The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionKeystone XL debate's plotline thickens
by Sharon Abercrombie on Nov. 08, 2011
"We call on the State Department NOT to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline or to take any actions that lead to the further extraction of Tar Sands oil from Alberta, Canada.
The pro-environmental plotline thickens. And it's good news all around.
On Nov. 6, an estimated 12,000 protesters encircled the White House, urging President Obama to reject the proposed Keystone XL, a 1,700-mile oil pipeline that would stretch from Canada to Texas.
Among the numerous ecological objections to Keystone XL: If it were to leak, the pipeline could poison the 174,000-square-mile Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies drinking water to roughly two million people in the American heartland, reports the Huffington Post.
Meanwhile, as environmentalists rallied in D.C., several news sources and an independent labor study revealed that TransCanada, Keystone's owner, has exaggerated the number of jobs the project would create.
Earlier reports were touting 20,000. Turns out that's not exactly the case.
A Nov. 5 Washington Post story calls it a fabrication supported by misleading mathematics. And what about those 250,000 indirect jobs? This is a number based on one study funded by the oil industry that counted jobs for dancers, choreographers and speech therapists.
"Thank heavens some reporter actually questioned this jobs number, instead of just repeating it," said environmental activist Bill McKibben, organizer of Sunday's Tar Sands Action protest against Keystone XL.
Said McKibben: "The only study not paid for by the pipeline company makes clear that there are no net jobs from this pipeline because it will kill as many as it will create."
Meanwhile, Huffington Post reporter Tom Zeller Jr. has reported that the pipeline company included expenditures on the Canadian side of the border, and included "tens of thousands of indirect jobs in retail, printing and publishing, and other ancillary industries that would spring up." TransCanada chief executive Russ Girling said the 13,000 construction jobs figure was "one person, one year," meaning that if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed would be only 6,500.
Information concerning manufacturing jobs also turned out to be misleading. The company has already purchased $1.9 billion on pipe and other materials. Of money still to be spent, said a Tar Sands Action online report, "at least $1.7 billion worth of steel will be purchased from a Russian-owned mill in Canada," said the Huffington Post.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
CARE2, a northern California online news and petition site, has reported that a Cornell University Global Institute study, the only one not funded by TransCanada, concluded that any jobs stemming from the pipeline's construction were likely to be outweighed by the environmental damage it would cause, along with a possible rise in Midwest gasoline prices because a new pipeline would divert that region's oversupply of oil to the Gulf Coast.
As if these revelations are not enough to cause major migraines for TransCanada executives, former employees and several union representatives spoke out against the pipeline at Sunday's rally.
John Bolenbaugh, a former Keystone employee, came to the protest from his Michigan home. He served as a spill cleanup worker for an Enbridge Energy Partners' spill on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. He said the risks involved in building another pipeline are just not worth it.
"I'm a union worker," he said. "I work for Pipefitters 355 in Battle Creek, Michigan, and I will not accept a job for a tar sands pipeline. I will not do it because I've seen the devastation and the sick people from what a tar sands spills does when there is a leak, and there's gonna be a leak. It's gonna happen sooner or later."
Labor leaders are also speaking out against the pipeline. James C. Little, president of the Transport Workers Union, and Larry J. Hanley, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union, organizations representing more than 300,000 U.S. workers, issued a joint statement last Friday opposing the approval of the proposed pipeline:
We share The Environmental Protection Agency's concerns conveyed to the State Department on two occasions, most recently June 11, 2011. These concerns cover the potential impacts to groundwater resources from pipeline spills, the high levels of GHG emissions associated with the proposed project, and the inevitable damage to the health of communities affected by the increase in refinery emissions. Approval of this project at this time would therefore be reckless given the EPA's own assessment of the environmental risk."
Little and Hanley's final paragraph contains treasures of wisdom that reveal that ecological consciousness is expanding.
"We need jobs but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil," they write. "There is no shortage of water and sewage pipelines that need to be fixed or replaced, bridges and tunnels that are in need of emergency repair, transportation infrastructure that needs to be renewed and developed. Many jobs could also be created in energy conservation, upgrading the grid, maintaining and expanding public transportation – jobs that can help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency."
May the good news stream continue.
Editor's Note:
Subscribe to the Eco Catholic email alert to get weekly highlights from the blog. If you already receive email alerts from NCR, add Eco Catholic to your profile.
Learn more.
Somewhere this sort of Hyped
Somewhere this sort of Hyped Environmental postion needs to be turned off. Pipelines are lot more secure than ships and tank transfers from Mideast and other heavy crude oil sources. Both US & Canada are/have run out of enough domestic crude and must have the oil sands crude to avoid product imports from the wolds largest polluters now - China, Russia & India .... thanks to enviornmentalist who dont seem mind pollution if its not in their backyard.
Also this wont stop oil sands production it would just re-route it to Europe, India or China to continue global environmetal pollution there where Environmetal crafted Koyoto exempted developing nations from emission investments it mandates developed nations install & lose mfg sites due cost anyway.
We have stop this 1% US population that is destroying jobs, manfacturing & economy for rest of 99%. EVERYTHING in modern word that provides advantage carries risk - would you stop driving/flying/traveling because you might have accident? Pure NIMBY driven selfish stupidity - has nothing to do with environment or pickets would be around China not US/Canada!!!
Republican heads everywhere
Republican heads everywhere are exploding. They will jump all over Obama, just as they did to get Clinton to pass NAFTA. They have the endless support and alignment of the pope and the bishops, such that their Scalia SCOTUS Fascism has been unleashed. That papal alignment has enabled and emboldened them, far beyond anything the American voter would ever have allowed.
Another question needs to be
Another question needs to be answered:
Why transport unrefined petroleum all the way south across the USA to refineries on the Gulf coast? Why not build a new refinery on the Canadian border?
Is there some hidden agenda in the Keystone XL plans?
This is a valid question, but
This is a valid question, but it needs to be addressed to the United States federal government.
For many years, it is my understanding that the government has basically through cost, regulation and various legal maneuvering prevented any new refineries from being built at all in the United States. The fact that it is cheaper to simply transport the crude all that way instead of building a refinery should tell you of the MASSIVE prohibitive cost and restrictions placed on any new refinery building.
It's a simple calculation of cost vs. profit for the company, nothing sinister.
Perhaps they're betting on
Perhaps they're betting on the ascendancy of China and its growing thirst for oil. New Orleans is a port city although the Panama Canal isn't the most efficient path. As the man said, "cost vs. Profits, nothing sinister". There's never anything sinister about that, right?
Creating jobs. Reducing our
Creating jobs. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Both are things that President Obama said were in his top priorities. Notice that this is delayed until after November 2012. Those of you who plan to vote to re-elect the President should note that date, because after the election, if he wins, President Obama will sign the legislation to create this pipeline. Because he knows it is good for the country. But he won't risk his re-election.
If you do not believe me, consider this: Is Guantanamo open or closed? Are the terrorists being tried in civil or military courts? Are there other promises that he made to get elected that he backtracked on once in the WH?
Post new comment