Tech | August 24, 2011 | 49 comments

Day 5: It's about more than a pipe: Keystone XL: NO!

JanforGore
There is another earthquake shaking up Washington Dc this week: the beginning of what will hopefully be the shaking up of the status quo that has kept us from achieving the truly sustainable future we can give to ourselves and our children. Those continuing to sit in to stand up for humanity and all species in the wake of the effects of climate change and the absolute apathy and greed of corporations deserve our support.

And this is without regard to race, creed, or politics. This pipeline will affect ALL of us regardless of labels. Its dirty, toxic ingredients will threaten the water of the Ogalalla aquifer that irrigates our heartland. The burning of its ingredients will set off a carbon timebomb that will make the words "tipping point" all too real.

IT'S TIME TO BREAK THE ADDICTION.

The call to say NO to this pipeline is also a call to say YES to clean renewable energy. Clean energy jobs. Clean water. Respect for the rights of others.

This is the moral challenge of our time!

We cannot betray future generations for a quick buck. The price is simply too high.

So please, let's keep this going on Current. Let's keep giving these brave people our support and with each NO or other sign of encouragement we also tell President Obama that we the people are the voice and his NO is a vindication of his caring about that voice.

Keystone XL-NO!
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Green,   Culture,   14 more
  2. tags:
    Culture Environment Health Economy 25 more
  3.     
    |

49 comments // Day 5: It's about more than a pipe: Keystone XL: NO! // Video

  • kvb1
    • +1
      kvb1  
    • Oil and Gas production from extremely difficult source is expensive and costly to the environment. Fracking for gas will increase the likelihood of earthquakes, especially id faults that are dorment. Tar sands, or as the oil industry like to call them, oil sands, are extremely costly and damaging to the environment, creating huge pool of oil polluted water in fragile ecological areas. We should be spending the money that goes to these projects to build renewable source energy plants throughout the country. What is being spent in Canada wold be better put to use installing solar panels on homes and commercial buildings in the Southwest, putting wind and wave generators of the coasts, and building a new electrical grid to handle the increases in electricity throughout the grid.

    • 9 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • CalgarC
  • JanforGore
  • coolplanet
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  
    • Image
    • http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/08/pipeline-protesters-keystone-xl-tar-s...
      "The protesters have arrived outside the White House each morning, with a group of volunteers agreeing to sit in until they are arrested each day. Organizers estimate that between 50 and 100 people will be arrested every day, with the biggest day of action planned for Saturday, August 27. Spokesman Jamie Henn, of the group 350.org, said that 2,000 people have signed up to participate. They plan to continue the protest through Labor Day.

      Because many of you may be wondering what the heck is going on with the protests, we've compiled this backgrounder. But I'm sure none of you need it, since you've been following our coverage of the Keystone XL all along. Right?

      What is the Keystone XL? The Canadian energy company TransCanada has asked for permission to build a 1,661-mile pipeline that would travel from Hardisty, Alberta, down to oil refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas. It would supplement the existing Keystone pipeline, which went into operation last summer and can carry up to 435,000 barrels of oil per day. The pipeline would carry tar sands oil, which is heavier, more carbon-intensive, and more corrosive than conventional oil. It is scheduled for completion in 2013, though it would not hit capacity until 2056.

      What's wrong with building a giant pipeline across the US? That existing Keystone line has already leaked a dozen times in just one year of operation. The Keystone XL would cross more than 70 rivers and streams, including the Missouri, Platte, Yellowstone, and Arkansas. The oil spill from another pipeline in the Yellowstone River last month didn't do much to allay those concerns. It would also cross the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides nearly one-third of the groundwater used to irrigate US crops, supports $20 billion in agriculture, and supplies drinking water to about 2 million people. A recent report from a researcher at the University of Nebraska estimated that there would be 91 significant spills from the pipeline in the next 50 years. A worst-case-scenario spill in Nebraska's sand hills above the Ogallala Aquifer could dump as much as 180,000 barrels, tainting the vast water supply in the region.

      The much-higher carbon footprint of tar sands oil and its contribution to climate change are also concerns, as are the health problems reported near extraction sites.

      Who is opposed to building the pipeline? Environmental groups, landowners along the path of the pipeline (especially those threatened with eminent domain), the National Farmers Union, climate scientists, a number of senators (including both the Republican and Democratic senators from Nebraska), the Transport Workers Union, and the Amalgamated Transit Union have all urged the State Department to veto the plan.

      Who supports building it? TransCanada, of course, as well as the oil companies that plan to ship oil through it, the American Petroleum Institute, the Teamsters Union, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the members of the House that voted for a bill that would expedite consideration of the plan.

      How does the Keystone XL compare in size to other oil pipelines? If constructed, it would certainly be among the longest pipelines in the United States. But there are longer ones, like the 1,679-mile Rockies Express natural gas pipeline from Colorado to Ohio or the 1,900-mile Lakehead System from North Dakota to Michigan.

      But won't the pipeline create tons of jobs? API refining issues manager Cindy Schild claimed in a press call last week that the pipeline would directly create 20,000 new jobs, and spur the creation of as many as 80,000 more jobs in the United States related to tar sands development. TransCanada's own projection on job growth has ballooned in the past few years, from initial predictions of 13,000 to now 20,000. But most of those jobs would be short-term, lasting for just the two years expected to take to complete the pipeline.

      Why does the State Department get to decide whether to build it? Because the pipeline crosses an international border. The State Department is required, however, to ask other federal agencies to weigh in. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency gave a failing grade to State's initial environmental-impact analysis. State issued a new draft in April and is expected to issue a final version later this month. After that, they plan to hold public meetings in September.

      Where will all that oil go? That's a good question! Supporters argue that getting oil from our friendly neighbors up north is preferable to getting it from Middle Eastern countries that don't like us very much. But our oil demand is expected to decline anyway. And since it would be pumped down to ports in Texas, it can easily be shipped to other countries in Europe or Asia, a concern that critics have raised.

      What does President Obama think about the pipeline? That's another good question! It's also the reason the protesters plan to be out there for the next few weeks. They're hoping that the actions will put pressure on Obama, who has so far been pretty quiet on the subject, to weigh in against the pipeline. Obama may be in Martha's Vineyard right now, but the protesters will be waiting for him when he returns to the White House.

      We already have a ton of pipelines, so why do activists care so much about this one? Well, unlike most major environmental issues, President Obama doesn't need Congress to do anything here. The decision is entirely within the control of his administration. For protesters, this is also symbolic; if Obama wants to show that he still cares about climate change, he could veto this project, they argue. Environmental groups are also hoping for a concrete victory. Even with a supposedly sympathetic president, they haven't seen the big policy shifts on this front that they were hoping for. And while addressing climate change is a giant, complicated challenge, vetoing a pipeline is fairly straightforward.'
      ___
      Good to see this getting more exposure.

    • 9 months ago
  • artemis6
  • Richard_Wyatt
  • JanforGore
  • Vic_Romano
  • Snails
  • JanforGore
  • Hardytoo
  • Leen61
    • +6
      Leen61  
    • Keith does a great interview with Bill McKibben about the Keystone XL from last night. For a fourth straight day outside the White House, environmentalists were arrested for peacefully protesting a pipeline that would carry acidic crude oil from Western Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast. Environmentalist and author Bill McKibben, who spent the weekend with fellow demonstrators in a Washington jail, discusses the the success of the protest and the shortcomings of Obama's environmental policy with Keith.

      McKibben echoes the warning from NASA's Jim Hansen that if the Tar Sands project goes forward it will be "essentially game over for the climate."

    • 9 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • Leen61
    • +4
      Leen61  
    • JanforGore:

      Yes, Jan. I saw the entire interview last night on Countdown. I was so happy Keith had Bill McKibben on. After Keith, I turned on Rachel. All she talked about was the earthquakes. That was a telling moment for me. Keith didn't spend his entire show on the earthquakes...he talked about them at the very end with comedian Paul Tompkins

    • 9 months ago
  • artemis6
  • Leen61
  • tverdell
  • JanforGore
  • GRC54
    • +5
      GRC54  
    • No No No No The only pipeline I want to see is the one that carries water and not tar sands. Texas needs water not oil.
      If I could afford it I would buy an electric car to drive around town but I can't afford the 40 thousand dollar price tag.
      IF I could afford it I would get solar panels for my electric needs in my house backed up by a wind turbine generator for the winter months.
      I wait the day when it will be affordable to get off the fossil fuel power.

    • 9 months ago
  • bailey78
  • Wyley_Wombat
    • +2
      Wyley_Wombat  
    • GRC54:

      That day could be closer if the gov't put all the money they lose whilst in bed with the oil companies, into developing solar. We have a ways to go on wind but solar could go into large scale implementation if we really wanted it to.

    • 9 months ago
  • artemis6
    • +2
      artemis6  
    • Wyley_Wombat:

      Solar would be right for the people .... it is just hard to monopolize . Here is an idea ! One for the Christians . The SUN is your salvation . But ONLY if you believe in the SUN can you be saved .... ALL true and right spiritual Power comes from the SUN . So should all earthly power follow Him ! ... Yep . That , is marketing genius .

    • 9 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • 0
      coolplanet  
    • GRC54:

      I don't mean to pick on you, GRC, because lord knows we are all in the same boat.
      I just have to ask exactly where is Texas going to pipe its water from? The Great Lakes???
      Also let me point out that you can buy a used hybred electric car for under $10,000 and a new one for under $30,000.
      As far as solar power is concerned I believe the government still offers to cover a big chunk of the cost and it pays for itself in a few years.
      The reality is we can not afford to wait!

    • 9 months ago
  • Wyley_Wombat
  • artemis6
  • remanns
  • bailey78
  • ilikeike
  • percipi224
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • remanns
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • +5
      JanforGore  
    • Image
    • http://www.tarsandsaction.org/amy-goodman-keystone-xl-a-line-in-the-sand-for-oba...

      Amy Goodman: Keystone XL: A Line In The Sand For Obama

      "The White House was rocked Tuesday, not only by the 5.9 Richter-scale earthquake, but by the protests mounting outside its gates. More than 2,100 people say they’ll risk arrest there during the next two weeks. They oppose the Keystone XL pipeline project, designed to carry heavy crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the US Gulf Coast.

      A “keystone” in architecture is the stone at the top of an arch that holds the arch together; without it, the structure collapses. By putting their bodies on the line – as more than 200 have already at the time of this writing – these practitioners of the proud tradition of civil disobedience hope to collapse not only the pipeline, but the fossil-fuel dependence that is accelerating disruptive global climate change.

      Bill McKibben was among those already arrested. He is an environmentalist and author who founded the group 350.org, named after the estimated safe upper limit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of 350ppm (parts per million; the planet is currently at 390ppm). In a call to action to join the protest, McKibben, along with others, including journalist Naomi Klein, actor Danny Glover and Nasa scientist James Hansen, wrote the Keystone pipeline is “a fifteen hundred mile fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the continent, a way to make it easier and faster to trigger the final overheating of our planet”.

      More at the Guardian.

    • 9 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +5
      JanforGore  
    • Image
    • http://huffingtonpostunionofbloggers.org/2011/08/23/koch-industries-keystone-xl-...

      Koch Industries-Keystone XL Pipeline- A BP On The Prairie?

      "TransCanada, the Keystone XL Pipeline and Koch Industries

      As the race to develop domestically produced fuels hits a fevered pitch, especially as a reaction to the tensions in the Middle East, politicians from the president on down are seeking a “magic pill” that will solve our energy problems. President Obama promised a “green revolution,” with hints at promising wind and solar energy sources during the campaign, but has now done one of his famous backtracks as he pushes the idea of “clean coal.” One of the alleged “clean coal” sources his administration has placed under serious consideration is “bituminous coal” (aka “unconventional petroleum deposit’), or simply put … “tar sands.” Tar sands are plentiful in the US and Canada, but environmentally treacherous to mine and transport – yet, this is the “green energy” the Obama administration has leaned toward – with heavy prodding from its most threatening political enemy, Koch Industries – disputed founders of the Tea Party movement.

      TransCanada and Koch Industries

      Project developer TransCanada seeks approval from US government agencies to build the new tar sands pipeline from Alberta, Canada, through the Midwest United States to Texas as part of a proposed fossil fuel super highway. (http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/06/21/AlbertaToTexasPipeline/)

      Koch Industries would be a big winner if this pipeline were approved. Presently, Koch imports to the US close to 25 percent of all oil sands crude. Koch Industries includes a facility in Calgary, Alberta, called the Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, which supplies roughly 250,000 barrels of tar sands crude daily to the “heavy oil” refinery Koch owns in Minnesota. Additionally, Flint Hills operates a “crude oil terminal” situated right at the Keystone XL Pipeline starting point in Hardisty, Alberta. The Koch brothers have been busy – and thanks to the Citizens United decision, are able to flood political campaigns with unlimited cash. The Los Angeles Times reported that Koch Industries and its “employees” constituted the largest single donor to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including the coffers of Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan), the new committee chair. (http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20110210/koch-brothers-positioned-to-be-big-win...)

      The Keystone XL Pipeline

      Better known as the Keystone XL, this project would travel through South Dakota, NEBRASKA, Oklahoma, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas on to Texas – while slicing through the northeastern quadrant of the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska. The plan is to build that section of the Keystone UNDER the aquifer. TransCanada is confident that history won’t repeat itself and the Keystone won’t suffer the same fate as the British Petroleum Corp. (BP) Deepwater Horizon disaster of last year. The stakes are high – as the Ogallala aquifer is considered one of the largest sources of fresh groundwater on earth – cutting through eight Midwestern states. Additionally, various parts of Ogallala in Nebraska are part of an active earthquake zone – with the last quake reported at 4.3 magnitude in 2002. It gets worse – a report from the Nebraska Wildlife Federation cited the fact:

      “… some portions of the aquifer are so close to the surface that ANY pipeline leak would almost immediately contaminate a large portion of the water.” (http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20110210/koch-industries-positioned-to-be-big-w...)

      Some of the major issues with this pipeline fossil super highway include the fact that the Keystone XL will be transporting tar sands oil, which is considered the most toxic of all petroleum products. Tar sands oil contains the following heavy metals : nickel, vanadium, LEAD, CHROMIUM, MERCURY, ARSENIC, SELENIUM, BENZENE and other toxic elements. Tar sands oil also creates three times the amount of carbon emissions as conventional oil and the act of extraction destroys forests and other viable land resources.

      Tar Sands Producers Seek “Safety Procedure Waivers – Same Waivers BP Received

      Tar sands producers are pushing for the type of “safety procedure waivers” provided to BP, prior to the Gulf disaster of last year. Additionally, TransCanada – the Keystone XL producer is seeking permission to pump tar sands oil at pressures EXCEEDING normal safety limits, while using pipes made from thinner steel than are the industry standard. (Source.) Tar sands crude oil often causes “false pressure warnings in pipelines” making the identification of a true leak almost impossible. Tar sands oil is also thicker than conventional oil and has higher concentrations of heavy metals, which require higher concentrations of energy and water to separate the oil from the sands. According to the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) report tar sands contain:

      “15 to 20 times higher acid concentrations than conventional crude oil, five to 10 times as much sulfur, high concentrations of chloride salts and higher concentrations of abrasive quartz sand particles.” (http:sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2011/02/new-report-highlights-tar-sands-pipeline-spill-risks.html).

      Furthermore, the NRDC report explains, “This combination of chemical corrosion and physical abrasion can dramatically increase the rate of pipeline deterioration.” (Source: Tar Sands Pipelines Safety Risks Report, February 2011) The Guardian Environmental Network explained further, “In order to get it to flow through pipelines, raw tar sands bitumen is diluted with natural gas condensate and then moved in heated pipelines under high pressure. The study (NRDC report) asserts that the higher temperatures and higher internal pipeline pressures can create gas bubbles within the pipelines, deform the metal and lead to ruptures caused by pressure spikes.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/17/tar-sands-pipeline-pollution)

      So, when you combine the more highly corrosive tar sands crude oil with thinner steel – you have a recipe for a blowout disaster. In fact … just another Canadian tar sands pipeline built by Enbridge, experienced such a rupture."

    • 9 months ago
  • artemis6
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • bailey78
    • +1
      bailey78  
    • JanforGore:

      Ya see folks They are not going to be on our side when we start to revolt againest the Government. They will shoot us if and when they get the chance to do so. They are soldiers above all else. The Police are not our friends. They work for the Large Corperations at taxpayer expense.

    • 9 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • bailey78:

      Yes, what if they refused to arrest anyone? What if they actually sat down with the protesters because they too have children? We all have a choice in this world to stand up for what is right.

    • 9 months ago
  • bailey78
    • 0
      bailey78  
    • JanforGore:

      That would be nice but i don't see them doing that. i see them tazeing and fireing rubber bullets and maybe even live rounds at people. buit not sitting with them saying it's the right thing to do. they are trained to do a job those that don't do as told are either booted from the job or given a desk job.

    • 9 months ago
  • artemis6
more from Tech:

top videos