Obama will say (in so many words) NO to Keystone XL Pipeline

[geek tragedy]

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

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.

"Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest," the president said in a Tuesday speech on climate change. "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."


...

As the executive order on Keystone contemplates, the environmental impacts will be important criteria used in the determination of whether the Keystone pipeline application will ultimately be approved at the completion of the State Department decision process," said the senior administration official. "In today’s speech, the president will make clear that the State Department should approve the pipeline only if it will not lead to a net increase in overall greenhouse gas emissions."

Didn't see that one coming. It's possible that someone could manipulate the numbers (State has been a rubber stamp for Big Carbon*) to make the pipeline look carbon neutral, but . . .

* State initially found no increase in carbon emissions

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/keystone-xl-pipeline-does-little-environmental-harm-us-finds/

[LongTomH]

1. God! I hope you're right. In the meantime, call the White House and let them know what YOU think!

202-456-1111

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

[Enrique]

2. unless...

...

[geek tragedy]

3. Unless the initial shitty State Department report is upheld

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/keystone-xl-pipeline-does-little-environmental-harm-us-finds/

The EPA smacked it down pretty hard

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/23/epa-criticizes-state-department-keystone-report_n_3135680.html

[Enrique]

4. it sounds to me we're getting Keystone

the conditions he placed on it are easily met. As you point out, it has already been done.

[geek tragedy]

5. Except the EPA called bullshit on the State Department study

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/23/epa-criticizes-state-department-keystone-report_n_3135680.html

And John Kerry is excellent on this subject.

[GeorgeGist]

6. Dictionary please ...

Exacerbate

x·ac·er·bate [ ig zássər bàyt ]
make worse: to make an already bad or problematic situation worse
Synonyms: make worse, worsen, aggravate, impair, intensify

[ProSense]

7. More:

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.

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. But in its draft environmental impact statement on the pipeline, the State Department asserted otherwise.

The U.S. EPA says State is wrong and argues that Keystone would notably boost greenhouse gas emissions. Even Canadian tar-sands boosters say Keystone is necessary in order to increase their oil production: “Long-term, we do need Keystone to be able to grow the volumes in Canada,” Steve Laut, president of big oil company Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., said last month.

Climate activists put so much pressure on Obama over Keystone that he felt compelled to address it. He certainly hasn’t killed the pipeline, but it’s notable that he attached a climate litmus test to it.

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

[BlueCheese]

8. The first two paragraphs don't agree with each other.

The first says the pipeline cannot "lead to a net increase" in greenhouse gas emissions, which means they have to either stay the same or decrease.

The second says it cannot "significantly exacerbate" the problem of carbon pollution. That leaves the door open for some increase, as long as it's not significant, whatever that means.