Quantcast

Today, President Obama made a bold proclamation that he will not approve the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline if it contributes to climate pollution. He said that “Our national interest will be served only if this pipeline does not significantly exacerbate the climate problem.” It is now up to the State Department to prove that the pipeline will not increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

With this promise to the American people to reject the pipeline if it will increase climate pollution, the President has taken a huge step towards rejecting the Keystone XL, given that evidence has already shown that the pipeline will increase GHG emissions and have serious climate consequences.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that State Department assessment of Keystone XL climate impacts must be more “complete and accurate.”

“The market analysis and the conclusion that oil sands crude will find a way to market with or without the project is the central finding that supports the DSEIS's [draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement] conclusions regarding the project's potential GHG emissions impacts. Because the market analysis is so central to this key conclusion, we think it is important that it be as complete and accurate as possible. We note that the discussion in the DSEIS regarding energy markets, while informative, is not based on an updated energy-economic modeling effort,” stated the U.S. EPA.

Eighteen of the nation’s top climate scientists released a letter to President Obama urging him to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline:

"We hope, as scientists, that you will demonstrate the seriousness of your climate convictions by refusing to permit Keystone XL; to do otherwise would be to undermine your legacy.”



Industry insiders agree that without the Keystone XL, tar sands expansion cannot proceed as planned. Less tar sands development means less GHG emissions.

“Even if all the pipelines being planned were built, there would not be enough capacity to handle the growth that companies have laid out in their expansion plans,” according to the Globe and Mail. Further evidence that capacity is lacking and tar sands will stay undeveloped is that the government of British Columbia opposed the Northern Gateway pipeline that would have shipped tar sands oil through the province.

“Canada’s oil industry is facing a serious challenge to its long-term growth. Current oil production in Western Canada coupled with significant gains in U.S. domestic production have led the industry to bump up against capacity constraints in existing pipelines and refineries,” according to the Financial Post.

“This is why Keystone is so important for us–because we have this refinery capable of treating our crude and today we are missing that opportunity because of that logistical constraint,” said Andre Goffart, Total E&P Canada Ltd. President.

Even the State Department, in its extremely conservative analysis in the DSEIS, acknowledged that the project will increase GHGs:


“The annual CO2e emissions from the proposed Project is equivalent to CO2e emissions from approximately 626,000 passenger vehicles operating for one year.”

All evidence shows that the Keystone XL will have serious climate impacts.

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Sponsored
Sponsored