I'm talking
chain-themselves-to-the-White-House-fence-stop-traffic-at-the-Capitol kind of
crazy, because I think if we all make enough noise about this, we might be able
to trade a lousy Keystone pipeline for some really good systemic responses to
climate change.
The next day, the Times struck again, this time with an [13]editorial[13] urging President Obama to deny a permit to Keystone:
He should say no, and
for one overriding reason: A president who has repeatedly identified climate
change as one of humanity's most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience
approve a project that -- even by the State Department's most cautious
calculations -- can only add to the problem.
Add the likelihood that the State Dept. report is likely a collusive fraud doesn't really improve the pipeline's case.
And guess what? The State Dept. position today is the same position officially expressed some 18 months ago during a press briefing related to an earlier Keystone report, when Assistant Secretary Kerri-Ann Jones [14]told[14] reporters:
I think that the sense
is we have that this oil sands is going to be developed and therefore, there's
not going to be any dramatic change in greenhouse gas from this pipeline, or if
the pipeline was to go forward or without the pipeline, because the oil sands
will continue to be developed and there are alternatives to pipelines to moving
that fuel or potential crude around.
In other words, the government just spent however many million dollars to get oil industry consultants to come to the same conclusion the government already held in August 2011. No wonder this story is beginning to get some traction.
[1] http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/draftseis/index.htm
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
