Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 2 Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit 1 Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend 1 (7 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
General News

Fraud at State?

By       Message William Boardman     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H2 3/25/13

Author 14586
Become a Fan
  (30 fans)
- Advertisement -


By William Boardman         

- Advertisement -

[Add Caption Here] by Francesca Woodman

Reader Supported News  is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News

What Is It Called When You Outsource Your Autonomy?    

So it turns out that friends of the oil industry wrote the environmental impact [1]statement[1] issued by the State Department about the Keystone XL pipeline on March 1.  That's the report that assured people tar sands oil was going to be developed no matter what and anyway, climate change wouldn't hurt the pipeline. 

- Advertisement -

And it turns out that at least one of the several oil-friendly corporate authors was apparently paid by Trans-Canada, the corporate applicant for -- and the owner of -- the Keystone pipeline. 

And it also turns out that the State Dept., while noting (on page 1.5-1) that as "the lead agency, the Department directed the preparation" of the impact statement, the title page lists only one person, Genevieve Walker, as "Project Manager," along with more than 14 cooperating and assisting government agencies -- and no reference to any other possible direct or indirect report authors. 

And it further turns out that the State Dept., without giving credit to specific contributors for specific sections, does include -- at the end of volume 2 of 4-volume, 2,000-page report -- a "list of preparers," 58 of them, almost all from three, private oil industry consulting firms.

And it finally turns out that little if any of this has appeared in mainstream media, which may be less of a surprise than it should be, since cynicism about government integrity is so widespread, one might be tempted to ask why the State Dept. made even this much effort at deception just to hide a fundamental conflict of interest that hardly seems unusual.   And news media might cynically ask, what's the news here?

When the Conclusion Is Predictable, Who Cares Who Wrote It? 

While environmentalists and [2]others[2] promptly characterized the report's analysis as fraudulent or worse as soon as it came out, mainstream coverage was more like [3]Fox News[3] headlining an Associated Press story the next day, "No major objections to Keystone XL oil pipeline, State Department says." 

On March 4, three days after the Friday release of the report, the Heritage Foundation complained that "Obama Administration Buries Good News on Keystone Pipeline" -- basing its claim on the choice of a Friday release.  Based on the same fact of a late Friday release, the Sierra Club made the opposite claim, that the administration was trying to bury bad environmental news.   But Heritage went on to push discredited job-creation numbers, along with the false assertion that the "Keystone pipeline has passed its environmental reviews." 

- Advertisement -

The current review is not complete.  The March 1 report will be held at least until mid-April, when the 45-day public comment period ends.  Comments on the Draft SEIS [Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement] can be submitted via email to:  Email address removed"> Email address removed for the next several weeks, or from the State Dept. website. 

Lisa Song of [4]Inside Climate News[4] was apparently the first to write about the State Dept.'s use of highly conflicted providers when State decided not to do the work itself, for whatever reason.   Her March 6 article concentrates on the three main contractors in the report's list of preparers: 

1.   EnSys Energy (3 preparers) -- the company's president, Martin Tallett said "We don't do advocacy."  [5]EnSys[5] clients have included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dept. of Energy,  and State, as well as the World Bank, ExxonMobil, BP, Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute.   Tallett refused to discuss the Keystone pipeline. 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

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 Petition Site */
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 AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView 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?