Obama: Keystone XL Should Not Be Approved If It Will Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions (updated)

[ProSense]

Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2013, 02:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Sam Stein

Obama: Keystone XL Should Not Be Approved If It Will Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will ask the State Department not to approve the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline unless it can first determine that it will not lead to a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, a senior administration official told The Huffington Post.

The policy pronouncement will come during the president's highly publicized speech on climate change at Georgetown University on Tuesday. It will add another chapter to what has been the most politically difficult energy-related issue confronting this White House.

The president has avoided weighing in on the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline for several years now, citing an executive order asking the State Department to make a determination on the project's viability first. Environmentalists have called on him to spike the project entirely because of risks that it will contribute irrevocably to global warming and potentially contaminate drinking water if it leaks. Conservatives and even some labor groups have encouraged Obama to approve of the project because of its potential to create jobs.

The new Obama policy somewhat splits the difference -- not killing the project outright, but ensuring that it meets a basic environmental standard.

- more -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/obama-keystone_n_3497292.html?1372180768

Updated to add:

Obama: I will only OK Keystone if it won’t significantly increase CO2 emissions

By Lisa Hymas

Big news from President Obama’s climate speech: He says he won’t approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline if it will “significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”

It’s hard to know exactly what he means by that, but it’s a surprise that he mentioned Keystone at all. Pundits expected he would keep silent on the issue.

Here’s what he said:

I know there’s been … a lot of controversy surrounding the proposed 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.

I know there’s been … a lot of controversy surrounding the proposed 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 seems obvious that Keystone XL would significantly increase carbon emissions by encouraging development and facilitating transport of the dirtiest fossil fuel on earth — tar-sands oil. The EPA agrees. But the State Department has asserted otherwise. Even the Cana

Climate hawks will be glad that Obama has attached a climate litmus test to Keystone, and they’ll be watching very closely to make sure the State Department meets that test.

http://grist.org/news/obama-will-ok-keystone-only-if-it-wont-increase-carbon-emissions/

[Buzz Clik]

1. Time to re-triangulate. Obama just made a logical, rational announcement in the face of our hysteria

Now what?

[liberal_at_heart]

2. if? huh. We all know the environmental dangers of this thing. Business as usual.

[ProSense]

6. I think

"if? huh. We all know the environmental dangers of this thing. Business as usual."

...he threw it back at the State Department. I hope that Secretary Kerry will reject it.

President Obama's climate change speech may hint at possible Keystone XL pipeline rejection
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/25/1218738/-President-Obama-s-climate-change-speech-may-hint-at-possible-Keystone-XL-pipeline-rejection

[Politicalboi]

3. Fuck the gasses

It's the spills we have to worry about more. He's gonna approve it. Too bad the pipeline doesn't go through the grounds of the White House.

[liberal_at_heart]

4. never does go through the backyards of the rich and powerful. The pollutants are always directed

right towards the poor neighborhoods.

[Politicalboi]

15. Isn't that always the way

Besides, the rich can move to another country till it's safe to come back, if ever.

[Champion Jack]

7. Ask the folks in Mayflower Arkansas how easy it is to clean up tar sands spills

[Politicalboi]

17. You just sweep it in the storm drains

See, all gone. It's disgusting.

[nykym]

8. And the fact that tar sands

are not considered OIL by the FED!

From Grist;
“A 1980 law ensures that diluted bitumen is not classified as oil, and companies transporting it in pipelines do not have to pay into the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund,” writes Ryan Koronowski at Climate Progress. “Other conventional crude producers pay 8 cents a barrel to ensure the fund has resources to help clean up some of the 54,000 barrels of pipeline oil that spilled 364 times last year.”

Link to article;
http://grist.org/news/good-news-arkansas-tar-sands-oil-isnt-oil-oil/

[Politicalboi]

20. Does it really matter?

Look at the Gulf. We allow them to drill without having a 100% clean up ability. Millions of gallons of oil at the bottom of the ocean. If you can't see it, it's clean!

[ProSense]

10. It's the EPA vs. State

It seems obvious that Keystone XL would significantly increase carbon emissions by facilitating the transport of the dirtiest fossil fuel on earth — tar-sands oil. The EPA agrees. But the State Department has asserted otherwise. So it’s impossible to say how this will shake out.

http://grist.org/news/obama-will-ok-keystone-only-if-it-wont-increase-carbon-emissions/

[Politicalboi]

23. Looks like we are going to lose this one

I am so glad I don't have any kids and that I am over 50. Between the pipeline and fracking, this earth will be lucky to get another 30 years without a mass extinction.

[liberal_at_heart]

24. I have young kids and I'm more concerned with the inevitable political upheaval that this and many

other countries are in for. Eventually the poor will revolt against the rich, and it will not be pretty. I worry for my children.

[villager]

27. As a parent of two teens, I worry about the same thing

The upheavals that are coming ahead of the collapses (though still because of them...)

[ProSense]

30. I hope not, and

"Looks like we are going to lose this one"

...I think having Secretary Kerry at State improves the odds against it.

[karynnj]

32. That might be a second issue that would move Kerry - as he has fought

for clean water and air at least since 1970 - before he was known as anti-Vietnam. His (and Teresa's ) book, This Moment on Earth, is mostly about people fighting pollution in their areas. I hope that someone gets Kerry to visit one of the sites where cleanup is STILL going on far after a spill. This is an issue that he has been extremely passionate about - and so has Teresa.

[PDJane]

5. That damn thing goes right over the Ogalala aquifer.

Emissions are only a small part of the problem with the tar sands.

[disidoro01]

9. no biggie

Ogalala is running dry, If there is a break, the aquifer will catch and store it. We'll get oil right out of our faucets.
I hope they don't just look at greenhouse gasses but potential for spills as well.

[Politicalboi]

14. Do you think that shit is FREE?

You will probably have to collect it all and give it back, and be charged for pick up.

[Democracyinkind]

28. Very dark humor there. But I had to laugh.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that Exxon or whomever picks up on your post. Maybe you should patent the whole scheme?

[winter is coming]

11. That alone should have killed the project on the drawing board. n/t

[earthside]

12. The pipeline or tar sands mining?

The pipeline itself won't cause much in the way of greenhouse emissions.

What it carries certainly does and we know that now.

So, what is Pres. Obama really talking about here?

[ProSense]

13. The pipeline

"The pipeline itself won't cause much in the way of greenhouse emissions."

...is an issue, and it pits the EPA against State.

It seems obvious that Keystone XL would significantly increase carbon emissions by facilitating the transport of the dirtiest fossil fuel on earth — tar-sands oil. The EPA agrees. But the State Department has asserted otherwise. So it’s impossible to say how this will shake out.

http://grist.org/news/obama-will-ok-keystone-only-if-it-wont-increase-carbon-emissions/

[bullwinkle428]

16. Who will determine whether greenhouse gases will increase?

[forestpath]

18. In other words, the fix is in.

[Junkdrawer]

21. Depends on what the meaning of "is" is....

IF you assume that the oil will make it to market one way or another, then a pipeline beats, say, trucking it or shipping it.

Clever, no?

[karynnj]

33. True, but consider the impact of economics

Knowing NOTHING about getting oil out of the ground, basic economics says that at each worldwide price point for oil, there will be a point where extracting more - harder to get oil becomes uneconomic (too expensive). That point is based on total cost - including the cost to get it to market. The pipeline is the cheapest way - which is why they want it. As the pipeline and the alternatives have different costs for getting it to market, they would have different points where it is uneconomic to get more. It is THAT difference that makes it not the same.

[Junkdrawer]

37. I agree totally. So does TransCanada. But State is holding onto the "marginal at best" argument....

Funny numbers to justify a horrible policy.

[karynnj]

38. I don't think State has said anything since the draft report was put out

that was a report written by a team selected long before Kerry became SoS - and they simply assumed away ANY difference.

Decades ago, as a young math major, I once had a professor who before returning back tests told us that the thing that made him angriest were "proofs by intimidation" - rather than the acceptable proofs. By that he meant the proofs where someone took the equation they were to prove - manipulated the right side then when they could go no further declare emphatically that meant it equaled the left side. His reaction was that if someone honestly tried to find the path to proving the equality and stopped - essentially admitting they could not prove it - he gave some partial credit if they started sensibly. You used intimidation, you got nothing on the problem.

The people who wrote that report used proof by intimidation - simply declaring that there would be no increase in carbon from the dirty oil - because the dirty oil would be created in any case.

I actually think that the key might be in terms of the leaks that are almost certain to happen sometime in the future. One huge question is whether the US will force TransCanada to buy (not self insure - as corporations can do things like divest a problem) insurance sufficient to pay for the immense costs of some expected number of spills.

I also think it hurts their case that they used less than the best quality of welds etc in the Southern part of the pipeline and have not designed in monitoring for slow leaks in the pipes and welds.

(With the latter two and any other common sense protections given the very real risk, I wonder if you can raise the costs enough to make the pipeline itself uneconomic. I would prefer a clean "NO", but this might be an alternative that ends the project by showing that a company forced to really bear the environmental and safety costs would agree this is a bad idea - as was the idea to process the tar sands to begin with.

[Junkdrawer]

39. Everything I hear about tax policy etc. tells me, as forestpath said, the fix is in...

The pipeline makes no economic sense for the US.

I'm guessing we'll know by late fall.

[karynnj]

40. I think it certainly was lined up to be a go

- Obama approved the bottom half and it has been - at least to some degree - built.
- The team the State Department picked was completely tied to the oil industry.
- The report that Kerry has not commented on personally ignores every one of the very real problems by arguing that other methods of getting the oil to the refineries would be not much better. This ignores whether this should even be done.

[FirstLight]

19. yawn

So the POTUS is once again giving lip service to us while at the same time relieving himself of liability for the decision... I see how this works.

It's not about the emissions (which, seriously...how could MORE oil NOT make MORE emissions?) it should be about the environmental hazards of spillage, AND the fact that he said something in his campaigning about making us LESS reliant on OIL? ...weren't we supposed to lead the charge for GREEN Energy? ya, howz that working? ... I am sure some corporate sponsor nipped that one in the bud!

So he makes a "statement" that is really a non-statement, and throws the hot potato back to other agencies to decide, that way he can be blameless when it goes sour... sounds like a familiar strategy.

But, but, He's got our backs!!!

[ProSense]

22. Well,

"So the POTUS is once again giving lip service to us while at the same time relieving himself of liability for the decision... I see how this works."

...I'm sure when the decision is made, the "liability" will be placed squarely on him.

[Politicalboi]

25. That will help as our water is

No longer drinkable. Damn you Obama!

[Politicalboi]

26. The question should be

Would rather sit next to a person who's farting or shitting themselves. Eventually the gas goes away, but the shit stays till it's gotten rid of. We're doomed.

[NCTraveler]

29. It will happen as predicted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3060504

Text from my post at the link.

NCTraveler (1,870 posts)

71. While I am sure there is more to this.

After watching the administration deal with the BP oil spill, nothing would surprise me with respect to their environmental decisions. There is a clear pattern here. 1) The administration will take action that is not environmentally friendly 2)They will take heat for it and assist the private sector in their endeavors 3)The administration will announce a major initiative change speech 4)A wonderful and inspiring speech will be delivered void of time lines and facts that would actually pinpoint any kind of true initiative 5)Somewhere, out of sight, a congressional committee will be tasked with doing something. 6)Some people will swoon and fawn all over every word, while others will ask "where's the beef"

The environment will continue to be destroyed as the buck is passed down the road.

[politicasista]

31. Fingers crossed

[Marr]

34. He's going to sign it-- there's no doubt.

There might be a little political tap-dancing ahead of time, what with the mid-terms coming next year, but I have no doubt that he'll sign it.

[99Forever]

35. If Obama didn't use weasel words as ...

... standard practice, this might be a very good thing. But, to be quite frank, he's lied too damn many times to have much credibility anymore.

[Scurrilous]

36. Thanks!