More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Noah Greenwald

GET UPDATES FROM Noah Greenwald
 

Keystone XL in the 'National Interest'? No Way.

Posted: 01/13/12 01:12 PM ET

President Obama's got a big decision on his plate. Sometime between now and Feb. 21, he has to decide whether the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline -- which would deliver dirty tar sands oil from Canada to Texas -- is in the "national interest."

That phrase is at the heart of his decision because it's an international project that's primarily under the purview of the State Department. So whether the pipeline "serves the national interest" is the threshold for deciding whether it can move ahead.

The decision should be a no-brainer. Here are five reasons why Keystone XL is not in the national interest:

1. It will dramatically deepen our addiction to climate-killing fossil fuels. Greenhouse gas emissions from tar-sands development are two to three times higher than those from conventional oil and gas operations. That's exactly the wrong direction for reversing global warming. Scientists tell us we must reduce atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million or less. Today, it's 391 ppm -- and Keystone XL would certainly drive that up and worsen the devastating effects of global warming -- from rising oceans to melting glaciers to extreme and dangerous weather events -- that we're already seeing around the world.

2. It will spill. The State Department's review of the project clearly says Keystone XL will spill oil. Not may, but will. It could be as often as the existing Keystone pipeline, which has already leaked 14 times since it began operating in June 2010, including one leak that dumped 21,000 gallons of tar-sands crude. Other pipelines have spilled too recently, including one in the Kalamazoo River in 2010 that leaked 800,000 gallons and another in the Yellowstone River in 2011 that dumped more than 40,000 gallons. Keystone XL would carry up to 35 million gallons of oil every day -- so any leak has the potential to be massive.

3. It will threaten vast pristine landscapes, rivers and wildlife. Running between Alberta, Canada and the Gulf Coast of Texas, Keystone XL will cross nearly 1,750 water bodies, like rivers and steams, and risk contaminating the Ogalla Aquifer (the drinking water source for millions of people). It would also cut through the heart of prime wildlife habitat, including homes for at least 20 imperiled species, including the whooping crane, pallid sturgeon, woodland caribou, American burying beetle, interior least tern and western prairie fringed orchid.

4. It will expand the destruction of Canada's boreal forests. Tar sands oil is the dirtiest oil on Earth. Producing oil from sand has terrible impacts on the environment, including the destruction of tens of thousands of acres of boreal forest in Alberta, pollution of hundreds of millions of gallons of water from the Athabasca River -- each barrel of oil from tar sands requires three barrels of water to produce.

5. It won't be a major job producer. The State Department estimates that Keystone XL will result in only 20 permanent, operational jobs in the U.S and 2,500 to 4,650 temporary jobs. Our economy needs long-term sustainable jobs that a clean energy economy would provide. And by the way, after Keystone XL oil makes it to Texas, much of it will be exported beyond U.S. borders without paying U.S. taxes. It also won't increase our net oil imports. According to the Department of Energy, the U.S. will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 regardless of whether Keystone XL is built.

I have a hard time believing it's in our "national interest" to court oil spills, worsen climate change and jeopardize rivers, streams, drinking water, people and wildlife. Here's hoping President Obama feels the same -- and has the courage to the do the right thing.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 37
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:27 PM on 01/16/2012
Explain to me why this 1700 mile pipeline will cause so much destruction when we already have nearly 1/2 million miles of gas and oil pipelines now? Wheather we do Keystone or not, Canada will harvest their oil, so that argument is mute.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mater
mater
07:46 AM on 01/16/2012
This is such an important , critically urgent piece--why won't people acknowledge the danger?? Whether it was the disastrous and deadly outcomes of the nuclear testing in the 1950s, Agent Orange in the 1960s, Three Mile Island in the 1970s, Chemical spill disaster in Bhopal in India in the 1980s, Chemical and Respiratory debacle from 9/11--we keep getting these warnings and blow them off as so much whining. The pipeline has already leaked in several spots; several states' water has been compromised. I wish someone would take Noah Greenwald's article and scream it to the President so this vast, otherwise inevitable catastrophe will happen again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mater
mater
07:51 AM on 01/16/2012
>>>WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN>>>
08:59 PM on 01/15/2012
You might at least spell the name of the precious aquifer correctly.

And just so you have some conception of the huge numbers of pipelines already crisscrossing this country and the exact same area you are so concerned about:

http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/united_states_pipelines.html

Scroll down to the map.
07:51 PM on 01/15/2012
And Canada WILL find an outlet for its oil sands production, whether it's sending the fuel down through the US to US ports and refiners, or out through western ports to China. America isn't going to get rid of its oil dependency until it gets so expensive that no one can afford anything produced from oil. In the meantime, oil will climb to $150/barrel within the next few years making Canada's oil sands profitable...and Canada, at that price point, becomes the next Saudi Arabia.
03:51 PM on 01/14/2012
Noah Greenwald forgot the one push button issue. KeystoneXL will not give us cheaper gasoline.

In fact, Transcanada wants us to let them extend their pipeline to Port Arthur for one reason only. They can export all the oil, tax-free. In fact, Transcanada has already signed contracts with foreign oil companies to export all of the oil from the KeystoneXL project. It has to export oil in order to get a return on their investment.

Rep. Gerry Connolly proposed an amendment to ban the export of Keystone Oil. The GOP blocked it.

If you really want to stop the KeystoneXL project, write to your Congressional representative and President Obama and urge him to insist on the Connolly amendment to ban the export of any oil in the KeystoneXL pipeline. In addition, we should demand a ban on the export of all petroleum products, (which have sky-rocketed in the past few years.) Let's keep KeystoneXL oil in the US.

Pass the Connolly amendment and see how long the Keystone XL project lasts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mhh310351
Roosevelt Democrat
02:04 PM on 01/14/2012
I'm for a go slow program on the Keystone Project. If we don't build it; because of demand a pipeline will be built west as hard as it might be and financed by the Chinese. Does anyone truly doubt this?

As for your point 1 how many non gasoline cars do you spot on the road? It truly can't dramatically deepen our addiction to climate-killing fossil fuels. We are totally hooked now in case you have not noticed!

Since we recognized a pipeline will be built eventually points 2, 3, & 4 become Irrelevant.

Point 5 becomes do we want the few jobs created to be created in the U.S. and in the Texas refineries or in Canada and the Chinese refineries?

As I say go slow let mid western refineries get a break on lower costing oil but make no mistake here in the U.S. we have limited control over Canadian oil so let's make the best deal we can!

I'll be surprised if this post makes it past the censors but what the heck - hitting Post Comment.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
03:21 PM on 01/14/2012
I say fight the Keystone project even if we lose. Every obstacle must be put in the way of using more fossil fuel. Make them put it through Canada and let's hope the Canadians wake up and fight it as well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mhh310351
Roosevelt Democrat
07:58 PM on 01/14/2012
Sounds like you are one of those environmentalist that believe in the insulating powers of per capita and historic usage in regards to CO2 generation.

We need to slow fossil fuel usage with a fossil fuel usage tax applied to its usage here or its usage in manufacturing and transporting the products here be they foreign or domestic.
photo
Moose Luck 99
Rand Paul is a LIAR!
03:49 PM on 01/14/2012
The Keystone "SLUDGE PIT" They use lots solvents to dissolve it that pollute the air.The resulting sludge must be mixed with a chemical so it flows through the pipeline.This nasty tar sludge is incredibly polluting.The price of oil now makes this project uneconomical.The refining in Texas will pollute the air. Most of the product will be exported (it is a free trade oil port).

We can develop clean oil and NG here! Not import CA's nasty pit sludge!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mhh310351
Roosevelt Democrat
07:51 PM on 01/15/2012
"We can develop clean oil and NG here!"

That's simply not true that oil has all been recovered we are down to the dirties of oil recovery systems and the way Unrestricted Free Trade works fossil fuels will maintain a competitive advantage.

This is the reality of our trading/political system as it stands today!
11:12 PM on 01/13/2012
Here's my prediction: there will be SOME incident with Iran--the situation is tense enough that something is almost bound to boil over--and that will provide political cover to build the pipeline despite the environmental risks and lack of feasibility. Remember, you heard it here first.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jlmurt
10:59 AM on 01/14/2012
I've thought of that. Remember when the Republicans held up the Iranian Hostage release until after the Regean Carter elections so Carter wouldn't get any credit. And where are the solar panels that were going on the Obama White House?
07:19 PM on 01/13/2012
It pretty much goes without saying this is only in the Oilman's interest.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
lisakaz2
Da ministero dell'interno di Snark.
07:14 PM on 01/13/2012
Once upon a time it could have been argued that what was in some US company's interest service the nation's interest. That has not been true in years, not with job off-shoring, tax havens, HQ's elsewhere. These are global companies and they do not care what they pollute or who they hurt, if they make money. They will move to the next site. Ralph Nader predicted this phenomenon of US state hopping for the "best" deals would have disastrous effects as a global issue maybe 15 years ago. The issues mentioned above are tied to location. People not tied to this corporation -- who live there -- cannot escape these problems. THAT is supposed to be what "national interest" represents. Corporate money has pols only working for them whereas they need to work for their own ppl.
01:40 PM on 01/14/2012
hello "lisakaz2".

you mentionRalph Nader but what of Jill Stein?
Perhaps you could also comment on Jill Stein's run for the presidency? She graduated Harvard med school Magna cum laude. She is wonderful and I'd like to hear more about her on Huffington Post - perhaps an interview!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
lisakaz2
Da ministero dell'interno di Snark.
04:24 PM on 01/14/2012
Not familiar with her. I am familiar with a Nader essay that speaks of "decline in democracy" owing to state hopping becoming nation hopping.
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
06:17 PM on 01/13/2012
This is good, and the points are valid. We have to start turning the ship away from major fossil-fuel dependency. Keystone is not just another pipeline project. The quantities of oil involved are exceeded only by Saudi Arabia's. Built, it would subject humanity to near permanent dependency on oil. This at a time when we need to be vigorously pursuing cleaner sources of energy, something that Germany is leading the West in developing.
01:43 PM on 01/14/2012
Hello are yu aware ofJill Stein,Green party candidate? if you have fans and followers etc I hope that you will tel them about her!
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
07:32 PM on 01/14/2012
I wasn't aware of her, but just looked her up online. I wish her well. One of the fantasies about Keystone is that it will produce a lot of jobs. It won't. Srein's approach to jobs id far more sensible.
Deruist
my golden retriever is cool
03:33 PM on 01/13/2012
Add a few more to the list: eminent domain, the taking of privately owned U.S. land to give to the greedy corporate Canadian entity and the fact that the US is not the end recipient of the product.
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
02:34 PM on 01/13/2012
Please, CBD, alert the public, the lands and species you refer to, are Earth's ecosystems, boreal, wetland, riverine and grassland, the natural and wild, life creating, physical body of our living Earth or all the reasons man breathes, in the economy of oxygen releasing, the atmosphere, the sequestration of the heat trapping gases, natural regulation of the climate, and the creation of the very life zone of the Earth, the biosphere/ecosystem, to name a handful of life supporting services.

To-date, man has not successfully re-created an ecosystem. He has yet to fully comprehend how all integrated ecosystems fuel all life with their loops and feedbacks to the atmosphere and the climate.
02:23 PM on 01/13/2012
why build a long pipeline at all? Why not build a new refinery close to the Canadian border to refine the raw crude as it enters the country? I would bet that refining shale oil is a bit different than refining sweet crude, so some changes would be required at an existing Texas refinery anyway. Has this idea not occurred to anyone in the oil industry and why not?
03:31 PM on 01/13/2012
no, that is a brand new idea no one has ever thought of.
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
03:44 PM on 01/13/2012
It is expensive to build refineries, and the ones on the gulf coast have extra capacity. Besides, the object is to sell the stuff overseas, not in the US, so you would still need a pipeline for that.