The Supplemental EIR that the State Department (or TransCanada’s paid contractor, rather) drafted claimed that the environmental impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline is minimal. The reason? Because the oil will be mined out of the ground and shipped anyway by alternatives like rail. So why worry? And nothing is made about the recent claim that these oil sands contain DOUBLE the carbon than all emitted in human history. This is why Keystone means “game over” in the climate change battle.
However, Think Progress has a report out today from Reuters that says, “Oil by train may not be a substitute for Keystone pipeline.” This debunks the State Department myth and proves that tar sands development IS in fact dependent upon Keystone.
I don’t need to go into all the reasons again why Keystone is good for nobody but TransCanada (see all my related posts), but this should — if Obama/Kerry/State Department are truly walking their “fighting climate change” talk — put more nails in this sickeningly unnecessary and dangerous boondoogle.
UPDATE 4/25/2013: Even Canada’s top government Keystone advocate admitted yesterday that rail would not be an effective alternative to the pipeline. In other words, the pipeline is necessary for tar sands development. Without it, the carbon stays in the ground, where it belongs and maybe — just maybe — we have a shot to keep global temperatures from rising too much, too fast.. And, boo-hoo, TransCanada’s profits go down — affecting nobody in the U.S. (except for those 35 permanement jobs created).
- Make Sure to Send Public Comment Against Keystone XL Pipeline by April 22 (gettingonmysoapbox.wordpress.com)
- Keystone XL Oil Pipeline Exacerbates Climate Change (scientificamerican.com)
- Prepare For the Worst – Obama Poised to Approve Keystone XL Pipeline (gettingonmysoapbox.wordpress.com)
- UPDATE – 4/4/2013: The Shape of Things to Come? A Keystone XL Pipeline-Like Spill in Arkansas (gettingonmysoapbox.wordpress.com)
- Keystone XL: The Pipeline to Disaster (realclearpolitics.com)