SITTING IN the White House — and who is marching outside the White House, pushing for change."
By Steve Horn 30 October 11The fight against the Keystone XL Pipeline is heating up, with many positive and... more
-
-
President Obama’s new senior campaign adviser lobbied the administration last year to approve the controversial Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, a relationship that’s feeding environmentalists’ claims that the White House is too close to pipeline developer TransCanada Corp.
Lobbying disclosure records show that Broderick Johnson lobbied in favor of the pipeline – which remains under administration review – during the fourth quarter of 2010 while he was with the firm Bryan Cave.
Johnson, a former partner with the firm, left Bryan Cave in April. He's a veteran of the Clinton White House and Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) 2004 presidential campaign.
Johnson was part of a well-connected team at at Bryan Cave that lobbied Congress, the executive office of the president, the State Department, the Commerce Department and other agencies on TransCanada's behalf, records show.
The team included Jeff Berman, the former delegate counter for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, and David Russell, a former chief of staff to the late Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), according to records.
The hiring by Obama’s reelection campaign comes as environmentalists are already alleging the ongoing State Department review of Keystone XL is tilted in favor of TransCanada, which is seeking federal approval for a $7 billion, 1,700-mile pipeline to bring crude from Alberta’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.
Green groups have highlighted friendly emails between TransCanada lobbyist Paul Elliot — a former 2008 campaign aide to now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — and the State Department.
Bill McKibben, the climate activist helping to orchestrate anti-Keystone protests at the White House, slammed the announcement that Johnson is advising Obama’s reelection campaign.
“It stinks. I don't think you could conceive a more elaborate way to disrespect not just the environmental community but also Occupy Wall Street, because this is simply a reminder of the way that corporate lobbyists dominate our politics. Forget ‘Hope and Change’ — it's like they want their new slogan to be 'Business as Usual,’ ” McKibben, founder of the group 350.org, said in a statement.
Green groups and some lawmakers are also questioning the use of the firm Cardno ENTRIX to perform State’s environmental impact study of the proposed pipeline — which gave it a largely favorable review — despite the firm’s financial ties TransCanada.
McKibben and other environmentalists are pushing Obama to reject TransCanada’s proposal and are planning a Nov. 6 demonstration at the White House.
More than 1,200 people were arrested in peaceful protests against the project near the White House over the summer. The State Department plans to make a final decision on the project around the end of the year.
more at the link
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQEshUbrC1fVdvlb0YGkTOKpzDirD6J-RDes3xEG2990Zm-N9Mi68SNCz4President Obama’s new senior campaign adviser lobbied the administration last... more
-
-
Fuel from oil sands projects face effective ban under EU proposals, though UK may oppose green plan
Oil from controversial and environmentally destructive tar sands is likely to be all but banned from Europe after a decision on Tuesday. The move also casts doubt on the future of other controversial energy sources such as shale gas.
Tar sands (also known as oil sands) have been a target of green campaigners for several years, as the extraction of low quality oil from sands – chiefly in Canada to date – produces far greater greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil drilling operations, and requires vast quantities of water. The exploitation of tar sands has also led to the destruction of swaths of forest and is blamed for water and air pollution.
In a victory for Connie Hedegaard, the EU's climate change commissioner, the commission has decided to back a new directive on fuel quality. This will set minimum environmental standards for a range of fuels, including tar sands, coal converted to liquid and oil from shale rock.
Hedegaard said: "With this measure, we are sending a clear signal to fossil fuels suppliers. As fossil fuels will be a reality in the foreseeable future, it's important to give them the right value.''
Franziska Achterberg, EU transport policy adviser for Greenpeace, said: "Today's move by the commission is good news. Tar sands extraction is a very dirty business for the climate, polluting rivers, lacing the air with toxins and turning forests into wasteland. Despite coming under intense pressure from oil lobbyists and Canada, the commission is doing the right thing by wanting to keep tar sands out of Europe to protect the climate."
The proposals have now been sent to EU member states who will meet in four to six weeks to vote on the proposal. It will then go to the European parliament for final approval.
If the proposed standards are accepted, they will all but rule out imports of tar sands, unless producers can clean up their acts. The commission has proposed that tar sands be ascribed a greenhouse gas value of 107 grams per megajoule of fuel – this compares with 87.5 grams per megajoule for ordinary crude oil, on average. Producers will also have to cut the carbon footprint of their fuels by 6% in the next decade.
More at the linkFuel from oil sands projects face effective ban under EU proposals, though UK may... more
-
-
In lobbying for a presidential permit to construct a massive oil pipeline stretching from Canada to the Gulf Coast, TransCanada’s Paul Elliott has tried nearly every angle.
Elliott — who served as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s national deputy campaign manager in 2008 — sought to broker multiple meetings between senior State Department officials and TransCanada executives. He offered to enlist TransCanada officials’ aid in helping State officials forge an international climate agreement. And he deluged administration officials with letters testifying to the virtues of the Keystone XL expansion project, which would ship crude oil from Canada’s oil sands region to American refiners.
The State Department, which completed its environmental assessment of the project last month, has indicated that it will decide later this year whether to allow the company to construct the 1,700-mile pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border.
More than two dozen State Department e-mails obtained by the advocacy group Friends of the Earth under a Freedom of Information Act request provide an unusual glimpse into the lobbying for the Keystone permit, which has become a battleground in the national debate over how to address climate change.
They show how Elliott tried to exploit relationships built in political campaigns, with mixed results. The e-mails are almost all between Elliott and a special assistant to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff. All three knew one another from working on Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Damon Moglen, who directs Friends of the Earth’s climate and energy project, said the e-mails also show a State Department official giving inappropriate “coaching” to TransCanada’s chief executive about how to respond to arguments against the pipeline.
State officials countered that the messages show that TransCanada lobbyists and executives were diverted to officials not directly involved in the pipeline decision. “We don’t want to give anyone an unfair advantage by giving them access to a decision maker,” said Daniel Clune, principal deputy assistant secretary for the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
Environmentalists have urged the administration to block the permit on the grounds that tapping crude from Canada’s oil sands, or tar sands, releases far more greenhouse gases than other forms of oil extraction and could lead to spills in sensitive areas along the pipeline’s route. The project’s backers say it will provide foreign oil from a trusted ally while generating American jobs.
Trying to ease concerns
The e-mails show that Elliott worked assiduously to try to ease administration concerns about the pipeline’s environmental impact.
More at the linkIn lobbying for a presidential permit to construct a massive oil pipeline stretching... more
-
-
It is now on to phase two. The risks these people took should not be forgotten.
President Obama, this is not going away.
NO to Keystone XL!
YES to climate leadership!It is now on to phase two. The risks these people took should not be forgotten.... more
-
-
OTTAWA (September 7, 2011) - Nine distinguished recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize have written to President Obama, urging him to reject the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline, saying his decision offers "a critical moment" to make good on his pledge to create a clean energy economy.
"We urge you to say no" to the pipeline and "turn your attention back to supporting renewable sources of energy and clean transportation solutions," says the letter (Download PDF), sent today. "This will be your legacy to Americans and the global community: energy that sustains the lives and livelihoods of future generations." Read the full text of the letter below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The letter was signed by nine Nobel Peace Prize laureates: Mairead Maguire and Betty Williams of Ireland, who shared the prize in 1976, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel of Argentina (1980), Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa (1984), His Holiness the Dalai Lama (1989), Rigoberta Menchú Tum of Guatemala (1992), José Ramos-Horta of East Timor (1996), Jody Williams of the United States (1997), and Shirin Ebadi of Iran (2003).
The Keystone XL, proposed by TransCanada Pipelines of Calgary, would carry dirty, toxic and corrosive oil from the tar sands of Alberta through six states in the American heartland to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. The Obama Administration has said it will decide by the end of the year whether to permit the pipeline, after the State Department determines whether it is in the national interest.
Opposition to the pipeline has surged in recent weeks as more than 1,250 people were arrested in 14 days of sit-ins at the White House - perhaps the largest wave of civil disobedience ever for an environmental cause in the U.S. More protests are being organized for September 26 in Ottawa and the first week of October in Washington.
"In asking you to make this decision," the Nobel Laureates wrote to Obama, "we recognize the thousands of Americans who risked arrest to protest in front of the White House between August 20th and September 3rd. These brave individuals have spoken movingly about experiencing the power of nonviolence in that time. They represent millions of people whose lives and livelihoods will be affected by construction and operation of the pipeline in Alberta, Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas."
The Laureates noted the risk of a pipeline spill contaminating the Ogallala Aquifer, the main source of fresh water for the Great Plains. Concern for the fragile Nebraska Sandhills, which lie above the aquifer, has led Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman to call for rejection of the pipeline in its current route. TransCanada's existing Keystone I pipeline, which would connect to the XL, has leaked 14 times in its first year of operation.
The letter also called attention to tar sands oil as one of the dirtiest energy sources on Earth. If fully developed, the Alberta tar sands would be the second largest source of global warming gases in the world, which the Laureates said "will not only hurt people in the US--but will also endanger the entire planet."
The letter was released today by the Nobel Women's Initiative, an Ottawa-based nonprofit founded in 2003 by six of the only 12 women ever to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Read the full text of the letter at the linkOTTAWA (September 7, 2011) - Nine distinguished recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize... more
-
-
An evolving species knows to heed this call. President Obama the future is calling to you. You have the final say on this. What do you say to the indigenous people who now already suffer the effects of this toxic insanity? What do you say to the forest, rivers and wildlife? What do you say to the aquifer that provides sustenance for billions of people and is already suffering the effects of climate change and consumption? What do you say to the farmers whose livelihoods and land are at stake? What do you say to the climate balance of this planet already pushed to the tipping point?
History is being made outside the White House and it is not a political movement, it is a human movement.
The amount of people arrested to date is 1,009 and counting. How many will it take?
Thank you to all of those who risked and were arrested to stand up for our future.
I hope you know how many are standing with you.
Keystone XL-NO!
YES to climate justice and a clean energy future!An evolving species knows to heed this call. President Obama the future is calling to... more
-
-
We just got some important evidence that this protest is working and that we’re breaking through to the mainstream media and the White House.
This morning, President Obama’s press secretary, Jake Carney, was questioned by reporters on Air Force One about our protest happening outside the White House. We’ve been trying to break through to the White House press corps for the last few days. Now, we know that we’ve struck a nerve.
Here’s the transcript from Air Force One:
Q: Also, anything on these protests outside the White House on this pipeline? Has the President decided against TransCanada’s permit for the pipeline? It’s the tar sands pipeline. There have been a lot of arrests outside the White House about it.
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything new on that. I believe the State Department has — that’s under the purview of the State Department presently, but I don’t have anything new on that.
Q: Is the President aware of the protests?
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t talked to him about it.
Now, here’s the thing: while it’s great to see the press corps pushing the Administration to recognize our demonstration, the fact that Carney hasn’t yet briefed the President on the protest and the pipeline is a worrying sign about how out of touch this administration is on this issue.
“Just in the last two days everyone from the president’s chief climate scientist to an 84-year-old grandmother was arrested on his front doorstep,” said environmental author Bill McKibben, who is spearheading the White House protest. “This is the largest civil disobedience action in the environmental movement in a generation, and if they really aren’t even discussing it with the president, that signals a deep disrespect for their supporters, especially young people who have demonstrated that the environment is a top priority.”
We’re going to be pushing Carney and the Administration to make sure President Obama is hearing directly from people across the country who are here in DC risking arrest, and the many hundreds of thousands more that support this cause.
more at the link
______________
That means either one of two things. He really hasn't told him because they already know what they are going to do and could really care less about this. Or this was just a deflection because he couldn't reveal anything more. Either way though, at least he didn't ask, what protest? He knew what was implied and that means they do know. Everyday more and more people are finding out about this and the toxic legacy it is bringing to our planet. And more and more people are standing up to say NO to this toxic carbon timebomb.
And that is because this is getting out through social media, the Internet and primarily because of the bravery and conviction of those who sit and stand in front of the White House. All of them. Some who I am sure thought long and hard of the residual effects this could have on their lives. And I thank them, because they also managed to do something I have wanted to see for a long time. They managed to bring the entire environmental movement together. I have always thought that we have not been as successful in getting this message out as we could be because we were too fragmented. Each organization with their own goals competing against each other rather then joining together for a common cause.
This now is the cause. Standing up at last for health, clean air and water, sustainability, climate balance, climate justice and the beginning of a time when our children will be able to look at us and say thank you for caring about the world they inherit from us.
This is what it is all about and President Obama, you know it too and you know what you need to do.
Keystone XL- NO!We just got some important evidence that this protest is working and that we’re... more
-
