|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
Keystone XL Pipeline – Why Tar Sands Is Bad For the Environment and Our Health
Saturday, Nov. 19th
6-10 PM 7-8:30 PM: Two movies about the Keystone XL pipeline by Academy Award nominee Leslie Iwerks: "Pipe Dreams," about the environmental devastation of tar sands; and "Downstream," about a doctor’s valiant efforts to save the health of an aboriginal community in Canada affected by tar sands. See descriptions below. http://www.leslieiwerks.com/ 8:30-9:30: Panel discussion and Q and A about the Keystone XL pipeline *Moral and ethical issues about how it would increase climate change: Terry Ellen, Dir., Unitarian Universalist Social Justice; Tim Kumpfer, Church of the Savior, Washington, D.C. *Environmental issues: Jenny Kordick, National Wildlife Federation 9:30-10:00: Write Obama and thank him for delaying the pipeline, then ask him to cancel it altogether.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Pipe Dreams” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Delays Decision on Pipeline Until After ElectionWASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Thursday said it was delaying a decision on the contested Keystone XL pipeline while it studies an alternate route through Nebraska, effectively pushing any action well past the 2012 election and into 2013. The State Department, which announced the decision, has been reviewing the proposed project since 2008 to determine whether it is in the national interest. “As a result of this process, particularly given the concentration of concerns regarding the environmental sensitivities of the current proposed route through the Sandhills area of Nebraska, the department has determined it needs to undertake an in-depth assessment of potential alternative routes in Nebraska,” the department said in a statement Thursday. The proposed project by a Canadian pipeline company had put President Obama in a political vise, squeezed between the demand for secure energy sources and the thousands of jobs the project will bring, and the loud opposition of environmental advocates who have threatened to withhold electoral support next year if he approves it. The $7 billion pipeline, which would run from Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast, has generated intense opposition from environmentalists and public officials in Nebraska, who claim that it threatens sensitive lands and underground water supplies along its 1,700-mile route. Critics also say that the heavy oil extracted from sand formations in Canada will add to global warming and extend American dependence on fossil fuels. The administration had in recent days been exploring ways to put off the decision until after the presidential election, fearing further alienation of environmental and health advocates who consider the pipeline decision a test of the Obama administration’s commitment to clean energy and air quality. Environmental groups have expressed sharp disappointment with the administration over several recent decisions, including the rejection of a tougher new smog standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency and a five-year offshore drilling plan that opens new areas in the Arctic and Gulf of Mexico to exploration. The State Department statement said that the Sandhills region had a high concentration of wetlands of special concern, a sensitive ecosystem and extensive areas of very shallow groundwater that could be put at risk in the event of a rupture in the 36-inch diameter pipeline. The agency said that it expected that the review, including public hearings and a new environmental impact statement, could be completed in the first quarter of 2013. The pipeline’s opponents in Nebraska hailed the decision as a pivotal victory — at least for now. “This is a game-changer for our state,” said Jane Kleeb, director of Bold Nebraska, a citizens advocacy group that has been leading efforts to stop the pipeline in the state. “We’ve been fighting this every day and night for almost two years.” Some opponents of the pipeline in Congress reacted cautiously to news of the delay. “While this is a sign that the State Department has been listening during the comment period, there are many problems with this pipeline, and the tar sands project behind it, that go far beyond the particular route it would take,” Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said in a statement. “This pollution-ridden project and its path through our country should not go forward at all.” News of the project’s delay was not well received in Canada. “We continue to believe the Keystone XL pipeline will create thousands of jobs and billions in economic growth on both sides of the border,” said Andrew MacDougall, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “While we are disappointed with the delay, we remain hopeful the project will be decided on its merits and eventually approved. In the meantime, our government will continue to promote Canada, and the oil sands, as a stable, secure and responsible source of energy for the world.” Larry Schweiger, president the National Wildlife Federation, one of many environmental groups opposed to the pipeline project, was pleased that the environmental considerations his group raised had been heard. “The way I understand it, the process will be altered and altered to make sure all of our concerns are considered,” he said. The State Department’s inspector general announced on Monday that he was looking into charges of a conflict of interest and improper political influence in the preparation of the project’s environmental impact statement. Some have faulted the department for assigning the study to a company with financial ties to TransCanada, the pipeline operator. Senator Bernard Sanders, an independent from Vermont who called for the inquiry, welcomed the delay. “I strongly believe that the more the American people learn about this project, the more they will understand that it would be disastrous for our environment and for our economy,” he said. Last week, the State Department’s spokeswoman hinted that a target date of Dec. 31 for determining whether the pipeline was in the national interest could slip. Mr. Obama, in an interview with KETV in Omaha last week, said that he, not the State Department, would make the final decision based on “what’s best for the American people.” He cited protection of the Nebraska aquifer and the health of the American people as considerations in his decision. Yet he also said that he would weigh domestic energy needs as a factor. He has been under considerable pressure from the oil and gas industry and their allies in Congress to increase domestic oil production and approve the pipeline to bring oil from a friendly neighbor. “We need to encourage domestic natural gas and oil production,” Mr. Obama said in the television interview. “We need to make sure that we have energy security and aren’t just relying on Middle East sources. But there’s a way of doing that and still making sure that the health and safety of the American people and folks in Nebraska are protected, and that’s how I’ll be measuring these recommendations when they come to me.” Opponents of the project have organized two large protests outside the White House, including one on Sunday in which several thousand protesters encircled the mansion demanding that the president kill the pipeline. Earlier this year more than 1,000 protesters were arrested in large demonstrations across from the White House. John M. Broder reported from Washington and Dan Frosch from Denver; Ian Austen contributed reporting from Ottawa. Get Free E-mail Alerts on These Topics
Administration to Delay Pipeline Decision Past ’12 Election ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From 11/11/11 --- We have two big victories to celebrate. Yesterday, moments after the U.S. Senate defeated Sen. Rand Paul's assault on our clean air laws, news broke that the Obama administration had decided to delay its decision on whether to approve the 1,700-mile oil sands pipeline project, Keystone XL -- a delay that puts the future of this terrible project very much in doubt. Here is the New York Times article on the big decision. A week ago, more than 36,000 EDF activists sent President Obama emails opposing Keystone XL. Thanks to everyone for making your voice heard! More Background The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is a terrible idea. Among other things, the pipeline would:
President Obama had it exactly right when he shared his concerns about the pipeline to a local Nebraska television station this week: "We need to make sure that we have energy security and that we aren't just relying on Middle East sources. But there's a way of doing that and making sure that the health and safety of the American people and folks in Nebraska are protected." Simply put, the Keystone XL project will not protect the folks in Nebraska, the American people, or our environment.
Thank you for your support, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Why I Protested the Tar Sands Pipeline" Terry Wiggins, UU Society of
Milwaukee and former UUMFE Board Member |
Cedar Lane
Unitarian Universalist Church |
