[Plantagenet]

It's all going to get used---the shale oils, the oil shales, the tar sands in Canada And Venezuela---every drop will be burned

If it doesn't go to the US then China will take it.

[Graeme]

We'll see. I think a lot of people will continue to fight against exploitation of the remaining carbon deposits. That's what the battle is all about. It will be the height of human stupidity to burn all of what is remaining. If Obama approves the pipeline, his legacy will be in tatters. Then it will be up to the next President to try to do a lot more to stop CO2 entering the atmosphere.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '.')..If Obama approves the pipeline, his legacy will be in tatters.

[Graeme]

Approve KXL. It would be the dumbest decision of his presidency.

[Graeme]

Guardian: ‘White House Officials … Gave Strong Indications The President Is Inclined To Approve The Keystone XL Pipeline’

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Obama Administration has, tragically, signaled it may retreat on two major climate issues.

The UK Guardian reported Friday:

Barack Obama’s grand vision of action on climate change shrank to $200m a year to fund research into clean fuel cars, with signs of retreat on the big environmental issues of the day….

But on the most immediate environmental decision in his in-tray — the future of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project – White House officials indicated on Friday that Obama’s green and liberal supporters would be in for a disappointment. Officials signalled that the president was inclined to approve the project.


The official dismissed environmental groups’ contention that building the pipeline would open up vast deposits of the Alberta tar sands, and so increase the emissions that cause climate change. “There have been thousands of miles of pipelines that have been built while President Obama has been in office, and I think the point is, is that it hasn’t necessarily had a significant impact one way or the other on addressing climate change,” the official said.

He added that Obama’s environmental policies would more than make up for any negative impacts from the Keystone XL project. “There’s no question of that.”
Seriously, that’s the White House defense for Keystone: We’ve opened thousands of new spigots for oil (and gas), so what’s one more?

[Graeme]

oll: Majority of Americans Want Congress Out of Keystone XL Pipeline Decision, Oppose "Eminent Domain," Worry About Water, Wildlife

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ith the U.S. Senate poised to vote on the Keystone XL pipeline this week, a new national poll commissioned by the Center for Biological Diversity finds that a majority of Americans oppose Congressional intervention requiring the construction of the 1,700-mile oil pipeline from Canada to Texas. A majority also oppose the use of “eminent domain” — taking private property without landowner approval — and are concerned about the pipeline's impact on water and wildlife.

Opposition was particularly strong among those who voted for President Barack Obama last year: 68 percent oppose building the pipeline, 76 percent are concerned about its contribution to climate change, and 57 percent believe approval would break the president's State of the Union vow to fight climate change.

“President Obama promised to steer America toward a safer, saner energy policy that doesn’t sacrifice our climate and wildlife for oil company profits,” said Kierán Suckling, the Center’s executive director. “It’s clear that most Obama voters believe this promise requires the president to reject the Keystone pipeline.”

The Senate this week is expected to consider placement of a rider on the “continuing resolution” funding bill, which would force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. If passed, the rider would short-circuit the State Department's detailed environmental, economic and social-justice review, as well as its decision-making authority.

[Graeme]

Keystone XL Protest Awaits Obama At San Francisco Fundraiser

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')resident Barack Obama will be met on a fundraising trip to San Francisco next month by hundreds of activists urging him to reject a permit for the Keystone XL, the controversial oil pipeline that's taken center stage in the fight to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Progressive group CREDO Action, organizing the demonstration with environmental advocacy groups 350.org and the Sierra Club, estimated 1,000 protesters will turn up at the president's San Francisco fundraising visit on April 3. Already, more than 600 people have pledged to come out, according to CREDO political director Becky Bond.

"This is it," Bond told HuffPost Wednesday night. "The president says he wants to take meaningful action on climate change and this is the first and biggest decision he's going to make. ... We've produced more public comments and more phone calls to the White House, but we're skeptical that president is going to listen to those comments and we know they're not going to listen to the scientists."

[Graeme]

Dr. James Hansen, father of global warming, is 2013 "rebel with a cause"

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')r. James Hansen, a pioneer in the study of global warming, was chosen "rebel with a cause" for 2013, Conservation Colorado announced Saturday.

The environmental group will honor Hansen in a gala 5-9 p.m. June 13 at the Denver Marriott City Center, 1701 California St., Denver.

Hansen has been called the “father of global warming” for his early warnings of the phenomenon in the 1980s. He is now Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Pete Maysmith, executive director of Conservation Colorado, said of Hansen, “As a leading scientist, his voice is important in the fight to combat climate change and address the impact humans are having on our planet.”

In February 2012, Hansen was a speaker at for the influential TED nonprofit conference. His topic: “Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change.”

[Graeme]

Senate Votes in Favor of Dirty Tar Sands Pipeline, Senators Supporting Keystone XL Received Nearly $31 Million from Fossil Fuel Industry.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he U.S. Senate voted in support of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline on Friday, which would deepen our dependence on tar sands oil from Canada.

The measure, introduced by Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), signifies yet another attempt by Republicans to pressure President Obama to approve the TransCanada permit for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

According to Environment America, full production of the oil from tar sands would add 240 billion tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, severely hampering any efforts to tackle global warming. Unchecked global warming will harm present and future generations of Americans in many ways, including more extreme weather events like superstorm Sandy, the worst drought since the Dust Bowl and wildfires raging in the West.

The vote was on an amendment (#494) to the Senate budget resolution, which is not binding, and the White House still has the ultimate authority for approving or rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline.

“By voting in support of the reckless and dangerous Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, these Senators have turned a blind eye to the threats global warming poses to our country and sided with the fossil fuel industry over Americans, our environment and future generations,” said Nathan Willcox, Environment America’s global warming program director. “We are deeply disappointed in their vote tonight, and urge them to oppose any future measures on this or other bills which threaten Americans’ health or our environment.”

“Tar sands pipelines have no place in the debate over the federal budget and Congress has no business rubber stamping dangerous, unnecessary Big Oil projects,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.

“This vague, nonbinding resolution does nothing but show how eager these Senators are to please their Big Oil masters.”

New analysis from Oil Change International reveals that supporters of the non-binding Keystone XL pipeline amendment received 3.5 times more in campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests than those voting “no.” In total, researchers found that supporters took an average of $499,648 from the industry before voting for the pipeline, while sponsors took upwards of $800,000, for a staggering total of $30,978,153.

“Today’s vote presents yet another reason why Congress is less popular than root canals,” said David Turnbull, campaigns director for Oil Change International. “Every single effort from Congress to influence the Keystone XL pipeline decision has been backed by millions in dirty energy money, and today’s was no different. The vote today was nothing more than a 31 million dollar sideshow whose sole purpose was to kiss the rings of the Senate’s Big Oil benefactors.”

The amendment pre-judges but does not replace the ongoing process being undertaken by President Obama’s State Department to review the project which remains in place.

Ahead of the Senate’s vote, Oil Change International released analysis showing that the 10 original co-sponsors of the Hoeven amendment received an average of $807,517 from the fossil fuel industry, 254 percent more than the average non-sponsoring Senator, for a total of $8 million dollars from the industry based on data from DirtyEnergyMoney.org.

According to the new analysis, those voting for the amendment received $499,648 from fossil fuel interests, on average, and nearly $31 million in total over their careers. Meanwhile, those voting against the amendment received $143,372 on average.

In other words, those voting for the pipeline received roughly 3.5 times more in fossil fuel industry contributions than their counterparts in the Senate.

“It’s high time for President Obama to publicly reject industry corruption of our politics and the toxic Keystone XL Pipeline,” concluded Turnbull.

[Graeme]

Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')xxon Mobil on Sunday continued cleanup of a pipeline spill that spewed thousands of barrels of heavy Canadian crude in Arkansas as opponents of oil sands development latched on to the incident to attack plans to build the Keystone XL line.

Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said on Sunday that crews had yet to excavate the area around the pipeline breach, a needed step before the company can estimate how long repairs will take and when the line might restart.


The pipeline was carrying Canadian Wabasca Heavy crude at the time of the leak. An oil spill of more than 1,000 barrels into a Wisconsin field from an Enbridge pipeline last summer kept that line shuttered for around 11 days.

The Arkansas spill drew fast reaction from opponents of the 800,000 bpd Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry heavy crude from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast refining centre.

Environmentalists have expressed concerns about the impact of developing the oil sands and say the crude is more corrosive to pipelines than conventional oil. On Wednesday, a train carrying Canadian crude derailed in Minnesota, spilling 15,000 gallons of oil.

"Whether it's the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, or ... (the) mess in Arkansas, Americans are realizing that transporting large amounts of this corrosive and polluting fuel is a bad deal for American taxpayers and for our environment," said Representative Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat.

[Graeme]

Keystone XL: The pipeline to disaster

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n March, the State Department gave the president cover to open a big spigot that will hitch our country to one of the dirtiest fuels on Earth for 40 years or more. The draft environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline acknowledges tar sands are nasty stuff for the environment, but concludes that the project is OK because this oil will get to market anyway — with or without a pipeline.

A public comment period is underway through April 22, after which the department will prepare a final statement to help the administration decide whether the pipeline is in the "national interest." If the conclusion is yes, a Canadian company, TransCanada, gets a permit to build a pipeline to transport toxic tar sands through our heartland, connecting to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, for likely export to China.

Around the world, emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide continue to soar. Australia is now finishing "the angry summer" — 123 extreme weather records broken in 90 days — which government sources link to climate change. Last year, 2012, was also the hottest year on record in the contiguous United States.

Yet a bipartisan chorus says the pipeline is no big deal. Some suggest the administration is better off focusing on stronger EPA regulations, as if it were an either-or proposition. Others say we need the temporary jobs. Still others torture logic by claiming that not building the pipeline will be worse because that would force the tar sands to be shipped overseas, with the greater carbon footprint that entails — even though analysts say this is the fate of most Keystone XL oil anyway.

The perspective of pipeline apologists is contrary to the laws of physics and basic economics, neither of which gives a damn about politics. Here are a few points the State Department ought to reconsider:

Nothing to see here. The draft review suggests the climate impacts of the pipeline are limited because the project will not substantially "induce growth in the rate of extraction in the oil sands." This narrow analysis misses the mark. Researchers now say that the Alberta tar sands contain 360 to 510 billion tons of carbon — more than double that of all oil burned in human history. While only a fraction is considered economically recoverable right now, we humans are genius at finding new and better ways to dig junk out of the ground. Digging begets more digging. Once the big spigot is open, TransCanada will have every incentive to milk the massive tar sands basin for all it is worth.


The science on climate change has been in for a quarter of a century. There are no more mixed messages, just catastrophe after catastrophe. The president stands at a fork in the road: Rejecting the pipeline will show the world we are serious and determined to be on the right side of history. Approving it will signal we are too entrenched with business-as-usual to do what's right by the people, planet and future generations.

All of President Obama's achievements will fade if he doesn't act swiftly and decisively on climate change. Rejecting Keystone is the first step.

[Graeme]

Meet the U.S. billionaire who wants to kill the Keystone XL pipeline


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '�')��I have a passion to push for what I believe is the right thing,” Mr. Steyer, 55, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail this week. “And I couldn’t do it in good conscience and hold down a job – and get paid very well for doing a job – where I wasn’t directly doing the right thing.”

The Harper government and Canada’s oil patch might have wished he had stayed at Farallon.

Mr. Steyer has since set his sights on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. He has waded into the Democratic primary in Massachusetts by lampooning a pro-Keystone Democrat, Stephen Lynch, for being in the pocket of “big oil.” Mr. Steyer also accused him – in the form of a cheeky banner, pulled by a plane through Boston’s skies – of a loyalty akin to treason: being a Montreal Canadiens fan.


But Mr. Steyer has powerful friends – the likes of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader who also happens to be his congresswoman. And this week, Mr. Steyer personally hosted President Barack Obama for a $5,000-a-head fundraiser, pleading with him to stop Keystone.

More broadly, though, he’s emerging as a patron of the coalition of environmental groups targeting the oil sands. An anti- Keystone protest staged this week targeted an Obama fundraiser hosted by Ann and Gordon Getty, oil heirs, and not that of Mr. Steyer, BP-buying hedge fund titan. “Tom Steyer is a great activist,” said Becky Bond, political director of CREDO Action, one of the groups that planned the protest. “We are allies in this fight.”

But, Mr. Steyer acknowledges, this whole fight isn’t strictly about Keystone.

“There’s definitely a symbolic side to this,” he said. “It has become, you know, a symbol in some ways in the fight over how to think about this. And that happens sometimes. Sometimes, specific incidents take on a life of their own.”

[Graeme]

Keystone XL Absent From White House Budget

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he White House budget released Wednesday highlighted President Barack Obama's all-of-the-above energy strategy, yet conspicuously absent is any mention of Keystone XL, the controversial oil pipeline proposal being reviewed by the State Department.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Republicans had included funding for the $7 billion pipeline in their own budget and have been pressing the White House in budget talks to do the same.


Juliet Eilperin, writing for The Washington Post, notes that proponents might be able to override Obama (if he says no) and force pipeline approval through Congress, provided they can attract a few more Democrats to their side. Environmental groups have threatened to fight such a maneuver in federal court.

[Graeme]

Jeremy Grantham, environmental philanthropist: 'We're trying to buy time for the world to wake up'

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ne icy morning in February, a train pulled into Washington DC. It was loaded with environmentalists planning to handcuff themselves to the gates of the White House, in protest at the building of a 3,500km oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Amid the hundreds of placard-carrying protesters stood a somewhat incongruous figure in a suit – Jeremy Grantham, a 74-year-old fund manager. "What we are trying to do is buy time," he told reporters. "Buy time for the world to wake up."

Grantham – who occupies a legendary place in the world of finance for predicting all the major stock market bubbles of recent decades (and doing very well in the process) – had decided, after 15 years of low-key environmental philanthropy, to, as he puts it, "walk the walk".



More awkwardly, he insists his substantial investments in oil and gas don't contradict his green views. "We need oil. If we took oil away tomorrow, civilisation ends. We can burn all the cheap, high-quality oil and gas, but if we mean to burn all the coal and any appreciable percentage of the tar sands, or even third-derivative, energy-intensive oil and gas, with 'fracking' for shale gas on the boundary, then we're cooked, we're done for."

He does think there's some cause for hope. For example, "the business mathematics of alternative energy are changing much faster [than many people] realise." Looming carbon taxes ("hopefully, in the not-too-distant future"), coupled with the increasing affordability of alternative energy, will mean that coal and oil from tar sands run the "very substantial risk of being stranded assets". There there's the "amazing" fall in fertility rates across the world ("the absolute minimum hope of survival is a gracefully declining population").

But "China is my secret weapon," he says enthusiastically. His eyes widen with excitement, and he talks quicker and quicker. "The Chinese cavalry riding to the rescue. I have very high hopes for China because they have embedded high scientific capabilities in their leadership class. They know this is serious.

[Graeme]

Keystone Emissions Seen as Equal to 46 Coal Power Plants

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Keystone XL pipeline would increase greenhouse-gas emissions by 181 million metric tons, groups fighting the project said in a report, the equivalent of more than 46 coal-fired power plants or 34 million vehicles,
The finding, at odds with the environmental review by the U.S. State Department, said total emissions from the pipeline through 2050 would be greater than total U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions in 2011. The project to carry almost a million barrels of Canadian tar sands oil a day to the U.S. Gulf Coast would increase emissions of gases tied to global warming, the groups said in a statement.

“What’s clear is that we cannot burn all of the fossil fuels without causing significant problems,” James Hansen, the former U.S. space agency scientist who has been urging policy makers to combat global warming since the 1980s, said today on a conference call. “We do have to affect this by adding a fee to fossil fuels, but in the meantime we have to stop these crazy projects like the tar sands.”

The analysis assesses the emissions from producing, transporting, refining and using the oil from Alberta, Canada, to come up with 181 million metric tons, which the groups said is equal to emissions from 51 coal plants and 37.7 million vehicles. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the tonnage would be equivalent to the annual output of 46.5 coal- fired plants, 34 million passenger vehicles or the electricity used to power 24.5 million homes.

[Graeme]

Time to Step Up and Speak Out Against Big Oil

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')xxonMobil, one of the most profitable companies in the world that regularly pays no US income tax, had a pretty horrible tar sands oil spill in Arkansas last month. Most people have heard bits and pieces of the story, but here’s what you probably have not heard from the corporate media.

First off, you got a glimpse of the pipeline rupture and spill because of citizen bloggers and journalists like Drew Barnes, who posted this on YouTube. But you haven’t seen much coverage from the air of this, have you? That’s because, just like with the BP/Halliburton blowout in the Gulf, the FAA imposed a “no fly zone” over the oil spill. You’re not allowed to see what’s going on. ExxonMobil has even hired local police for “security” and they’re doing a pretty good job of keeping reporters away, according to Mother Jones reporting that documented numerous instances of people being threatened with arrest for just trying to ask questions or take pictures on site.

Second, with all the money and profits from that oil pipeline, ExxonMobil doesn’t have to pay into the federal fund to clean up oil disasters. Including this one. Why? Because this isn’t “oil,” it’s that stuff that the press refers to as “tar sands oil from Canada” but is know legally as “diluted bitumen.” And, according to a 1980 law pushed through and passed by our bought-off Congress, that stuff that comes from Canada, the “diluted bitumen,” not being “oil,” isn’t subject to the tiny taxes that are imposed on regular oil to pay into a fund to help cover the costs of spills.

Another reason by the “diluted bitumen,” aka “tar sands oil” that’ll be coming down the Keystone XL pipeline, will be even more profitable for the big oil companies who plan to refine it on the Texas coast and then ship the refined diesel they extract from it to England, Mexico, Brazil, and China. We, by the way, will get to keep all the poisons left over from the refining process. And we get to pay for all the cancers from them – expect “Cancer Alley” down South to grow substantially.

Finally, to add insult to injury, we get one of the more heavily-oil-industry-funded members of Congress, Oklahoma Republican Congressman Markwayne Mullin tells us that, “Exxon should be patted on the back for the way they handled this.”

[Graeme]

2013 SkS News Bulletin #8: Alberta Tar Sands and Keystone XL Pipeline

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ooking the Books
A new report out today from environmental groups shows that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would, if approved, be responsible for at least 181 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) each year, comparable to the tailpipe emissions from more than 37.7 million cars or 51 coal-fired power plants.

Cooking the Books: The True Climate Impact of Keystone XL by David Turnbull, Apr 16, 2013

Dilbit or not? Wabasca crude is the question
“Can the oil accurately be described as tar sands oil, or a type of diluted bitumen (dilbit)?” the EPA asked in an April 5 letter to Exxon.

Dilbit or not? Wabasca crude is the question by Maria Gallucci, InsideClimate News, Apr 18, 2013

GOP still pushing false Keystone job numbers
The Keystone XL Pipeline has been catapulted back in the spotlight of the House of Representatives this week, with Republicans continuing to waste taxpayer dollars rehashing who has the power to approve the project. Meanwhile, the State Department will be hosting a public hearing in Nebraska today to give residents a chance to comment on the pipeline that will disrupt their local communities.

Grade inflation: GOP still pushing false Keystone job numbers by Tiffany Germane, Climate Progress, Apr 18, 2013

How the Keystone XL pipeline would hasten climate change
A new report found the pipeline would send at least 181 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent each year into the atmosphere -- equal to emissions from 51 coal-fired power plants.

Revealed: How the Keystone XL Pipeline Would Hasten Climate Change, Environment News Service/Alternet, Apr 17, 2013

Keystone opponents deepen criticism
Two new reports, put out by a cross-section of U.S. environmental and public interest groups, are attacking central rationales for the construction of a major new Canada-U.S. oil pipeline proposal, which has emerged as an emblematic cause for green groups who have angrily denounced a U.S. government approvals process.

Keystone Opponents Deepen Criticism of Proposed Pipeline by Carey L. Biron, Inter Press Service (IPS), Apr 16, 2013

Keystone pipeline hearing in Nebraska
Opponents and supporters of a massive Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline converged on a snowy Nebraska town Thursday for what could become a pivotal moment for the project.

Despite a spring storm that brought sleet and snow to Nebraska, the U.S. State Department hearing in Grand Island was expected to draw at least several hundred people from the state as well as activists from outside the region who consider the state a key battleground over the Keystone XL pipeline.

Keystone pipeline hearing draws opponents and supporters in Nebraska, AP/Politico, April 18, 2013

Keystone XL oil pipeline exacerbates climate change
A new study suggests that permitting more tar sands oil to flow would raise greenhouse gas pollution by the equivalent of nearly 40 million cars and trucks.

Keystone XL oil pipeline exacerbates climate change by David Biello, Scientific American, April 17, 2013

Keystone XL Pipeline press conferences
Prior to the Keystone XL public hearing held Thursday, April 18, at the Heartland Convention Center in Grand Island, two simultaneous press conventions were held only several hundred feet apart, yet remained worlds apart in their perspectives regarding the highly controversial Canadian tar-sand pipeline.

Keystone XL Pipeline press conferences by Greg Awtry, York (Nebraska) News Times, Apr 19, 2013

Tar sands is worse than you can imagine
AlterNet is teaming up with the Post Carbon Institute to bring you mind-blowing images and stories that will inspire you to take action.

Tar Sands Is Worse Than You Can Imagine: Incredible Images You Have to See by Leslie Moyer, AlterNet, April 15, 2013

U.S. House tries again to force Keystone pipeline approval
A House subcommittee has taken the first step toward legislation that would push through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, bypassing the State Department and the White House while limiting other regulatory and court reviews.

House Tries Again To Force Keystone Pipeline Approval by John H. Cushman Jr., InsideClimate News, Apr 17, 2013

Why tar sands pipelines guarantee disaster
We just don't know what the exact magnitude of the disaster will be.

Why Tar Sands Pipelines Guarantee Disaster by Michael Brune, AlterNet, Apr 10, 2013

[Graeme]

US regulator warns over Canada oil pipeline plan

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')resident Barack Obama became significantly more likely to block the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil sands pipeline after the US environmental regulator said a government report that in effect endorsed the project was based on "insufficient" research.

Six weeks after the US State Department concluded in a 2,000-page draft review that there were no significant environmental reasons why TransCanada's proposed $7bn (£4.6bn) pipeline should not go ahead, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criticised the analysis.

The 1,664-mile long Keystone XL pipeline is intended to carry heavy oil from Canada's tar sands in Alberta to refineries in Texas, passing through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma.

While the southern leg of the pipeline has already been approved, planning permission for the 1,179-mile northern section, from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Oklahoma, has been pending for more than four years.

The hold-up centres around concerns about environmentally damaging oil leakages from the pipe as well as increased carbon emissions associated with the energy-intensive process of producing oil from tar sands.

Last month, the State Department concluded that the pipeline "is unlikely to have a substantial impact" on the rate of Canada's oil sands development because "the oil would be extracted anyway even if the pipeline wasn't built".

However, the EPA has agreed with opponents of the pipeline, arguing that trains would not be able to carry anything like the amount of oil that Keystone could – so blocking it would feed through into lower carbon emissions.

[Graeme]

Say it ain't so, Joe. A reality check on Joe Oliver and tar sands development

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')anadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver is in Washington this week to lobby on behalf of the tar sands industry. Today he addressed the Center for Strategic and International Studies and in his remarks he greatly embellished or misrepresented both Alberta’s and Canada’s record on climate change while downplaying the impacts from increased tar sands development. Below are exact quotes from Oliver, followed by a Reality Check.

Oliver: “Large producers in Alberta pay a per ton fee into a technology fund that invests in research and development to reduce GHG emissions.”

Reality Check: Alberta’s current policy costs the tar sands industry less than 10 cents a barrel. There are rumors of a new plan, the so called 40/40 plan (a 40% reduction in per-barrel emissions from tar sands and a $40-per-ton payment when that emissions limit is exceeded), but no plan has yet surfaced. Under 40/40, the cost for the tar sands industry to comply would be about the cost of a Coca-Cola at a 7-11 (under $1.50 for a barrel of tar sands oil).

Oliver: “Together with the province of Alberta, we are implementing a new, world-class environmental monitoring system for the oil sands. It will provide independent, science-based environmental reporting, founded on partnership with industry, Aboriginal communities and other levels of government.”

Reality Check: That’s true but Oliver left out that the system won’t be fully implemented until 2015, yet the government wants to approve major infrastructure projects now which would lock in pollution regardless of what the monitoring system finds later. A very useful timeline from Greenpeace on the history of this monitoring system is available here.

Oliver: “In the past year, we have implemented a new, national strategy for responsible resource development — a regulatory regime that offers both a more efficient and predictable process for investors and enhanced protection for Canada's environment.”

Reality Check: It’s hard to call Canada’s policy to develop the third largest pool of carbon on the planet “responsible.” Canada is on track for a 7% increase in emissions by 2020. Tar sands emissions have more than doubled since 1990 and are expected to triple between now and 2020. The IEA has said to avoid runaway climate change Canada will need to keep a full third of its tar sands underground, yet Oliver is championing policies to get at what he estimates to be 300 billion barrels of tar sands crude found in Alberta. Additionally, investing in oil development is no longer a safe bet. The Carbon Tracker Initiative and the London School of Economics recently released a report that shows that 60 to 80 percent of coal, oil and gas reserves held by the top 200 oil, gas and mining companies listed on the world’s stock exchanges could be considered unburnable.

Oliver: “Before I touch on the jobs and economic benefits I think it is important to recall that the U.S. State Department, which is the lead Department on this issue, concluded that the Keystone XL pipeline would not have a significant impact on the environment.”

Reality Check: The US EPA on Monday graded the State department's Keystone XL analysis as “insufficient.” EPA has asked State to look again at the climate impacts of the pipeline; Keystone’s route through the Ogallala Aquifer; and the department’s market analysis of transporting tar sands crude via rail. On all of these questions and more, State failed its test. State's SEIS has come under such significant criticism that it can no longer be taken seriously as an accurate evaluation of Keystone XL.

Oliver: “Furthermore, Canadian oil would come in by train. And, of course, Canada would export oil elsewhere.”

Reality Check: Every major export pipeline in Canada is under heavy scrutiny and suffers from huge public opposition. Even under the most rosy scenarios, none of these pipelines will be built any time soon. In fact, Alberta is so nervous about the pipeline prosals being blocked that it recently started looking into the possibility of exporting oil all the way up at the port at Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., a.k.a way the heck up there. On the rail question, a few hours after making these comments, Oliver himself refuted them, telling Reuters, "It (rail) is a good supplement but not the longer-term solution...I don't think anybody would suggest it is." This is due to the high cost of rail, which some industry analysts estimate is as high as $30 per barrel.

[Graeme]

Top U.S. climate expert calls Conservatives 'Neanderthal'

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he former NASA scientist criticized by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver earlier this week for his views on the Keystone XL pipeline is responding by calling the Conservatives a desperate and "Neanderthal" government.

In an interview with Evan Solomon airing Saturday on CBC Radio's The House, James Hansen defended his position that approving the proposed pipeline would be disastrous for the environment.

During a stop in Washington, D.C., to shore up support for Keystone XL, Oliver said Hansen, a leading climate change activist, is "crying wolf" with his "exaggerated" comments about the effects of Alberta's oilsands development on the environment. The minister also said that when a source of energy represents 1/1000th of global emissions, "to say it's the end of the planet if that's developed is nonsense."

Hansen has said if nothing is done to stop Canada's oilsands development it will be "game over for the climate," a position that Oliver said he likely regrets taking and that has hurt his credibility.

Not so, Hansen told Solomon. "Not at all," the award-winning researcher said. Hansen was named one of Time magazine's most influential people in 2006. He retired earlier this month from NASA so he could devote more of his time to environmental activism.

"I think he's beginning to get worried because the secretary of state, John Kerry, is well-informed on the climate issue and he knows that his legacy and President Obama's is going to depend upon whether they open this spigot to these very dirty, unconventional fossil fuels," Hansen said about Oliver. "We can't do that without guaranteeing disasters for young people and future generations."