Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit 1 Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend 7 (10 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   1 comment

General News

Foggy Bottom Shuck and Jive

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 3/14/13

Become a Fan
  (28 fans)
- Advertisement -

KEYSTONE PIPELINE SAFE FROM CLIMATE CHANGE, STATE DEPARTMENT SAYS

By William Boardman  


It's that deep, but only this far, honest.... by politico

Secretary of State John Kerry promised a "transparent" assessment of the Keystone XL pipeline, and now the State Department has delivered on that promise -- with a transparently fraudulent [1]"environmental impact statement"[1] which, according one critic, "makes no mention of the [pipeline's] impact on the world's climate." 

After meeting with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird on February 8, 2013, Kerry made his first public comments as Secretary of State about the pipeline then under review by his department.  He said, in [2]response to a question[2] about the review:  "I can guarantee you that it will be fair and transparent, accountable, and we hope that we will be able to be in a position to make an announcement in the near term."

Environmentalist opponents of Keystone XL warned for years, as [3]anyone attentive[3] to the issue would know, that the development of tar sands oil in Canada will increase greenhouse gas emissions beyond the point where there is any hope of mitigating climate change.  Stopping the Keystone XL pipeline would not, in itself, control tar sands development.  But permitting it would mean losing control. 

In evaluating the Keystone project, one of the challenges the State Department faced was credibly assessing what effect the pipeline's operation -- or more precisely the effect of burning billions of gallons of the world's dirtiest oil over a period of 30 years or more would have on the global climate. 

The first signal that the State Department report would be bad news for the climate was that it was released on March 1, on a Friday afternoon, a time when news media are often at their least attentive. 

- Advertisement -

Why Would Government Ignore Impact on Climate? 

Two days after the release of the report, investigative [4]historian Eric Zuesse[4] wrote:  "The study does discuss "Climate Change Impacts on the Proposed Project, ' but not the proposed project's impacts on climate change. It finds that climate change will have no significant impact upon either the construction, or the operation, of the Pipeline."

The State Department's environmental impact statement, executive summary section ES.5.5, tiptoes up to the critical question of tar sands oil development: 

"Finally, climate change considerations--which are influenced by GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions--could affect the construction and operation of the proposed Project. GHG and climate change issues were the subject of many comments

received during the public scoping process for the proposed Project." 

- Advertisement -

But there the analysis stops, like a shell game in which none of the shells conceal a pea. 

The State Department statement (section E.S.5.5.2) concludes "that approval or denial of the proposes [Keystone] Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area." 

In other words, even if there were a pea under one of the shells, there's nothing to be done about it. 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

Vermonter living in Woodstock: elected to five terms (served 20 years) as side judge (sitting in Superior, Family, and Small Claims Courts); public radio producer, "The Panther Program" -- nationally distributed, three albums (at CD Baby), some (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Nuclear Perceptions Fight Reality

Fukushima Spiking All of a Sudden

Fukushima Meltdowns: Global Denial At Work

Vermont Asks: "What the Fukushima"?

Military-Industrial Complex Owns Vermont

Accountability in Vermont?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

One way to win this battle is to accelerate cost-c... by Mark Goldes on Thursday, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:06:08 PM