Keystone pipeline passes environmental review – 'little impact on climate' – ecos outraged

From Tom Nelson: Keystone pipeline passes environmental review: It’s the [CO2-induced] end of the world as the Sierra Club knows it, and I feel fine

Keystone XL pipeline would have little impact on climate change, State Department analysis says – The Washington Post

The State Department released a draft environmental impact assessment of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline Friday afternoon, suggesting the project would have little impact on climate change.

Live Blogging the Keystone XL Environmental Assessment Release | DeSmogBlog

Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune just released the following reaction in a press release just sent out:

“The Sierra Club is outraged by the State Department’s deeply flawed analysis today and what can only be interpreted as lip service to one of the greatest threats to our children’s future: climate disruption…”

From Junkscience:

Read the full Keystone EIS

It’s is driving the enviros crazy this afternoon.

Keystone XL EIS. (PDF)

Mckibben_twit_keystonesEIS

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Alvin

Let’s see: They will extract the oily sand, process the mixture, store/transfer the oil, and return the clean sand to the earth. This is a catastrophe!

Joe Prins

but what has the P.O. (sorry, president Obama) have to say about this?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

That oil is going to get used no matter what.
Won’t there actually be less of an environmental impact if the pipeline is built and the oil is refined and the products primarily used in the US, with our tight emissions standards,
As opposed to shipping the oil off to China where they’ll use it according to their “emissions standards”?

GlynnMhor

Indeed, Alvin, the oil sands operations are cleaning up one of the world’s biggest oil spills. The stuff has been oozing into the Athabaska River for millenia before even the indians immigrated to the area.

pottereaton

If the State Department says it, it must be true. (I”m not being facetious here.) If for no other reason than you know they wouldn’t want to say such a thing. The State Department has always been a domain of liberals, even when Republicans were nominally in control.
This is extraordinary news.
But don’t assume Obama will buy into it. Not after that SotU speech.

Fred from Canuckistan

This is going to be fun to watch go down. The enviro crusaders, zealots and imbibers are piling it up, building a hill to defend and likely die on. Obama desperately needs to throw these voting allies under his bus now that he no longer needs them because five years of his disasterous economic policies need to be turned around fast, fast, fast if he wants to leave a real legacy instead of a crater where the US economy used to be.
Let the sinning and spinning begin.

I am cautiously optimistic it has this EIS, but interventionists lawsuits even after construction is well advanced can derail it.
Be vigilant.
John

WTF

Don’t know why Bill gets all sad and weepy over the oil sands. He should be crying tears of joy as when you think about it the oil sands extraction is the Mother of all enviromental cleanups….of all time…..evah 🙂

@Alvin
Yep.
They are cleaning up a gigantic natural oil spill and that is bad for the environment.
They are the post-modern environMENTALists .
Cognitive dissonance in motion.

See it goes like this: Global Warning, Climate Change, Weather Weirding, Climate disruption and then finally Global Cooling. See Global Warming causes Global Warming. Idiots!
The alarmists hope the general public will forget that it WAS called Global Warming.
But we will NEVER let them forget “Global Warming.”

RockyRoad

If Bill McKiben is against this, I’m completely for it.
I’m glad Bernie Sanders has identified the greatest benefit to the biosphere–CO2!
And if Michael Brune thinks this is a “deeply flawed analysis”, he’s flawed in his analysis–or would anybody say he’s got a vested interested in his opposition?
I would.
Three cheers for CO2!

Opps lol, See Global Warming causes Global Warming. Idiots! “Cooling.” See confusion rains, and that is the general idea.

John M

This bit of news was buried way down on my Google News page.
I guess their “neutral” aggregator algorithm didn’t find it that newsworthy. At least not as newsworthy as a PBS piece entitled “Is Obama’s Climate Change Policy Doomed to Fail? Maybe Not.”

WTF

Correct me if I am wrong here but the only section of this pipeline that needs to be approved by the US Federal Government is the 1 mm wide section that crosses the 49th. All the States that it goes through have now given the go ahead. So build the pipeline to the border from each side and use duct tape on the crossing…….You are welcome 😉

Can someone please tell me why the Sierra club has a tax free status. Last year I did a little research & found that they have over 750 million dollars in assets. That was for 2009 & I’m sure it’s probably closer to a billion now. Then there’s probably a lot of money also hidden away. I also thought to be tax free you could not be involved in politics? What a joke. Wouldn’t you like to see those book’s audited?

Doug Proctor

“Without access to major U.S. export terminals from Keystone XL and other routes, tar sands production will be substantially slowed.””
So says the National Wildlife fella. “Slowed”, does not mean stopped.
The “line in the sand” is symbolic, not real. North Dakota is railcaring 53% of its 803,000 bopd already, but expects/hopes to have another 200,000 bopd on top of that in two years, and 400,000 more within 7. Even if those numbers are aggressive, within the next few years another 250,000 bopd will probably be producing and needing a market. This oil, not just the Canadian sourced (owned by Exxon-Mobil et al) is being moved one way or another to refineries, whether on the Gulf Coast or in New England. And if in New England, the lack of adequate capacity may mean that a lot is then transshipped down the American coastline to Texas.
Railroads are expensive on an operating basis, but since they exist already, cheap on a new capital project basis. Still, the price differential and the long-term amortization of a pipeline makes economic sense to have the pipeline, period, and so the sooner the better: you don’t want to pay for two system, in effect, if you first pay a railroad premium and discount, and then pay for a pipeline transport fee but no discount.
For some reason 650,000 or more bopd by train through the populated areas of the northern United States, and likely along the New England coastline,does not disturb the eco-green: perhaps they WANT an oil disaster in their own backyard.
Strong, Hansen and others have waxed about the need for a real disaster to motivate the American people. Is this what the WWF and the Sierra Club and McKibben, Suzuki and Gore and all the others really want, an environmental disaster that they can use to decarbonize/deindustrialize all those parts of society that do not serve their personal interests (since they are not giving up their SUVs, their air travel or their fancy houses by the sea)?
I wouldn’t be surprised: their words are out there already. Maybe this is just part of the set-up.

Neo

Canada PM Harper’s “China strategy” made the State Dept’s decision moot. One way or the other, the oil from the tar sands was going to be used, so the net impact was zero.

I see that the State Dept made exactly the same observation that I have made for more than a year : oil is a valuable commodity and it’s going to market regardless of whether there’
a Keystone pipeline or not. Now exactly why is this simple fact so hard for these Nobel prize winners to grasp?

If you go outside tonight and if it is very still, and very clear and cold, and if you listen very carefully … don’t make a sound … you should be able to hear the soft “pop, pop, pop” of the heads exploding all across the land.

commieBob

The logic that gives them their out is this: Even if you kill the pipeline, the oilsands will still be developed. In other words, killing the pipeline will provide no environmental benefit.
Obama’s logic will be that killing the pipeline will not help the environment and will cost American jobs. Approving the pipeline will cost him some political support but there will be a net benefit to him politically. He can say, with a straight face, that he has not betrayed his base.

Steve

Yea, I saw Van Jones whinning on CNN…we all just don’t understand how bad this is…this is end of the world stuff you know…

Latitude

Save the planet…..
…send it to China

Latitude

WTF says:
March 1, 2013 at 4:13 pm
=======
ROTFLMAO……good one

Justthinkin

Albertans (mostly Newfs,heh) are cleanig up the biggest oil spill known.And the enviro-whackos are upset? Oh wait. By doing this,cheap fuel,food,and power may be provided to millions of African’s, saving gigatonnes of lives.But then these are just little black people across a pond,right? If ever there was a case for a crimes against humanity charge,the cAGW eco-cultists are front and centre.

Chris @NJSnowFan

That is great news, jobs in America and I would be s
giving my gas $$ to Canadians then the the over sea nations.

Mike Hebb

Who’s to say it is going to US consumers? Isn’t it just going on the open market for the highest bidder? What we do get is the jobs building and maintaining the pipes and the refinery fees as I see it. If we buy it the delivery fees should sure be less than if it comes from the far east.

Obama can stick it to the enviro crowd. What are they gonna do, vote Republican?

Jimbo

Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune just released the following reaction in a press release just sent out:
“The Sierra Club is outraged by the State Department’s deeply flawed analysis today and what can only be interpreted as lip service to one of the greatest threats to our children’s future: climate disruption…”

Would this threat include GAS? Bloody hypocrites.

“Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry”
http://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/

$25 million, if I recall rightly. Or was that $26 million. Hey, what’s 1 million between friends?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/04/sierra-club-took-26-million-from-natural-gas-lobby-to-battle-coal-industry/

Justthinkin

“Obama can stick it to the enviro crowd. What are they gonna do, vote Republican?”
Damn good question. And who has actually shown you where a bear poops in the woods?

Brad

This was always getting done right after the election, it makes too much sense not to do.

Jimbo

Why do these people oppose the very thing they use so much of and enjoy??? It has made some of them rich. Just look at Gore. Al (6 fireplaces) Gore, the ex-tobacco chopper and seller, got rich from oil, mining and now selling the air we breath. Is there no limit to what these scammers can do????
It’s rumoured that they sometimes fly on private jets on their co2 reduction conferences. You really can’t make this stuff up. Hypocrites.

H.R. (back from fishing in FLA... one fish trashed my 80# line. That was a rush!)

WTF says:
March 1, 2013 at 4:18 pm
“Correct me if I am wrong here but the only section of this pipeline that needs to be approved by the US Federal Government is the 1 mm wide section that crosses the 49th. All the States that it goes through have now given the go ahead. So build the pipeline to the border from each side and use duct tape on the crossing…….You are welcome ;-)”
You are wrong. As each side approaches the limit, the limit on either side goes to zero…. 1 mm my @$$. Someone just needs to spit on the joint and call it a cold weld. ;o)

tobias

Global Warming,
Climate Change,
Extreme Weather Events,
Irreparable Weather Patterns
“Climate Disruptions” (today’s catch phrase)
I am glad there are only 26 letters in our alphabet they’ll run out soon.

Lets see….pipe the oil from Canada to Texas….OR….railroad the oil to Vancouver, then ship to China….and replace it with oil you ship for OPEC. Where’s the enviromental damage ?
Hydrocarbons are natural fission by-products on every planet in the solar system, every star in the galaxy and every galaxy in the universe. See “Fracturing the Fossil Fuel Fable” for the supressed chemistry and geology. Hydrocarbons are far more sustainable than solar, wind and bio-fuel scams.

brad

This was always the plan, I think at least. Wait until after the election, but do it far enough away from the next election that it will not matter much.

WTF

tobias says:
March 1, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Global Warming,
Climate Change,
Extreme Weather Events,
Irreparable Weather Patterns
“Climate Disruptions” (today’s catch phrase)
I am glad there are only 26 letters in our alphabet they’ll run out so
=====================================================
Unfortunately they have the many other alphabets to go through and when those are done with they will use hieroglyphics because we all know the Egyptian Dynasties failed because of Climate Distruption /sarc….kinda

Robert in Calgary

And lets remember that the Oil Sands account for no more than one tenth of 1 per cent of global GHG emissions.
http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca/
http://environment.alberta.ca/apps/osip/

gofer

No approval needed to EXIT the U.S., so build the pipeline up to the southern border and then ask Canada for permission to ENTER the country.

The pipeline at the border might be required to be buried underground:
“The best-known border vista is a six-meter (20 ft) cleared space around unguarded portions of the Canada – United States border.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_vista
Also, because of thermal expansion / contraction, the “Infinitesimally” small distance mentioned up thread would be difficult to obtain. 🙂

WTF

gofer says:
March 1, 2013 at 5:28 pm
No approval needed to EXIT the U.S., so build the pipeline up to the southern border and then ask Canada for permission to ENTER the country
===================================================================
That may not be as easy as you might think. There is already a pipeline from Alberta to the refineries in Sarnia and a pipeline from the refineries and ports in Montreal and the east coast (that refine middle eastern oil) back to Sarnia. Sarnia doesn’t have the capacity to refine all the bitumen that the Alberta pipeline can send so an application has been made to reverse the flow from Sarnia back to the Montreal refineries. The antis have held that up for a couple years now for a pipeline that already exists……wholey within Canada. This is not about the oil sands. This is about something entirerly different. For them it is a crusade.

John another

Interesting, how they always release this stuff on a Friday. I guess the weekend readers are the lowest of the low information voters.

Wamron

Why should we suffer for HIS childrens future?
Why should I endure the misery of a frigid winter unable to pay for heating because of a 60% increase in electricity charges to supposedly benefit HIS children?
Why should millions starve because agriculture has switched to growing fuel crops to enhance HIS childrens future?
Those of us without children have no duty to suffer to benefit those who do. Anyone who has had children has already done lifetimes’ more harm (in their accounting) than any of us can ever who have no children.
The answer for those who worry about climate change is very simple: DONT HAVE CHILDREN.
This kind of thing has made me VERY angry this winter. Believe me, I am suffering. And yes, it IS because of a$%^&oles like THAT.

David Ball

All it will cost us is the implementation of a carbon tax. What could go wrong?

MattS

arthur4563 says:
March 1, 2013 at 4:22 pm
I see that the State Dept made exactly the same observation that I have made for more than a year : oil is a valuable commodity and it’s going to market regardless of whether there’
a Keystone pipeline or not. Now exactly why is this simple fact so hard for these Nobel prize winners to grasp?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Because they are also working to stop proposed pipeline routes to Canada’s west coast as well and they have Canadian tribal groups also opposing those routes, so they are fairly confident that if they can stop Keystone they can keep the tar sands from going anywhere.
I believe that they are wrong, but that is what they are thinking.

Tom J

I’m truly shocked. I can only guess why. Did Obama have a knock down drag out fight with Warren Buffet? Or, did Tiger Woods have money invested in the Keystone? Or, is the administration worried that the Benghazigate problem may just display its hidden skeletons one more time and needs the State Department to take a second fall: Hillary’s paid her dues, now it’s John Kerry’s turn. Or. Or. Heck, I don’t know.

Leo

Pas de Panic Mes Amis….Just another 10 to 15 years of Satellite and Argo data to acquire and we will really have a data set to talking about and to draw conclusions from. As the planet approaches its new load of 10 billion humans, their pets and their walking food supply….we may in the future wish to geo-engineer the planet with doubled or tripled CO2 emissions in a concerted effort to forestall the next glacial maximum for as long as possible. One km of ice over canada, northern europe and asia will kick the stuffing out of our food production and knock our species back to 1-2 billion or worse.
Food for thought.

So let’s see… the ecos don’t want to clean up an oil spill because it’s natural? Huh? Now if mankind had caused it, it would be “killing the Earth and our future children” and no doubt would have to be cleaned up immediately.
It’s fairly clear, right? They don’t care if it’s cleaned up or not, they just don’t want us USING it.
Dang, it must be painful, juggling all the lies, keeping the spin going and being “holier than thou” all the time. I feel sorry for them.

Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
That sound you hear in the distance are screams of outrage and fear from the temples of the Green Cult, for the Demon Keystone XL is one step closer to…. creating a lot of good jobs, which they’ll never understand.

WTF

Some commenters here that are supportive of the oil sands are using the term tar sands. Tar sands is the term used by those wanting to shut the operations down. There is no ‘Tar’ in the oil sands. The term ‘Tar Sands’ started being used in Canada to equate them with the Sydney tar pits in Nova Scotia which are a legacy of industrial pollution to give people a bad impression by association with the oil sands. Those that support the oil sands should use the term oil sands….just sayn’