Environmental Outlook: The Keystone XL Pipeline
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-05/environmental-outlook-keystone-xl-pipeline
For this month's Environmental Outlook: environmental, economic and political implications of the State Department's upcoming decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Guests
Michael Brune
executive director of Sierra Club.
Matthew Koch
vice president of the Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Coral Davenport
energy and environment correspondent for National Journal.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I've read that about 2-years ago the US again became a net EXPORTER of gasoline. Wonder if this is still true. Also, yes I've read the same thing that the refined products produced by the Gulf area refineries would be mostly exported.
Seems like another message issue. Oil companies call these 'oil sands' while nearly everyone else calls this area 'tar sands'. What is the difference? Most people will believe what is told to them on cable tv or daily talk radio.
Are the L'brea tarpits oil sands or tarpits? I can easily say that most citizens believe that this pipeline is just a straw to suck out oil...transport it to Texas and prices will drop.
Another typical message issue without due diligence or depth of reporting. I wish that I were more optimistic about my fellow Americans, but time after time, we prove to ourselves that our collective thought process does not extend past our cell phones or the next reality TV show.
Pathetic.
What an obtuse question it is to ask “who makes money from this”, Diane. The question should be put “who makes the profits from this and who stands to lose the most from this”. The potential catastrophe to our natural resources is mind boggling. And the good neighbor policy argument doesn't fly either. It would be a fair comparison to make of what Canadian is doing to their land as full blown rape … and just because my neighbor is rapping his spouse doesn't mean that I have to participate or be their pimp in my home.
I hear the environmentalists. a lot, and persistently. Use "low carbon foot-print" technology. No one objects this. There is, though, a corporate infrastructure for oil (and dare I say, some nuclear).
In this case. We have seen the great lights of the new refineries in the Dakotas. Why not send the tar sand oil to Dakota for refining? It is certainly closer and after refining would be cleaner, lighter and more transportable.....
It seems like a conflict of interest when John Boehner and others have recieved campaign funds from six oil companies and one electric company that is directly involved with the Keystone XL.
The price of oil was described as the result of a complex group of factors, including geopolitical, weather, disasters, economic, etc. I'd like to know what happens by the simple elimination of oil futures as a tradeable commodity. Nonsense to think this could happen, but wouldn't it put the price where it belongs, i.e. tied immediately and simply to the costs of production and transportation?
I guess I must be off the deep end because the US Chamber of Commerce rep sounds like someone from a conservative think tank. I don't believe anything he says. Why not promote renewables to create energy independence and jobs
Across the United States, oil refineries are seeking permits to expand their facilities to process heavy crude oil from the tar sands. Processing tar sands oil will mean more asthma and respiratory diseases, more cancer, and more cardiovascular problems. Many local communities are opposing the expansions.
Increased greenhouse gas emissions associated with tar sands development is the main reason Canada will not meet its Kyoto reduction commitments.
In 2010, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are projected be nearly 35 percent higher than 1990 levels.
The alternative is simple: we need to break our addiction to oil and fossil fuels. We could be on the road to a new energy future if we simply redirect the investment capital slated for the tar sands into sustainable alternatives. Heightened investments in clean energy also mean the creation of new green jobs. We need to stop investing in dirty fossil fuels and start funding the future.
Hundreds of thousands are protesting and TransCanada Ordered Texas Police To Use Brutal Tactics Against Peaceful Protesters
i would like to remind the "pro-pipe" guy that those cowboys out there are not Blue or Red when it comes to the drinking water of their cattle or crops - and have guns. Is the pipeline ready for this? Remember your history and the fencing wars.
"GREED" is the only word needed to describe the reason for going forward with this project.
We have been mistreating our environment, and the consequences are now putting us all in danger. If we care for ourselves and for future generations, we should stop the Keystone XL pipeline and end our dependence on fossil fuels. Thanks to everyone working toward these goals. www.ForwardOnClimate.com
I think the idea that we can continue to grow the world economy is a recipe for disaster in the future. If it's possible for a human being to get too big, physically speaking, then it's possible for anything created by human beings to get too big. Someday we will realize that we have gone too far, and what we will do then I don't know.
My own personal opinion is that the forces of nature will intervene in an effort to correct the imbalance. Certainly the medical profession has been concerned about the possibility of super viruses which might be able to rival (or exceed) the plagues of the Middle Ages. If the forces of nature should go berserk, the damage could be worse than nuclear war.
And I can't say that sanity will prevail before catastrophe occurs. For years now, we have seemed to be on a speedway to "somewhere".
The lack of a North American economic and energy integration (within NAFTA) is a tragedy of the commons. Hence the underlying problem is lack of leadership and ignorant complacent voters!!!! Kell Petersen
We have seen this rhetoric with the Alaskan pipeline, promises of new oil for the U.S. when instead most of it was shipped to Japan. The global oil industry transcends country boarders in looking out for its own interest. Why is this time different? Why should we believe otherwise?
Thank you Diane for airing this timely and very important debate. I hope John Kerry was listening. To me, it's clear that this pipeline should never be built, and not going forward would be a significant step toward changing our energy future to one that makes sense for people and planet.
Hello,
I've heard that if the Keystone XL is not approved, the oil from the tar/oil sands will be transported via trucks to the Pacific and shipped to other countries, at a higher carbon cost. Is this true?
Also, I've read that shipping coal from deposits in the west such as in Wyoming to China is a problem worse than the Keystone XL pipeline in terms of climate change. This is described in the first four paragraphs of page 3 of the following article from The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/article/172540/climate-activists-put-heat-obama...
I'd like to hear comments about this.
Also, what about the issue of peak oil? I've read that if all the oil deposits in the world are burned, it will increase global temperatures by 1 degree Celsius; if all the natural gas in the world is burned, the increase will be 3 degrees Celsius; the increase from all the world's coal deposits is 15 degrees Celsius. Please discuss.
Anyone can contact me at sudheerpshukla@yahoo.com. I'm also on Facebook. Feel free to friend me.
Sincerely,
Sudheer
Yes, it is proposed that a great deal of the shale gas reserves will go to China.
In September 2011, Cornell University's Global Labor Institute released a study titled "Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by The Construction of Keystone XL", that refutes many of the claims made by your guest from the Chamber of Commerce. Per the study, the claims for job creation made by Mr. Koch...which likely came from TransCanada's study (by the Perryman Group), are false. The study says that far fewer jobs will be created and the project may actually lead to a net loss of jobs as well as an increase in fuel prices in the Midwest.
Here is the link to that study:
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_keys...
It seems to me that the environmentalist in this country could care less about the pollution. They only want to stop America from creating jobs associated with the production of a product that is essential to the American economy. The product (Oil) is going to go somewhere and be a pollutant in the atmosphere that we have no control over. It would seem to me that if environmentalist wanted to control pollution they would want the oil to be processed in a country that can actually control how most pollution. Plus when it is processed here in the USA it will create jobs while it is producing less pollution.
Yeah Little John. The U.S. #1 export is refined oil products.
Time to unchain the bonds that shackle us to misinformation. The bubble is beginning to resemble the Maxwell Smart cone of silence,where the truth doesn`t have a prayer of penetrating.
One crucial point not raised: The area slotted for devastation by tar sands developers NOT ONLY contains habitat crucial for survival of hundreds of endangered species (including indigenous humans)-- the extraordinary wetlands being destroyed are in fact one of the earth's key carbon sinks, protecting us from more rapid greenhouse gas accumulation. In other words tar sands mining not only radically increases greenhouse gas pollution- it is destroying one of our most important bulwarks against global scorching. For more info see TED talk by Garth Lenz: http://www.ted.com/talks/garth_lenz_images_of_beauty_and_devastation.html
One crucial point not raised: The area slotted for devastation by tar sands developers NOT ONLY contains habitat crucial for survival of hundreds of endangered species (including indigenous humans)-- the extraordinary wetlands being destroyed are in fact one of the earth's key carbon sinks, protecting us from more rapid greenhouse gas accumulation. In other words tar sands mining not only radically increases greenhouse gas pollution- it is destroying one of our most important bulwarks against global scorching. For more info see TED talk by Garth Lenz: http://www.ted.com/talks/garth_lenz_images_of_beauty_and_devastation.html
Matthew stated that the extraction process is being made more efficient and cleaner. Michael's description of the stripe-mining, tailing ponds, and general pollution sounds so terrible. How specifically are tar-sand oil extractors actually making these declared improvements?
1. Stopping the pipeline will not stop the production of oil in Canada. If you want to change their internal political process fight that battle up there. This oil will get to market one way or the other. The question is if the US will be able to get the profit from transporting it across our country and refining it in our refineries.
2. When the oil is refined it will go into the world market and the highest bidder will get it. Who cares if it is China or not.
3. Why is environmental concerns only valid in Canada? What about the countries where we get our oil from now?
4. You guest kept talking about investing in "green energy" but where is that money going to come from to replace the money that Trans-Cananda is going to pay to build the pipeline? If green energy make sense from an economical standpoint then there will be natural investment in that sector. Stopping the pipeline does not automatically make billions of dollars available for green projects and I do not think that spending tax dollars on green energy is a good use of my hard earned money.
For clifffromparma -
I DID NOT contend that refined oil products are the US #1 export and I don't know how defensible that statement is. Data source?
My only statement was that the US is a NET EXPORTER rather than Importer of refined oil product.
Pancake Rankin wrote: (Do you agree that the Hurricane Sandy cleanup has boosted the GNP?)
ARE YOU JOKING????? Sir, it appears that you have -0- knowledge of what drives our economy and in particular the GNP... otherwise you would not make such a narrow minded statement. Ohhhh... I forgot... this... IS.... the left's idea of job growth and a plan for the future. Are these the "shovel ready" jobs the POTUS promised? You claim that this increased the GNP and created jobs but forgot that the money that is being used for repairation all came from the fed government (i.e. all y'all taxpayers after 46/100 being borrowed from China.) Thats what you say "BOOSTED THE GNP"????
biltmore: This show saddened me for many reasons. I was surprised you did not know the US Chamber of Commerce has long been (maybe always) the spearhead in the class warfare on democracy, labor and middleclass financial security. Look up the Lewis Powell memo if you do not know. It hurts me that DRShow would think such a radical outfit could provide a spokesperson constructive to a meaningful debate on Keystone XL. It also hurts my sensibilities when bloggers compare other CO2 pollution to Keystone XL insisting that we must oppose only the worst instances. They must be lobbyists from the Chamber. Right now in Alberta there are many square miles of sludge pools from the tar sands extraction process. They are so massive that groundwater is polluted 50 miles away. They are so toxic that periodic booms must ring out every few seconds to keep flocks of migrating water birds from landing and dying en masse. This is the first time the Sierra Club has endorsed civil disobedience actions by its membership, which wasn't mentioned on this show. (Why not?) If anyone belonged on this panel it was Bill McKibben. I doubt they even called him. State Department approval was probably a very important reason Hillary Clinton resigned. It would be very sad if Senator Kerry approved it. The Democratic Party deserves the worst if they think they can trade coal emissions enforcement for this travesty. The lack of choice provided our electorate makes me sad too. Informed citizens know better.
climbitwhiz- Yes, funds expended to recover from Hurricane Sandy ARE included in the GDP which does not differentiate between destructive or industrious transactions or between waste and money properly spent. Maybe that's why it's called Gross. In the last quarter of 2012 our GNP shrank, and some economists blamed the Hurricane Sandy disruption. What I meant to communicate was how Capitalism is measured always in total, and how this measure constitutes an empty boast by thoughtless boosters. You may not be capable of understanding the Shock Doctrine of disaster capitalism. As long as people like you remain in denial of such manipulation you will always be victims. But maybe you worship the 1% in hopes they'll trickle on you.
@ pankook Ranting
Wasn't it Rahm Emanuel who said "never let a serious crisis go to waste"?
Blather on about shock doctrine and disaster capitalism pal... this administration and all the fine upstanding refugees from the banking "crisis" that the POTUS gave staff positions to are all pretty good masters of spinning the media and cooking the books and weeing on the 99%. But...hey... seeing as how you base your faith on them and revere them as diety...sorry to dis your fiscal saints.
If it takes a lot of natural gas to cook the oil so it can be extracted, why not just use the natural gas for energy?
The need for natural gas to extract the oil came up, but the show went on to other topics. I wanted to ask my radio these questions.
How much natural gas energy is used per amount of oil energy produced? Might it be better for the environment to just further adapt our transportation system to use natural gas as a transition fuel to cleaner energy and forget about the oil?
Does the oil have to be extracted to produce this gas or can the gas be produced without the oil?
Questions for us and the Canadians to ask.