Tag Archives: keystone

Keystone XL opponents dominate raucous Nebraska hearing

by OfeliawWeeks Posted on April 19, 2013

Keystone XL opponents dominate raucous Nebraska hearing

By John Upton

Reuters / Dave WeaverRandy Thompsen tells State Department officials why Keystone XL is a terrible idea.

More than 1,000 people traveled from far and wide to snowy Grand Island, Neb., on Thursday to tell the State Department what they think of plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Commenters had a maximum of three minutes apiece to speak their minds during the hearing at the Heartland Events Center, which, according to Reuters, is “a venue more used to hosting monster-truck derbies and antique shows.”

Thursday’s eight-hour hearing allowed members of the public to formally comment on the State Department’s draft supplemental environmental impact statement on the pipeline. It’s the only hearing State is expected to hold on the report, which effectively concluded that there is no environmental reason not to build the pipeline. That conclusion is, of course, hotly disputed, especially in the wake of the recent spill from a tar-sands oil pipeline in Mayflower, Ark.

The Lincoln Journal Star describes the crowd at the hearing:

[H]undreds of critics with rural addresses, young, old and in between turned out in red, white and blue shirts with the words “Pipeline Fighter” spread across their chests. Tribal leaders also weighed in strongly against the project.

There to counter them were busloads of union workers from Omaha, plumbers, welders and pipeline fitters wearing blue and orange shirts, many of them bearing the words “Approve the KXL pipeline so America works.”

But the sides were not evenly matched: “for every voice of support there were at least a dozen against” the pipeline, reports The New York Times.

The hearing … drew hours of emotional testimony, mostly from opponents of Keystone XL, who whooped and applauded when anyone from their ranks spoke, and solemnly hoisted black scarves that read “Pipeline Fighter” during comments by the project’s supporters.

“The Keystone ‘Export’ pipeline is not in the national interest, and it is most certainly not in Nebraska’s interest,” said Ben Gotschall, a young rancher, one of the first speakers at the hearing, which was held in a large events hall at the state fairgrounds here.

“Our landowners have been left to fend for themselves against an onslaught of dishonest land agents and corporate bullies,” Mr. Gotschall said.

Nebraska has been a rallying point for environmental groups, landowners and ranchers who oppose the 1,700-mile proposed pipeline, which would carry diluted bitumen from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast.

Many who didn’t make it to the Nebraska hearing have submitted written comments on the environmental impact statement — at least 807,000 of them. More comments will be accepted through April 22, and the State Department is considering a request to extend the comment period for another 75 days. State said in March that it wouldn’t release the comments publicly, but this week it reversed course and said all comments would be posted online, Bloomberg reports.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Original source: 

Keystone XL opponents dominate raucous Nebraska hearing

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Keystone XL opponents dominate raucous Nebraska hearing

Tar-sands oil spills in Arkansas and Minnesota

by Vonnie Criswell Posted on April 1, 2013

Tar-sands oil spills in Arkansas and Minnesota

By John Upton

As the Obama administration mulls approval of the Keystone XL pipeline that would carry tar-sands oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries, the heavy toxic gunk is already spilling out over America.

Last Wednesday, a southbound train carrying Canadian oil derailed in Minnesota, spilling about 15,000 gallons of tar-sands crude – described by The Washington Post as “a mixture of heavy bitumen and lighter dilutents.”

Two days later, an ExxonMobil pipeline carrying tar-sands oil burst beneath a suburban neighborhood in Arkansas. The exact size of the spill hasn’t yet been determined, but ExxonMobil says it’s preparing to be able to clean up 420,000 gallons, though it doesn’t believe the spill is that large. The oil flooded yards and streets and led to the evacuation of 22 homes in Mayflower, a small community about 20 miles northwest of Little Rock.

Watch a video of the spill:

From Reuters:

[An ExxonMobil] spokesman confirmed the line was carrying Canadian Wabasca Heavy crude. That grade is a heavy bitumen crude diluted with lighter liquids to allow it to flow through pipelines, according to the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA), which referred to Wabasca as “oil sands” in a report.

You may recall that this is not Exxon’s first major oil spill. Just last week, the U.S. Department of Transportation fined the company $1.7 million for safety violations that led to a 2011 oil spill in the Yellowstone River. (As a point of reference, ExxonMobil’s profits last year were $44.9 billion.)

Reuters / Jacob Slaton

Tar-sands oil from an Exxon pipeline is making a big mess in Mayflower, Ark.

Tar-sands oil is especially potent stuff. It’s heavier than standard crude, which causes it to quickly sink and complicates cleanup efforts. It is cut with cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene to thin it out so it can flow through pipes.

The North American oil boom has maxed out the capacity of pipelines that carry the material south to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, so oil companies have begun loading their toxic cargo onto trains even as they lobby the U.S. government to approve Keystone XL.

Some Keystone boosters argued that Wednesday’s train derailment and spill in Minnesota showed the urgent need for the pipeline, because pipelines are supposed to be safer than train shipments.

After Friday’s pipeline spill in Arkansas, that argument looks full of holes.

When it comes to transporting tar-sands oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries, it seems that the only safe option is to not transport it at all. Leave that shit in the ground and plant some wind turbines and solar panels over it.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Originally posted here – 

Tar-sands oil spills in Arkansas and Minnesota

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Safer, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tar-sands oil spills in Arkansas and Minnesota

Protests against tar-sands pipelines heat up in U.S. and Canada

by Isela Harris Posted on March 26, 2013

Protests against tar-sands pipelines heat up in U.S. and Canada

By Susie Cagle

Anti-tar-sands protests escalated last week, aiming to block both the Keystone XL and the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines. In the U.S. and Canada, activists staged more than 50 actions — raucous marches, another sit-in outside the White House, and a full-on blockade of a refinery, altogether resulting in more than 50 arrests and at least one restraining order. There was even a light brigade in Tampa, Fla.!

And, marking a new front in the war, activists broadened their scope beyond oil and pipeline companies to include firms investing in tar-sands projects, like TD Bank, a major financier of Keystone. “We will demonstrate to companies bankrolling KXL that their investments are as toxic as the tar sands they want to pump through the pipeline,” the Tar Sands Blockade group said in a statement.

ccojr

Native American and First Nations leaders also made headlines last week by coming out strongly against tar-sands pipelines. From the Global Post:

Canadian and US indigenous leaders gathered in Ottawa on Wednesday in opposition to building pipelines to move Canadian tar sands oil across their traditional lands, citing environmental concerns.

Chiefs from 10 tribes delivered a message at a press conference: “Tar sands pipelines will not pass through (our) collective territories under any conditions or circumstances.”

They also pledged mutual support for one another in their respective court battles and “a long, hot summer” of protests against four Enbridge Northern Gateway, Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain, Trans Canada Keystone XL and Enbridge Line 9 pipelines.

Maybe you think more political pressure is what’s needed. Then join 350.org’s “rapid responder” Keystone webinar on Thursday to make plans for keeping the heat on President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and key senators.

Or maybe you’d just like to tell the State Department how you personally feel about this tar-sands thing. You can submit comments on the department’s draft environmental impact statement for Keystone until April 14; check out the EIS and then email your thoughts to keystonecomments@state.gov. You won’t be able to see other people’s comments, though, because State doesn’t plan to make them public. For that, you’ll need a formal Freedom of Information Act request, a lot of patience, and maybe an account at the new FOIA Machine project.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

This article is from:

Protests against tar-sands pipelines heat up in U.S. and Canada

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Protests against tar-sands pipelines heat up in U.S. and Canada

Senate gives a big, fat thumbs-up to Keystone XL

by Curtis Tangredi Posted on March 23, 2013

Senate gives a big, fat thumbs-up to Keystone XL

By Lisa Hymas

350.org

The Senate was not listening to these guys.

The vote was non-binding but all too telling. On Friday, the U.S. Senate voted 62 to 37 in favor of building the Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline, with 17 Democrats joining all Republicans. It was just an amendment to a budget plan that won’t even be going to the president’s desk, but it shows that the political class in D.C. views the pipeline very favorably — and believes voters view it very favorably too.

From The Washington Post:

The 17 Democrats who voted yes included every single possibly vulnerable incumbent facing reelection next year, from 34-year veteran [Max] Baucus [Mont.] to first-term Sen. Mark Begich (Alaska).

Perhaps more importantly, Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.), who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, voted for the resolution. Bennet is not up for re-election until 2016, but his post requires him to raise money from the wealthy liberal community that is highly opposed to the pipeline.

Additionally, a crop of Democrats who survived difficult reelections in 2012 — Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) — all supported the GOP Keystone amendment.

Did fossil-fuel money have anything to do with the vote? You be the judge:

New analysis today from Oil Change International reveals that supporters of the just-passed 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, for a staggering total of $30,978,153.

The Keystone decision still ultimately rests with President Obama, who appears to be dithering — and procrastinating like mad. From The Hill:

In meetings with Obama last week, House and Senate Republicans pressed the president for a timeline on his decision — about which Obama was vague. …

Obama has been noncommittal on Keystone. According to some Senate Republicans present at last week’s confab, the president said his decision would come by year’s end.

On top of that, the president told the GOP their claims about Keystone’s job creation prospects were exaggerated. He also suggested a good amount of the oil sands were destined for export. …

Republicans also said Obama told them last week that environmentalists’ fears of Keystone’s impact on the climate were overblown.

Climate activists at 350.org, who’ve been leading the anti-Keystone charge, plan to let senators know what they think while the lawmakers are back in their home districts for a recess over the next two weeks.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on

Twitter

and

Google+

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Source: 

Senate gives a big, fat thumbs-up to Keystone XL

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Senate gives a big, fat thumbs-up to Keystone XL

N.Y. Times and Thomas Friedman call for killing Keystone

by xntaw2b Posted on March 11, 2013

N.Y. Times and Thomas Friedman call for killing Keystone

By Lisa Hymas

digiart2001

The New York Times editorial board and Times columnist Thomas Friedman have both come out swinging against the Keystone XL pipeline.

A strong editorial today calls on Obama to kill the project. The headline: “When to Say No.”

[Obama] should say no, and for one overriding reason: A president who has repeatedly identified climate change as one of humanity’s most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience approve a project that — even by the State Department’s most cautious calculations — can only add to the problem. …

Supporters of the pipeline have argued that this is oil from a friendly country and that Canada will sell it anyway. We hope Mr. Obama will see the flaw in this argument. Saying no to the pipeline will not stop Canada from developing the tar sands, but it will force the construction of new pipelines through Canada itself. And that will require Canadians to play a larger role in deciding whether a massive expansion of tar sands development is prudent. At the very least, saying no to the Keystone XL will slow down plans to triple tar sands production from just under two million barrels a day now to six million barrels a day by 2030. …

In itself, the Keystone pipeline will not push the world into a climate apocalypse. But it will continue to fuel our appetite for oil and add to the carbon load in the atmosphere. There is no need to accept it.

In an op-ed published on Sunday, Friedman also calls for rejecting Keystone, but with a different spin. He thinks Obama will end up approving the pipeline, so he wants activists to make such a stink about it that Obama feels compelled to take other big steps to forestall climate change in exchange.

I hope the president turns down the Keystone XL oil pipeline. (Who wants the U.S. to facilitate the dirtiest extraction of the dirtiest crude from tar sands in Canada’s far north?) But I don’t think he will. So I hope that Bill McKibben and his 350.org coalition go crazy. I’m talking chain-themselves-to-the-White-House-fence-stop-traffic-at-the-Capitol kind of crazy, because I think if we all make enough noise about this, we might be able to trade a lousy Keystone pipeline for some really good systemic responses to climate change. … So cue up the protests, and pay no attention to people counseling rational and mature behavior. We need the president to be able to say to the G.O.P. oil lobby, “I’m going to approve this, but it will kill me with my base. Sasha and Malia won’t even be talking to me, so I’ve got to get something really big in return.” …

If Keystone gets approved, environmentalists should have a long shopping list ready, starting with a price signal that discourages the use of carbon-intensive fuels in favor of low-carbon energy. Nothing would do more to clean our air, drive clean-tech innovation, weaken petro-dictators and reduce the deficit than a carbon tax. One prays this will become part of the budget debate. Also, the president can use his authority under the Clean Air Act to order reductions in CO2 emissions from existing coal power plants and refiners by, say, 25 percent. He could then do with the power companies what he did with autos: negotiate with them over the fairest way to achieve that reduction in different parts of the country. We also need to keep the president’s feet to the fire on the vow in his State of the Union address to foster policies that could “cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years.” About 30 percent of energy in buildings is wasted.

Friedman’s support is nice, but this is, in the grand tradition of D.C. pundits, too clever by half. If the green movement were strong enough to make the president nervous, why wouldn’t he just reject the pipeline? And if it isn’t, why would he bother with a symbolic “trade”?

Obama can’t “trade” for a price on carbon. A carbon tax just isn’t going to happen under the current Congress, which won’t even work with Obama to keep the country financially solvent — so the president would be left trading with … himself?

Friedman is right that the president can take significant steps without the approval of Congress, including the big one of cracking down on dirty old coal plants. Obama should take those steps because they are the right thing to do. But does anyone really think they’d make the green movement any less angry about Keystone approval?

Obama should do the right thing. Period. This talk of “trades” is little more than Beltway navel gazing.

Anyhoo, these two Times pieces come just a week after The Washington Post irked climate activists with an editorial accusing them of “fighting the wrong battles” by protesting Keystone instead of pushing for a carbon tax. Grist’s David Roberts sums up the Post’s logic:

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on

Twitter

and

Google+

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Taken from: 

N.Y. Times and Thomas Friedman call for killing Keystone

Posted in ALPHA, Amana, G & F, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on N.Y. Times and Thomas Friedman call for killing Keystone

Enviros slam Keystone findings, threatened species stay silent

by charlenedean Posted on March 4, 2013

Enviros slam Keystone findings, threatened species stay silent

By John Upton

Kenneth Cole Schneider

Whooping cranes: just one of the species threatened by the Keystone XL pipeline.

Environmentalists lined up over the weekend to condemn a draft State Department report that found no compelling environmental reason not to build the Keystone XL pipeline.

The stretch of pipeline in question would bring tar-sands oil from Alberta, Canada, across the U.S. border and down through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. The southern stretch of the pipeline, which will carry the oil to Gulf Coast refineries, is already more than halfway built.

The draft environmental impact statement concluded [PDF] that the proposed project would damage more than 100 acres of wetlands, increase temperatures in wildlife-rich streams, and threaten vulnerable species. If there are spills from the pipeline, they could dump oil into lakes, aquifers, and rivers.

The project would also lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but the department determined that if the pipeline is not built, that could trigger more global warming because the industry might then ship its oil via less efficient methods like rail and oil tanker. That claim drew widespread condemnation from activists and scientists.

From The Guardian:

Aside from the Sierra Club, other prominent scientists and environmental groups have criticised the State Department report. They say that the report ignores the idea that building the pipeline will encourage greater development of the tar sands and boost oil production of deposits that are seen as a highly pollutive resource which can cause widespread ecological damage as it is mined.

“The State Department is overlooking the fact that the pipeline is likely to trigger at least 450,000 barrels per day of additional tar sands production capacity,” said Stephen Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, in a statement.

James Hansen, a Columbia University professor who is one of the world’s most respected experts on climate change, also issued a statement attacking the report’s findings. “To say that the tar sands have little climate impact is an absurdity,” he said.

Amid the outcry over climate change, less attention has been paid to wildlife that would be threatened by Keystone. Here are just some of the vulnerable species that could be harmed if the Obama Pipeline is built. The block quotes are taken directly from the State Department report [PDF], which also recommends measures to help conserve the species.

Whooping crane – listed as endangered by the federal government and also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Whooping cranes could be impacted by collisions with power lines associated with the proposed Project. The majority of the proposed Project route crosses the central flyway whooping crane migration corridor in South Dakota and Nebraska, and the Rainwater Basin in south central Nebraska provides whooping crane migration habitat.

Greater sage-grouse – a candidate for protection under the Endangered Species Act

Approximately 190 miles of the proposed Project route would cross areas with greater sage-grouse habitat in Montana, of which 94 miles are classified as moderate to high-quality habitat for greater sage-grouse.

American burying beetle –  listed as endangered by the federal government

Approximately 50 miles of the proposed Project Route in Nebraska would affect American burying beetle habitat; approximately 43 miles in South Dakota would affect suitable habitat for the species.

Western prairie fringed orchid – listed as a threatened species by the federal government

The proposed Project would pass near known populations of western prairie fringed orchid in Nebraska, and through land where the orchid may potentially occur in South Dakota. Clearing and grading of land associated with construction of the proposed Project (including pipeline and ancillary facilities) may potentially disturb western prairie fringed orchids, and may introduce or expand invasive species that already contribute to the orchid’s decline

Small white lady’s slipper – a perennial orchid listed as a threatened species by Nebraska

This species may potentially occur within suitable habitat along the proposed Project route in Nebraska.

You will soon be given 45 days to comment on the State Department’s draft report. Threatened plants and animals that could lose breeding grounds and die of electrocution if the project moves forward will receive no such opportunity.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Jump to original:  

Enviros slam Keystone findings, threatened species stay silent

Posted in ALPHA, Amana, GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Enviros slam Keystone findings, threatened species stay silent

Van Jones: Keystone XL would be ‘the Obama Pipeline’

by Shicsshaw Posted on March 2, 2013

Van Jones: Keystone XL would be ‘the Obama Pipeline’

By Lisa Hymas

Activist and former White House adviser Van Jones came out swinging against the Keystone XL pipeline Friday night on CNN, warning that if it’s approved it would be a big black mark on President Obama’s legacy. His comments came a few hours after the State Department released a draft environmental impact statement finding that the proposed pipeline wouldn’t have excessive environmental or climate effects. Jones:

What happens if you’ve got the Obama Pipeline — now it’s the Obama Pipeline — and it leaks? His legacy could be the worst oil disaster in American farmland history. …

If after he gave that speech for his inauguration, the first thing he does is approve a pipeline bringing tar sands through America … the first thing that pipeline runs over is the credibility of the president on his climate policy. …

The Obama Tar-Sands Pipeline should not the legacy of the president that gave that speech.

Watch the whole segment:

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on

Twitter

and

Google+

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continue reading: 

Van Jones: Keystone XL would be ‘the Obama Pipeline’

Posted in ALPHA, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Van Jones: Keystone XL would be ‘the Obama Pipeline’

Southern section of Keystone XL pipeline is already halfway done

by gerdi Posted on February 25, 2013

Southern section of Keystone XL pipeline is already halfway done

By Susie Cagle

President Obama and the State Department haven’t approved the northern leg of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would cart tar-sands oil down from Canada, but the southern leg, which Obama blessed last year, is trucking right along. TransCanada says construction on the southern section, from Oklahoma to the Texas Gulf Coast, is about halfway complete.

From the Associated Press:

Nearly 4,000 workers in Oklahoma and Texas are aligning and welding a 485-mile section, TransCanada spokesman David Dodson told The Associated Press.

“We’re right at peak right now,” he said. “We hope to have it in operation by the end of this year.”

Where there’s oil there’s money, and where there’s money there are job creators, right? At least so says TransCanada — and in the short term, that’s not wrong.

Now about 850 laborers are at work in Oklahoma, with roughly 3,000 more in Texas. Most are temporary contracts. Dodson said he didn’t know when those numbers would start winding down.

Pipeliners Local 798, a national union based in Tulsa, Okla., has about 250 of its members working on the pipeline’s northern two-thirds, union business manager Danny Hendrix said. He estimated about half of those welders are from Oklahoma.

“These jobs are really good-paying jobs,” Hendrix said. “They provide not only a good living wage, they provide health care and they also provide pension.”

Throughout the approval process, TransCanada has stressed those benefits, saying the pipeline could support thousands of people in economically rough times.

The pipeline to nowhere may be creating great jobs now, but that won’t last long. After pipeline construction is complete, the Keystone XL operation might only create about 20 actual permanent jobs.

And as for that all-important northern leg of the pipeline? Protesters will continue their “so-called ‘direct actions’” (gotta love civil-disobedience scare quotes) as they fight against the pipeline on the blockades and on the Hill.

And the Oklahoma workers with their good TransCanada wages and benefits?

“If the permit gets approved, we’ll start construction on the northern end of it immediately,” said Hendrix. I recommend you not rush, sir — as soon as you’re done, you’ll be unemployed.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continued – 

Southern section of Keystone XL pipeline is already halfway done

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Southern section of Keystone XL pipeline is already halfway done

Canadians are feeling cocky about Keystone approval

by marinavhunt Posted on February 25, 2013

Canadians are feeling cocky about Keystone approval

By John Upton

Shutterstock

/Grist

A week after climate activists rallied in Washington, D.C., against plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline, Canada’s tar-sands salespeople arrived in the nation’s capital with the opposite pitch.

And the fossil-fuel hawkers from up north seem to think it’s their message that will win over America’s decision makers.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford arrived Friday with her environment minister to attend the National Governors Association winter meeting, where the duo gauged the mood of officials and pitched the proposed pipeline, which would carry tar-sands oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries and ports.

The way Redford tells it, things went smashingly. “I’m very optimistic,” she told Canada’s Postmedia News. “There is strong bipartisan support for this project.”

She found that American governors and other officials had concerns about the environment and climate change, but those concerns were pretty easily allayed. From Postmedia:

On her first visit to Washington after she became premier 18 months ago, [Redford] quickly discovered that selling points such as energy security, jobs and economic benefits were accepted as given by U.S. officials. The main issues of contention are still environmental with climate change heading the list.

They want to know what Canada and Alberta is doing to reduce its emissions, she said.

She said she has emphasized the $3.5 billion Alberta has spent on carbon capture and storage, sustainable development and independent monitoring of the oilsands and the fact that Alberta is one of the only jurisdictions in North America that puts a price on carbon. Its $15 carbon fee has since 2007 raised $312 million for development of clean energy technology.

“They know what our environmental record is,” she said. “They are satisfied with that record. Quite frankly in many cases governors on both sides of the aisle say, ‘you know your record is stronger than ours is.’”

Well, in that case, by all means please do send down that sticky tar-sands oil, you environmental champions you.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See original article here:

Canadians are feeling cocky about Keystone approval

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Canadians are feeling cocky about Keystone approval

In his first major address as secretary of state, Kerry nods at climate change

by 1LymSlagter473 Posted on February 20, 2013

In his first major address as secretary of state, Kerry nods at climate change

By Philip Bump

Secretary of State John Kerry, the man ostensibly charged with yaying or naying the Keystone XL pipeline permit, gave his first major speech in his new position this morning at the University of Virginia. I say “ostensibly” because any final decision on Keystone will come from the president, of course. And if you didn’t know the speech was coming from John Kerry, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was coming from the president, too.

State Dept

The sign language interpreter offers her critique of Kerry’s speech.

As indicated in his prepared remarks [PDF], Kerry articulated what he sees as America’s core diplomatic values: security and stability, human rights, health and nutrition, gender equality, education. He then noted the biggest challenge facing the world at large:

We as a nation must have the foresight and courage to make the investments necessary to safeguard the most sacred trust we keep for our children and grandchildren: an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate.

And let’s face it — we are all in this one together. No nation can stand alone. We share nothing so completely as our planet.

When we work with others — large and small — to develop and deploy the clean technologies that will power a new world, we’re also helping create new markets and new opportunities for America’s second-to-none innovators and entrepreneurs to succeed in the next great revolution.

So let’s commit ourselves to doing the smart thing and the right thing and truly commit to tackling this challenge.

Because if we don’t rise to meet it, rising temperatures and rising sea levels will surely lead to rising costs down the road. If we waste this opportunity, it may be the only thing our generations are remembered for. We need to find the courage to leave a far different legacy.

This is a slightly different spin on climate and energy than what Kerry said during his confirmation hearing, when he forcefully argued that America was being left behind in the expanding renewable and clean energy marketplace. Here, Kerry seems to call not just for investing in business ventures but in infrastructure upgrades that would help us function in a warmer world.

Kerry is certainly aware that people like myself will be sifting his words for evidence of how “he” might decide on the pipeline. Which is a futile exercise — even if he’d dropped an unintentional clue, the State Department and White House would swiftly deny giving any such suggestion.

What we learn from Kerry’s words then isn’t much. He remains committed to climate change; he values public investment to ameliorate its effects. Kerry’s first speech in many ways follows naturally from one of former Secretary Clinton’s last. Her determination that the U.S. recognize the role of energy in international diplomacy syncs nicely with Kerry’s call that we advocate for clean solutions.

The Hill suggested that Kerry “came out swinging on climate change.” Not really. It would have been impossible for him not to broach the subject given his boss’s recent advocacy. So he noted its significance, without suggesting much about how it might be addressed. Those looking for him to check that box will be pleased. Those looking for signs of independent boldness will not.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Visit source:

In his first major address as secretary of state, Kerry nods at climate change

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In his first major address as secretary of state, Kerry nods at climate change