Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: He said "make me do it" so they showed up to make him, but were arrested. [View all]proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)58. Read here.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddroitsch/final_environmental_review_for.html
NRDC: Danielle Droitschs Blog
Final environmental review for Keystone XL tar sands pipeline acknowledges significant climate impact and sets stage for rejection
Posted January 31, 2014
The State Department has released its final environmental review acknowledging for the first time Keystone XL could accelerate climate change, adding the equivalent of 5.7 million new cars to the road. There is already compelling evidence that approval of Keystone XL would expand the tar sands industry and cause unacceptable climate impacts. This is a significant change to previous State Department analyses which have failed to acknowledge the role of the pipeline to facilitate tar sands expansion. When considering these climate impacts with the overwhelming evidence that the pipeline would create few jobs, bring tar sands to the Gulf for refining and export, and put communities and fresh water at risk, there is no other choice than to reject the pipeline. This dirty energy project fails the national interest test. In his recent State of the Union address this week, President Obama noted the enormous opportunity the country has to develop clean energy. Serving our national interest means embracing clean and renewable energy, reducing oil demand, and facilitating cleaner transportation. This means rejecting Keystone XL.
The pipeline will have a significant climate impact
In this final environmental review, the State Department concedes the pipeline will enable the expansion of tar sands production in a scenario assuming lower oil prices and little or no growth in pipelines. In this scenario, the State Department has now conceded that the possible climate impact of the pipeline could be upwards of 27.4 MMTCO2e annually which is equivalent to the tailpipe emissions from 5.7 million passenger vehicles. While the State Department downplays the likelihood of this scenario, they clearly acknowledge the project could pose a significant climate impact. The International Energy Agency (IEA), futures markets, and the World Bank are all projecting lower global oil prices over the coming years. According to the environmental review, [t]he total direct and indirect emissions associated with the proposed Project would contribute to cumulative global GHG emissions.
Already, there is plenty of recent evidence from the investors, the Canadian government, and the tar sands industry acknowledging that the pipeline is critical to expansion. The International Energy Agency has confirmed the close connection between large pipelines including Keystone XL, and the tar sands industrys expansion plans. Investment banks like the Royal Bank of Canada and Goldman Sachs have acknowledged the role of Keystone XL in driving tar sands expansion. In fact, we know that rail is not a feasible alternative to replace the capacity of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. In short, Goldman Sachs finds that without Keystone XL, lower tar sands prices and higher transport costs will result in the cancelation or deferment of tar sands expansion projects. We know that rail wont be a replacement for moving tar sands oil.
<>
NRDC: Danielle Droitschs Blog
Final environmental review for Keystone XL tar sands pipeline acknowledges significant climate impact and sets stage for rejection
Posted January 31, 2014
The State Department has released its final environmental review acknowledging for the first time Keystone XL could accelerate climate change, adding the equivalent of 5.7 million new cars to the road. There is already compelling evidence that approval of Keystone XL would expand the tar sands industry and cause unacceptable climate impacts. This is a significant change to previous State Department analyses which have failed to acknowledge the role of the pipeline to facilitate tar sands expansion. When considering these climate impacts with the overwhelming evidence that the pipeline would create few jobs, bring tar sands to the Gulf for refining and export, and put communities and fresh water at risk, there is no other choice than to reject the pipeline. This dirty energy project fails the national interest test. In his recent State of the Union address this week, President Obama noted the enormous opportunity the country has to develop clean energy. Serving our national interest means embracing clean and renewable energy, reducing oil demand, and facilitating cleaner transportation. This means rejecting Keystone XL.
The pipeline will have a significant climate impact
In this final environmental review, the State Department concedes the pipeline will enable the expansion of tar sands production in a scenario assuming lower oil prices and little or no growth in pipelines. In this scenario, the State Department has now conceded that the possible climate impact of the pipeline could be upwards of 27.4 MMTCO2e annually which is equivalent to the tailpipe emissions from 5.7 million passenger vehicles. While the State Department downplays the likelihood of this scenario, they clearly acknowledge the project could pose a significant climate impact. The International Energy Agency (IEA), futures markets, and the World Bank are all projecting lower global oil prices over the coming years. According to the environmental review, [t]he total direct and indirect emissions associated with the proposed Project would contribute to cumulative global GHG emissions.
Already, there is plenty of recent evidence from the investors, the Canadian government, and the tar sands industry acknowledging that the pipeline is critical to expansion. The International Energy Agency has confirmed the close connection between large pipelines including Keystone XL, and the tar sands industrys expansion plans. Investment banks like the Royal Bank of Canada and Goldman Sachs have acknowledged the role of Keystone XL in driving tar sands expansion. In fact, we know that rail is not a feasible alternative to replace the capacity of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. In short, Goldman Sachs finds that without Keystone XL, lower tar sands prices and higher transport costs will result in the cancelation or deferment of tar sands expansion projects. We know that rail wont be a replacement for moving tar sands oil.
<>
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
142 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
He said "make me do it" so they showed up to make him, but were arrested. [View all]
Scuba
Mar 2014
OP
Ask those of us who protested to sit at a lunch counter and were arrested for it. It's what we
kelliekat44
Mar 2014
#52
there's nothing new in that. U.S. arrests peaceful demonstrators since the beginning
2banon
Mar 2014
#120
If he wanted to help them, and us, he could nix the pipeline. That's why we elected him.
Scuba
Mar 2014
#11
Sure, because that was the most important thing for him to be doing yesterday.
JoePhilly
Mar 2014
#34
Has anyone who opposes this eisastrous pipeline been invited to participate in discussions
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#57
But it might have been an error to focus mainly on Keystone XL over the past few years
Chathamization
Mar 2014
#32
Whether it should be part of a strategy and whether it should be the main focus are two different
Chathamization
Mar 2014
#90
This toxic material doesn't have to be transported across the heart of the US by pipe or rail.
Scuba
Mar 2014
#15
Nope, we should spend capital (political and actual) on efforts that will actually make a difference
Adrahil
Mar 2014
#24
That's funny, that's what I thought of your posting against resisting Keystone XL
dreamnightwind
Mar 2014
#63
I know that. But the pipeline will increase the amount of tar extract being transported.
RC
Mar 2014
#79
Yep, 40,000 protesters in DC got no mention on the Urinal/Sentinel website today. They did ....
Scuba
Mar 2014
#17
Scuba, wow! Now they are defending the XL pipeline. Yes, 40,000 was the estimate.
madfloridian
Mar 2014
#16
The first president to say that was FDR - I am curious to know how he treated protesters and if they
jwirr
Mar 2014
#23
"President has ZERO obligation to stop them from being arrested" after he said "make me do it"?
Scuba
Mar 2014
#53
Yes, and in the thread, you are taken to task for misrepresenting the gravamen of the arrests.
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#49
Sorry--I didn't mean to silence but to expose the misinformation, which is all they have.
factsarenotfair
Mar 2014
#103
Obviously, they were trying to steal his "comfortable walking shoes".
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#91
"Make me do it" was always ridiculous. Voters need to demand that elected officials serve them...
polichick
Mar 2014
#107
In one day, the US arrested almost half as many protesters as Venezuela has in over three
Zorra
Mar 2014
#108
But apparently, far more unwilling to jail his own people for protesting than Obama is.
Zorra
Mar 2014
#118
Soes President Obama understand that a lot of thoes protestors are Democrats who could be out
JDPriestly
Mar 2014
#119
People seem really upset that they have to work for and fight for things rather
bluegreen
Mar 2014
#126
Suggest you ignore the trolling remark. Your post is heartfelt and accurate. Thanks.
Scuba
Mar 2014
#137
and I suggest you get your facts straight before posting inflammatory crap ...
MindMover
Mar 2014
#140