The Draft Environmental Impact Statement that Hillary Clinton's State Department contracted to be prepared on the proposed XL Pipeline, and that John Kerry's State Department issued on Friday evening March 4th while he was on a foreign trip, was actually written by a contractor that Hillary's State Department had arranged for TransCanada to hire, TransCanada being the Canadian-Koch partnership that will build and operate the pipeline (which will generate an estimated $4 billion annual profits to TransCanada if it is granted President Obama's approval).
Brad Johnson first exposed this hoax of a "study" at the environmental website grist.org, and at the "Green Blog" of Huffington Post, both on March 6th, but his report has been ignored in the mainstream press, such as The New York Times and Washington Post. Johnson's sensational exposé was covered in only one TV medium: Current TV.
Previously, on the night of March 4th, within just hours after the release of the "State Department's" "study," a reporter (who happened to be myself) had already headlined at the obscure "Off the Bus" blog of Huffington Post, "State Dept. Keystone XL Study Ignores Climate Impact," and reported that, "The U.S. State Department's 'Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Keystone XL Project' released on Friday evening, makes no mention at all of the impact on the world's climate that would result from construction of the proposed Pipeline. The study does discuss 'Climate Change Impacts on the Proposed Project,' but not the proposed project's impacts on climate change. It finds that climate change will have no significant impact upon either the construction, or the operation, of the Pipeline." (A reader there commented that it did address climate change, by saying it wouldn't be affected; but that's not a study of the proposed pipeline's affect on climate change; it's just corporate PR that never even gets to estimating, much less to calculating, precisely how many degrees of additional heating will result for the planet if this pipeline is built than if it is not. If it's zero, then they should show their calculations from which that's derived; they didn't even estimate it, however, much less calculate it.)
I had sent this news story to all major news media, and to all major websites, but only the "Off the Bus" blog picked it up.
America's "news" media are not reporting the truth about this "State Department" "study": It's a horrid and dangerous hoax - doubly so now. It is intended to deceive, and for a very clear financial purpose. As to why Hillary Clinton's State Department had done this (commissioned this fake revised study, after their original sponsored study had been roundly condemned by environmentalists), or why the major "news" media refused to report that it's a hoax, those questions are just as unanswered as is the burning question for our apparently doomed-by-corruption planet: By how many additional degrees will the Earth's temperature rise if this pipeline gets constructed and used?
Something is profoundly wrong with this country's "free press," and with all of the major "news" media, because they all are protecting a hoax that could result in significantly heating the planet, without there ever even having been a study to estimate precisely (or even approximately) by how much. This is psychopathy in the extreme.
----------
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.