|
|
All across America, people are gathering to draw attention to the threat that
the Keystone XL pipeline poses to clean air, clean water, public health, and the
stability of our climate. Last night alone, thousands attended nearly 300 vigils
in 49 states. This outpouring of hope and frustration came together in just a
few days, in response to the release of a deeply flawed report by the State
Department that underestimates the consequences of building this pipeline across
the heart of the United States.
People are hopeful because the decision to reject the Keystone pipeline is in
the hands of President Obama, who has stated his firm commitment to fight
climate disruption. He will be advised by Secretary of State John Kerry, a
long-standing champion in the effort to solve the climate crisis that is already
upon us, already stirring extreme weather like Superstorm Sandy, the polar
vortex, droughts, and wildfires. These leaders know that Americans have embraced
clean energy and have no interest in retreating to dependence on the dirty
fossil fuels of centuries past. So I'm cautiously confident that the president
and secretary of state will do the right thing and stop this pipeline in its
tracks.
People are frustrated, however, because the report released last Friday was
largely written by a contractor that stands to profit if the pipeline is built.
Not surprisingly, it gives the pipeline a passing grade, while virtually every
credible expert has already given the project a big fat "Fail."
Biased as it is, though, the report sets the stage for President Obama to
reject this dirty, dangerous manifestation of Big Oil's greed, by abandoning the
contention in earlier drafts that KXL would have no significant impact on
climate. Instead, it concludes that the pipeline would contribute the equivalent
of an additional 6 million cars on the road to annual greenhouse gas
emissions.
The president is on record that he will not allow Keystone XL to be built if
it would "significantly exacerbate" carbon pollution. The pollution from six
million cars is anything but insignificant. And a more credible independent
analysis estimates that carbon pollution from the pipeline would be equivalent
to more than 37 million gas-guzzling cars -- or 51 coal-fired power plants.
How does that make sense at a moment when we are making progress against climate
disruption by retiring dirty coal plants and building more and more wind
turbines and solar panels to create the energy that is already powering Teslas,
Leafs, and Smart cars?
There are plenty of reasons to reject Keystone. Here are a few reasons to
reject last week's report:
- The report was too narrow in scope. Federal law requires
government agencies to consider the cumulative impact of proposed federal
actions such as permits for pipelines that cross international boundaries. Last
week, the Sierra Club and its coalition partners alerted the State Department
that it had failed to consider the climate impacts of Keystone XL combined with
other tar sands pipeline decisions, including the proposed Alberta Clipper
pipeline expansion.
- The report has a serious conflict of interest. ERM -- a
member organization of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas
industry's lobbying group -- was handpicked for the job by TransCanada, the
company seeking to build the KXL pipeline. The State Department's Inspector
General is currently investigating this contract for mismanagement and
bias.
- The contention that the pollution is inevitable is false:
The review assumes that tar sands expansion will happen with or without Keystone
XL. But that's not what industry experts, financial analysts, and Canadian
government officials are saying. And if you follow the money, it's clear that
the delay already caused by the campaign opposing Keystone XL has led to both
reduced foreign investment in the tar sands and reduced projections of tar sands
crude production. In short, this pipeline is the linchpin for tar sands
development.
- The tar sands cannot economically or safely be carried by
rail: The review also assumes that, without a pipeline, tar sands crude
would be shipped by rail. But moving tar sands by rail is both difficult and
expensive, and will become even more so once new federal safety requirements
come into effect. Since last July, when an oil train disaster killed 47 in
Quebec, we've seen oil train accidents in Edmonton (Oct.), Alabama (Nov.), North
Dakota (Dec), and New Brunswick and Pennsylvania (Jan). Just last Friday, while
all eyes were on the rollout of the State Department's report, yet another crude-oil rail train derailed and spilled in
Mississippi.
The next step in the Keystone XL decision is for Secretary Kerry to make a
recommendation to the president about whether the pipeline is in our "national
interest." We welcome Secretary Kerry to the fray. Kerry said in October that
"energy policy is the solution to global climate change." He realizes that
climate-driven extreme weather is making life perilous in all 50 states,
weakening our economy, and threatening our national security. If we invest in
tar sands pipelines, we can expect only poisoned air and water in return.
Investing in clean energy, on the other hand, creates jobs, lowers energy costs,
builds energy security, and reduces carbon pollution. It's time to go "all in"
on clean energy.
Ultimately, though, this is President Obama's decision. Although he has
struggled with the paradox of reducing carbon pollution while promoting a dirty
"all of the above" energy policy, the president already has more than enough
evidence to reject this pipeline based solely on its effect on climate
disruption. But even though this debate has centered on climate, that is only
part of what's at stake. When considering the "national interest," the president
will also need to consider how this pipeline would affect the health and safety
of American families, farmers and ranchers along the pipeline route, and
fence-line refinery communities.
Finally, after weighing all the facts, the president must reject Keystone XL and send the world a clear message: Our nation
is committed to clean energy and climate solutions.
|
|
