Rallies Held Nationwide to Protest Keystone XL Oil Pipeline After State Dept. Report
Across the United States on Monday protesters took to the streets for hundreds of rallies urging President Obama to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The actions in at least 44 states followed a State Department report claiming the pipeline’s northern leg would have a minimal impact on climate change. Environmentalists disagree, saying plans to pipe 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta’s tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast would accelerate global warming and threaten communities along the pipeline’s route. Here in New York City, scores of people rallied in Union Square, including environmentalist Bill McKibben of 350.org.Bill McKibben: "This issue has already brought more Americans into the streets than any environmental issue in decades, and now, finally, we’re at the point of decision. It’s out of the hands of the bought-off bureaucrats who have been delaying it in the State Department for years and doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry. Now we’re going to find out whether John Kerry and Barack Obama are similarly captives of the oil industry or whether they’re willing to really stand up when it counts for the commitments they’ve made about climate change."
Report: Cancer-Causing Pollutants from Alberta’s Oil Sands Vastly Underestimated
The protests against the Keystone XL oil pipeline came as a new study revealed emissions of toxic pollutants from the Alberta tar sands have been vastly underestimated. Researchers at the University of Toronto Scarborough say actual levels of pollutants known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are far higher than estimates accepted by the Canadian government. The pollutants have been tied to a higher risk of asthma as well as cancer.
Hammer_Time wrote: we need to get off our dependence on oil and fossil fuels, not increase it globally!!
Sauron_Daz wrote:Hammer_Time wrote: we need to get off our dependence on oil and fossil fuels, not increase it globally!!
Any idea on how to accomplish that?
Sauron_Daz wrote:Problem with oil derived fuels is that they carry so much energy per liter (or gallon). That energy-density is required for a real alternative which makes it very difficult..
Stephen Harper is the Lucien Bouchard of Alberta.... a wonderful Albertan but not so much a Canadian.They are trying to run pipelines to West and East coasts here in Canada ( using existing 40 year old Line 9 through Ontario near our Great Lakes with volumes the pipeline was never designed for! ) , this will be a worse disaster for our country than extending the Keystone XL pipeline from MidWest USA to the Gulf Coast, USA takes "all the risk" of leaks there... but the increased raping of the tarsands in general is not a good thing either if Keystone XL extension gets approved. Don't worry Clone, Harper and Big Oil is doing their very best to ensure we have pipelines going NSWE in every damn direction from the tarsands and
clone wrote:on a side note I have a question regarding the XL pipeline.
why doesn't Canada just build a few refineries in Alberta instead of running a god damned pipe from Alberta to Texas?
then instead of selling oil for pennies on the dollar and buying it back for 3X's the price Canada could sell refined fuels for a substancial profit while also pushing prices down via competition.
actually their is a good article talking about the pro's and con's of building more refinery capacity in Canada.Refineries are ridiculously expensive, and the same oil companies that own the refineries in the US that are under-supplied are the companies that would build them in Canada. It would be fool hardy for them to spend that kind of money when pipelines are much cheaper. The other massive obstacle (and this can't be understated) is the amount of water refineries need. That's why they are typically on the coast. Alberta just doesn't have the water capacity to supply that kind of demand. Ideally I totally agree with you. Unfortunately the economics and water supply issues mean it just isn't likely to happen. We are better to send the oil to the east coast where we have refineries that can deal with it if we want to keep it in Canada for refining. The west coast doesn't have much available land or infrastructure for it.
Canadian Energy Overview 2012 - Energy Briefing Note
5 Arguments That Will Convince You the Keystone XL Pipeline Is a Bad Idea
The window is closing on your chance to tell Obama to oppose the controversial pipeline.
February 28, 2014 By Salvatore Cardoni
Sal holds a Political Science degree from the George Washington University. He's written about all things environment since 2007.
Last month, the State Department released its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the $7 billion, 875-mile Keystone XL pipeline, the controversial project that would carry up to 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta’s tar sand reserves to refineries near Houston.
The report concluded the pipeline would not significantly exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions because Canadian tar sands would get to market regardless of whether the pipeline was built—a claim environmental activists immediately rejected.
The decision to approve the pipeline rests with President Obama, and while there is no deadline for when he must weigh in, there is for you—and the clock is ticking.
A 30-day public comment period will close on March 7. That’s next Friday. So do your planet a solid, and tell your president you don’t want him to light the fuse on the pipeline that NASA climatologist James Hansen has famously called a “carbon bomb.”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests