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
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnother flawed environmental review on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline
Danielle Droitschs Blog
Another flawed environmental review on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline
A draft environmental review just released by the U.S. State Department for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline ignores mounting evidence the pipeline is not in the national interest. NRDC has completed a preliminary review of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and concludes that the State Department failed to account for the pipelines impact to water and climate. There is now significant evidence the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would help trigger a major expansion to tar sands development leading to a sizeable increase in greenhouse gas emissions. And we know that a spill of tar sands oil from Keystone XL would pose much greater risks to precious waterways across Americas heartland. Despite this evidence, the State Department found there would be no significant impact to the environment if the pipeline were approved. We disagree. President Obama should reject this draft environmental review and tell the State Department to re-examine the evidence that shows the pipeline isnt good for the climate, or water protection, or energy security.
In this latest review, the State Departments ignored evidence that the pipeline would lead to a significant increase in carbon pollution that would be equivalent to adding 6 million new cars on the road. And that doesnt even account for additional carbon emissions that werent accounted for by the State Department from petroleum coke which would increase the climate impacts from Keystone XL by another 13 percent.
Keystone XL would help to expand the dirtiest fuel on the planet because it is a fundamental element in the oil industrys plan to triple production of tar sands oil from 2 to 6 million barrels per day by 2030, and in the longer term to hike production to more than 9 million bpd. Keystone XL would enable a significant amount of tar sands expansion that otherwise would not occur. In other words, if we are serious about fighting climate change then you need to take actions that stop making things worse...a sizeable majority of Americans want the President to take action on climate. To fight climate change, we need to be taking measures that reduce climate pollution that brings dangerous and costly extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy. Building Keystone XL which helps to expand the tar sands industry takes the U.S. in the wrong direction. It is not in our best interest to expanding Americas dependency on tar sands which undermines our efforts to move to clean energy.
The review also failed to recognize the dangerous nature of tar sands spills. This isnt an ordinary oil pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline will carry tar sands, a uniquely corrosive and acidic mixture, more risky than most of the pipelines across the country. Tar sands spills are difficult to impossible to clean up. After more than two years and nearly a billion dollars in cleanup cost, officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have found that nearly 40 miles of the Kalamazoo river is still contaminated by submerged tar sands.
- more -
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddroitsch/another_flawed_environmental_r.html
Another flawed environmental review on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline
A draft environmental review just released by the U.S. State Department for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline ignores mounting evidence the pipeline is not in the national interest. NRDC has completed a preliminary review of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and concludes that the State Department failed to account for the pipelines impact to water and climate. There is now significant evidence the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would help trigger a major expansion to tar sands development leading to a sizeable increase in greenhouse gas emissions. And we know that a spill of tar sands oil from Keystone XL would pose much greater risks to precious waterways across Americas heartland. Despite this evidence, the State Department found there would be no significant impact to the environment if the pipeline were approved. We disagree. President Obama should reject this draft environmental review and tell the State Department to re-examine the evidence that shows the pipeline isnt good for the climate, or water protection, or energy security.
In this latest review, the State Departments ignored evidence that the pipeline would lead to a significant increase in carbon pollution that would be equivalent to adding 6 million new cars on the road. And that doesnt even account for additional carbon emissions that werent accounted for by the State Department from petroleum coke which would increase the climate impacts from Keystone XL by another 13 percent.
Keystone XL would help to expand the dirtiest fuel on the planet because it is a fundamental element in the oil industrys plan to triple production of tar sands oil from 2 to 6 million barrels per day by 2030, and in the longer term to hike production to more than 9 million bpd. Keystone XL would enable a significant amount of tar sands expansion that otherwise would not occur. In other words, if we are serious about fighting climate change then you need to take actions that stop making things worse...a sizeable majority of Americans want the President to take action on climate. To fight climate change, we need to be taking measures that reduce climate pollution that brings dangerous and costly extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy. Building Keystone XL which helps to expand the tar sands industry takes the U.S. in the wrong direction. It is not in our best interest to expanding Americas dependency on tar sands which undermines our efforts to move to clean energy.
The review also failed to recognize the dangerous nature of tar sands spills. This isnt an ordinary oil pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline will carry tar sands, a uniquely corrosive and acidic mixture, more risky than most of the pipelines across the country. Tar sands spills are difficult to impossible to clean up. After more than two years and nearly a billion dollars in cleanup cost, officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have found that nearly 40 miles of the Kalamazoo river is still contaminated by submerged tar sands.
- more -
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddroitsch/another_flawed_environmental_r.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 4792 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Another flawed environmental review on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline (Original Post)
ProSense
Mar 2013
OP
randr
(12,409 posts)1. If this is what our Tax dollars get us
we may all be glad if the sequester succeeds.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)2. This is what tar sands does to the environment
toxic AND destructive.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)3. Those photos are incredibly shocking and persuasive
It looks like something unreal - out of a science fiction horror movie.
Could you list where they are from or the source. There is nothing I have seen that makes the case better than this and with the backup information, it would be the best answer to anyone suggesting that it is ok.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)4. Google image search for 'Tar sands' below:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1273&bih=623&q=tar+sands&oq=tar+sands&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1212.2912.0.3196.9.6.0.3.3.0.19.66.6.6.0...0.0...1ac.1.5.img.uLJkieFPf7g
Thats just a tiny piece of the environmental destruction from mining it and getting it out of the ground. Never mind tar sand spills, horrifying.
Thats just a tiny piece of the environmental destruction from mining it and getting it out of the ground. Never mind tar sand spills, horrifying.