Flashback: Eco-Terror Threats Issued at Rally: Climate Depot attended: ‘We will dismantle the Pipeline’ sign prominently displayed at rally — ‘By any means necessary’
…New York Magazine: ANTI-KEYSTONE MOVEMENT WAS ‘A GIGANTIC MISTAKE’: ‘The anti-Keystone movement was an accident. Indeed, the environmentalists’ obsession with Keystone began as a gigantic mistake’
‘…if your goal is to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, you need to have a strategy designed to advance policies that limit greenhouse-gas emissions. Stopping Keystone doesn’t do that. EPA regulations would. Would blocking the Keystone pipeline make it easier for Obama to issue tough regulations on existing power plants, and to negotiate an international climate treaty in 2015 after such regulations bring us into compliance with our reduction targets?
I don’t see how. I think it would feed criticism by opponents that Obama is captive to environmentalists, even to the point of following their quixotic and marginal obsessions.
Fellow Democrats press Obama to approve Keystone, following environmental report
President Obama is facing increasing pressure from Senate Democrats to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, following the release Friday of a State Department report that raised no major environmental concerns.
“Today’s Environmental Impact Statement confirms what Alaskans already know — there are ways to safely and responsibly diversify our domestic energy supply,” said Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska. “Move this project forward.”
Begich also said he will continue to “demand” that Obama approve the $7 billion pipeline project while reminding him that development in Alaska’s Arctic Ocean and National Petroleum Reserve is critical in securing the county’s energy independence from foreign countries.
He was joined Friday by Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in calling on Obama to approve the project, proposed back in 2010.
“This new study underscores what has been said all along about Keystone XL Pipeline: It’s time to build,” Landrieu said.
Begich and Landrieu are in tough, 2014 re-election efforts in conservative-leaning, energy-producing states.
“I urge the administration to act swiftly and give final approval so we can put people to work in these good-paying jobs right away,” said Landrieu, who like other Keystone supporters says the project will add tens of thousands of jobs to the U.S. economy.…
Keystone XL Pipeline Given High Marks in State Department’s Final Environmental Impact Statement
Keystone XL Pipeline Given High Marks in State Department’s Final Environmental Impact Statement
Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger
Recall this passage from President Obama’s Georgetown speech last summer announcing his Climate Action Plan:
Now, I know there’s been, for example, a lot of controversy surrounding the proposal to build a pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, that would carry oil from Canadian tar sands down to refineries in the Gulf. And the State Department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal. That’s how it’s always been done. But I do want to be clear: Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. It’s relevant.
This basically should have green-lighted the pipeline, because, as I pointed out in congressional testimony last year, regardless of how you figure the carbon dioxide emissions from the pipeline’s oil, the resulting climate impact will be so small as to assuredly put the president’s mind at ease.
The just-released Final Environmental Impact Statement from the State Department concluded about the same thing as the Draft Environmental Impacts Statement from the State Department, which is in complete agreement with my findings regarding carbon dioxide emissions from the pipeline’s oil and climate change. The net global warming impact from the pipeline oil amounts to somewhat less than 1/100th of a degree Celsius over the next 100 years.
So if the president wants to kill the Keystone XL pipeline (clearly he does, because he has had ample opportunity to approve it), he’ll have to find a reason to do so other than a climate one. Unfortunately for him, trying to kill it for other reasons would be equally ill-founded.
Sent by gReader Pro…
Report May Ease Way to Approval of Keystone Pipeline
.…
State Dept.: Keystone XL would have little impact on climate change
BY NEELA BANERJEE
January 31, 2014, 3:02 p.m.
WASHINGTON — A long-awaited environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline released Friday by the State Department found the project would have a negligible impact on climate change, bolstering the case for the controversial project as it heads to the White House for a decision on its construction.
During a sweeping speech on climate change last June, President Obama said his main criterion for approving the pipeline was that it not significantly worsen the problem of carbon pollution.
Because the northern stretch of Keystone XL, which would carry 830,000 barrels a day from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Neb., would cross a U.S. border, it needs a so-called presidential permit from the State Department. But Obama has said that he would make the final decision.
A senior State Department official was careful to note that the environmental review took no position on whether to approve the pipeline, saying: “Its analysis is only one factor in the final determination, which will also weigh national security, foreign policy and economic issues.”
Federal agencies now have 90 days to submit comments about the final assessment, while a 30-day public comment period runs concurrently. Then the president will have to determine whether Keystone XL is in the “national interest” based on those analyses, which will include one from the Environmental Protection Agency, which has been critical of the State Department’s previous reviews.…
Watch Now: Alex Epstein on Stossel: ‘I Love Fossil Fuels’ – ‘The fossil fuel industry is not taking a safe climate and making it dangerous. They are taking a dangerous climate and making it safe’
…
Neil Young’s Hiroshima – Exhibit #10 in the Drama Queen Files – ‘Rockstar’s rhetoric about Canada’s oil sands is intemperate, offensive, and ill-informed’
…Former NASA Scientist James Hansen urges young people to threaten fossil fuel CEOs with criminal prosecution for supporting skeptics
Hansen: I do not advise young people to get arrested, even though I have been arrested in protests against activities such as mountaintop removal and tar sands development. My aim, as an older person willing to accept the consequences, is to draw attention to an unjust situation or policy. Our government has shown that it is ready to heavily punish illegal acts, even if those acts are justified on moral grounds, as shown by the Tim DeChristopher case. It seems that this situation will not change much as long as the number of young people standing up remains small.…
Watch Now: Climate Depot’s Morano on TV on Neil Young & Canadian Keystone XL: ‘Even fellow global warming activists are calling greens campaign against Oilsands pipeline ‘a horrible misallocation of resources, they picked the wrong battle’
Watch:
Related Links:
Ezra fact checks Neil Young’s anti-oil sands message.
Neil Young’s hypocritical ethics
Former NASA scientist James Hansen: ‘Climate change is altering people’s lives, right now, from the United States to Africa to the Arctic. It is as clear and present a danger as we’ve ever seen’ — Hansen: ‘What we owe our kids on climate; – ‘This warming is driving an increase in extreme weather, from heat waves and droughts to wildfires and stronger storms (though mistakenly expecting science to instantly document links to specific events misses the forest for the trees).’
Oil sands not a major source of climate change, says IEA economist
Keystone XL Pipeline: “No Material Impact” on U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions
IHS CERA Study: Keystone XL will have ”no material impact’ on greenhouse gas emissions – Finds: Keystone XL will have “no material impact” on greenhouse gas emissions. Venezuela will be “the number one beneficiary of a negative decision” on Keystone XL. – Rail is a viable option for transporting Canadian oil sands: “Even if new pipelines lag oil sands growth, rail will fill the gap, as it is doing today.” – “Even if the Keystone XL pipeline does not move forward, we do not expect a material change to oil sands production growth.”