Switchboard, from NRDC › Elizabeth Shope's Blog

Scientists to Congressional leadership: Do not revive the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline

2012-02-13T19:16:19Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Today, a group of fifteen scientists wrote to Congressional leadership to once again express their concerns about the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline. Canada’s tar sands underlie an area of the Boreal forest the size of Florida. Big Oil is already extracting around 1.5 million barrels per day of this dirty fuel, which causes 20% more global warming pollution than conventional oil on a life-cycle basis (i.e. comparing everything from extraction all the way through to combustion). The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would require an increase in tar sands production in order to be able to fill the pipeline – and would send a signal to industry that it is game on for tar sands expansion.

The scientists had written to President Obama over the summer, and wrote that they were glad that President Obama rejected the permit for Keystone XL, but are concerned about Congress trying to revive the pipeline because “The tar sands are a huge pool of carbon, one that it does not make sense to exploit… Adding this on top of conventional fossil fuels will leave our children and grandchildren a climate system with consequences that are out of their control.” The full letter is pasted below.

You can also take action to help stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline by writing to your Senators at www.stoptar.org. Please take action before 12 pm Eastern time tomorrow. And if you don’t live in one of the fifty U.S. states, you can take action with 350.org here.

Photo credit: Peter Essick/National Geographic.

Feb 13, 2012

Dear Senators Reid and McConnell, and Representatives Boehner and Pelosi,

We are researchers at work on the science of climate change and allied fields. Last summer, we called on President Obama to block the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada’s tar sands. We were gratified to see that he did so, and since some in Congress are seeking to revive this plan, we wanted to restate the case against it.

The tar sands are a huge pool of carbon, one that it does not make sense to exploit. It takes a lot of energy and water to extract and refine this resource into useable fuel, and the mining is environmentally destructive. Adding this on top of conventional fossil fuels will leave our children and grandchildren a climate system with consequences that are out of their control. It makes no sense to build a pipeline that would dramatically increase exploitation of this resource.

When other huge oil fields or coal mines were opened in the past, we knew much less about the damage that the carbon they contained would do to the earth’s climate and its oceans. Now that we do know, it’s imperative that we move quickly to alternate forms of energy—and that we leave the tar sands in the ground.

We can say categorically that this pipeline is not in the nation’s, or the planet’s best interest.

Sincerely,

James Hansen, Research Scientist, The International Research Institute for Climate and Society, The Earth Institute, Columbia University

John Abraham, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas

Jason Box, Associate Professor, Department of Geography Atmospheric Sciences Program, Researcher at Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University

Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Peter Gleick, President and Co-founder, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security

Richard A. Houghton, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center

Ralph Keeling, Director, Scripps CO2 Program, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs, Climate Institute

Michael E. Mann, Professor of Meteorology, Director, Earth System Science Center, The Pennsylvania State University

James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University

Michael Oppenheimer, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School and Department of Geosciences, Princeton University

Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, Louis Block Professor in the Geophysical Sciences, The University of Chicago

Steve Running, Professor of Ecology, Director of Numerical Terradynamics Simulation Group, Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana

Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

George M. Woodwell, Founder, Director Emeritus, and Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center

With World Water Day just two months away, U.S. must step it up on clean water and sanitation

2012-01-26T16:41:44Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

With just two months before World Water Day on March 22, NRDC, CARE & WaterAid in America have published our annual report about how the United States is doing in implementing the recommendations we made last year to improve water and sanitation delivery for developing countries. We made four key recommendations, and while some progress has been made, there is still much work to be done. We are hopeful that World Water Day 2012 will not only be a time for educating the public and key decision-makers about global water, sanitation, and hygiene issues, but also that it will serve as a motivator for the U.S. government to take major actions to deliver clean water and sanitation services more efficiently and to the people who need it most.

Specifically, we recommended that the United States should:

Develop a comprehensive water strategy. The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 called for such a strategy within 180 days from passage of the legislation, but now, over six years later, this strategy has still not been completed. This strategy is critical for enabling the U.S. to set priorities and be efficient in its work to bring water and sanitation to the developing world – and do so coordinated with and integrated into programs and strategies for food security, global health, education, environment, climate change and more. My colleague Lisa Schectman at WaterAid in America has written more about the importance of this water strategy here.
Take a comprehensive view of water, sanitation, and hygiene, by integrating planning and budgeting meaningfully with a wider water strategy, including water productivity and water resources management, food security, health, and climate change. There have been some positive steps on this front. For example, the “Zero Draft” of the outcome document for the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development includes important provisions about safe drinking water and sanitation. However, we can do better: political will for comprehensive integration still needs to be demonstrated in a formal water strategy and project implementation.
Strive to make global progress through U.S. leadership. Several key elements that would facilitate U.S. leadership are elevating and solidifying the senior water advisor positions within USAID and the State Department; increasing expertise and capacity of those working on the ground; and improving funding for clean water and sanitation – which currently amounts to less than one one-hundredth of a percent of the federal budget. Read more about U.S. leadership on water in my colleague Heather Allen's blog here.
Deliver water, sanitation and hygiene to those who need it most. It is important to prioritize funding for countries that have the greatest need for increased access to safe water and sanitation, and those in which assistance can be expected to make the greatest difference. However, only 33 percent of USAID funding for water, sanitation and hygiene went to low income countries in 2010 based on the most recent State Department report to Congress.

The goal of World Water Day is to raise awareness and call for stronger commitments and more robust action to ensure universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation. Nearly a billion people lack access to safe drinking water, and two out of every five people lack adequate sanitation. While World Water Day is instrumental in educating the public and decision makers about global water issues, training advocates, and setting goals, we should also use the two months leading up to World Water Day as a time to focus on making progress towards achieving these goals. It’s time to get serious about ending this injustice, and doing so in a way that is efficient and sustainable – economically, for the longevity of the projects, and for the environment.

Ready, Set, ACTION: Blowing the Whistle on Big Oil Corruption

2012-01-24T15:08:38Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Today, hundreds of people will gather on West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol building at noon – dressed in referee shirts – to “blow the whistle” on Big Oil and speak out against the undue influence Big Oil has on Congress. President Obama made the right decision when he rejected the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline – showing that he puts the health and safety of the American people above the interests of Big Oil. But Big Oil and their friends in Congress didn’t make it easy, and they have every intention of pushing to get their way with whatever amount of money and public relations investments are required – even though not everyone is letting them get away with it.

The oil industry and their allies in Congress will no doubt continue to lobby for Keystone XL and other dirty energy projects. After all, a lot is at stake: TransCanada has admitted to Canadian regulators that Keystone XL will increase the price that the U.S. pays for Canadian oil by up to $4 billion – hurting Americans for the sake of Big Oil profits. What’s more, Members of Congress who voted for the pipeline have received 15 times more money from the oil and gas industry.

The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would run 2000 miles from Alberta, Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast, bringing with it destruction of the Boreal forest in Canada from which the tar sands are extracted, threats to our agricultural heartland and drinking water supplies, and increased refinery pollution from Gulf Coast refineries. While constructing the pipeline would require construction workers, it would only result in twenty permanent jobs – and the inevitable oil spills would likely cost more jobs than the pipeline construction would create. All for a pipeline that is meant in large part for exporting Canadian oil to the world market via the U.S. Gulf Coast. In short, Keystone XL is a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose: we damage our environment, hurt human health, threaten our drinking and irrigation water, and put American jobs and energy security at risk.

Decisions about America’s energy future should be made not based on politics but on sound science. Speaker Boehner, the American Petroleum Institute and others are already making threats. API President Jack Girard said his group was “very disappointed by this decision” and that he believed “it will have political consequence.” And over the weekend, Speaker Boehner said that he may block an extension of the payroll tax holiday if President Obama does not approve the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. It’s one thing when you’re four years old and your mom takes a toy away to pester her incessantly trying to get it back; it’s another story when you are an adult representing American people, and your “pestering” could affect the incomes of Millions of Americans, and your “toy” is a 2000 mile pipeline to a dirty energy future.

So if you’re in DC, come out to the action today – 12 pm on the West Lawn of the Capitol. It’s about time we step up and call out this bad behavior. Let’s show President Obama and those Members of Congress who have stood with us on the fight against the dirty, dangerous Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that the American people want a clean energy path.

Guest Blog by David Roswell - Keystone XL rejected: a gush of energy for young people

2012-01-23T22:01:48Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

This is a guest blog from David Roswell, an Oberlin student interning at NRDC during January 2012

It’s not often that we win. Especially for the current crop of college students, who grew up in the Bush years, environmental victories have been small, few and far between. Last week, though, we won. Let January 18th, 2012 go down in the record as the day when the people stood up to Big Oil and came out victorious.

This summer, while working with Summer of Solutions, building the green economy and strengthening the community in Rogers Park, Chicago, I got an email from one of the people I most look up to, Bill McKibben. It had a serious tone, and a serious request: to risk arrest in a fight against tar sands, which I knew little about, except for images in my head of trucks bigger than houses and open mines gashing through the boreal forests in Canada. After a week of research and conversations with friends, activist and not, I decided with confidence to join in the action.

The day of my arrest was one of the proudest days of my life. Less, however, due to my participation in the action, and more because of my sister, who at fifteen years old, took a stand too. She shone brilliantly as she held the bullhorn and lead chants in the shadow of the White House. Watching her, across the police barricade as I waited for my handcuffs, gave me the strong conviction that a progressive, positive and successful environmental movement is building and growing.

Oberlin student David Roswell gets arrested protesting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Photo credit: Josh Lopez, TarSandsAction

This conviction was only reinforced when I returned to Oberlin College in Ohio, where I am a junior. Obies helped to plan a rally at Obama’s Cleveland campaign office, and showed up in force on that unseasonably cold day in October. We had so many students sign up for the November 6th demonstration at the White House that the Energy Action Coalition generously provided us with a bus to take us there and back.

And to be sure, it didn’t ended there. With this newfound sense of confidence, my generation will continue to fight a broad range of battles. We are excited to take on earthquake-causing fracking in Northeast Ohio, to continue the battle against tar sands—the dirtiest oil on the planet, and to work to create green jobs and opportunities for ourselves and others.

The denial of TransCanada’s Keystone XL permit is a huge victory for my generation and the seven generations hence. Science and reason has taken precedence over politics, human and ecological health over profits.

Of course, it is not over. The fight against tar sands is not over; rather it has only just begun. But now we have the upper hand: the energy built throughout this fight has been infectious, and will power my generation further than any dirty oil ever could.

Victorious in Unity: The Movement that Stopped the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline

2011-11-14T16:43:56Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Last month after the conclusion of the final State Department hearing in Washington, DC for the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, I snapped a photo of several indigenous leaders alongside Nebraska ranchers and activists. Both groups had traveled to Washington to speak out against the Keystone XL pipeline. “Cowboys and Indians working together,” one of them said. “Who would have imagined?” We all laughed.

These types of unlikely alliances joining their voices and bodies together to fight for our communities and against Keystone XL, tar sands and dirty fuels, is in large part what last week convinced the Obama Administration to announce a new environmental review of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that is likely to last through early 2013.

In the last few months, these alliances have grown broader, deeper and stronger. Bill McKibben’s heroic leadership has turned what once seemed like an unwinnable campaign into a tremendous movement that reinvigorated and reunited the environmental community and brought together people from all walks of life to take unprecedented actions in an attempt to show the Obama Administration that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in the national interest. And it has worked. In NRDC President Frances Beinecke’s blog on this victory, she writes:

President Obama took a stand for the people of Nebraska today, and Americans everywhere, when his administration stood up to Big Oil to say we won't put our people, waters and croplands at risk for the sake of pipeline profits and dirty fuels.

Rewind to June 2011. Since Keystone XL had been proposed in 2008, we had made significant strides in elevating the profile of tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline. The New York Times had written its first editorial opposing Keystone XL. A wide range of people had spoken out against Keystone XL including US Representatives, Senators, Nebraska State Senators, Mayors, landowners, farmers, environmental groups, faith groups, indigenous groups and business leaders. We had had dozens of meetings on the Hill and with the Administration to educate our government officials about tar sands. We had written hard hitting detailed comments about the Keystone XL draft environmental impact statement, successfully advocated for a supplemental environmental impact statement since the first draft was lacking so much important analysis, and written more detailed comments about why the supplemental environmental review was still inadequate. And we had published the game-changing report Tar Sands Pipelines Safety Risks, which had not only brought attention to the risks of pumping corrosive acidic diluted tar sands bitumen through pipelines – a critical issue that the State Department has refused to study – but had forged major bridges between environmental groups and landowners concerned about their drinking and irrigation water.

But we were struggling; industry’s muscle and money was still allowing their lies and PR campaigns to outshine the facts with which we had armed ourselves.

Then in comes Bill McKibben. It started with an open letter written by Bill and ten other respected leaders in their fields. The letter invited people to use their bodies in an effort to overcome the power of Big Oil:

So we’re pretty sure that without serious pressure the Keystone Pipeline will get its permit from Washington… it’s time to stop letting corporate power make the most important decisions our planet faces. We don’t have the money to compete with those corporations, but we do have our bodies, and beginning in mid August many of us will use them. We will, each day, march on the White House, risking arrest with our trespass. We will do it in dignified fashion, demonstrating that in this case we are the conservatives, and that our foes—who would change the composition of the atmosphere are dangerous radicals. Come dressed as if for a business meeting—this is, in fact, serious business.

Photo Credit: Josh Lopez/Tar Sands Action

Two and a half months later, 1,253 people had been arrested for participating in sit-ins in front of the White House to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline, and hundreds of thousands of individuals had spoken out against the pipeline. NRDC does not endorse civil disobedience, but two of my fellow NRDC staffers and I took a vacation day and were arrested in our personal capacities. The people who risked arrest were not just young radical environmentalists. There were young people, old people, individuals from Vermont whose communities had just been ravaged by Hurricane Irene, people from the Gulf Coast whose livelihoods have been compromised due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into the Gulf, Nebraska landowners whose ranches would be crossed by Keystone XL, mountain top removal activists from West Virginia, anti-fracking activists, and many more. For most of us, it was our first time risking arrest, and we were nervous about it. If we had elevated the tar sands issue from near radio silence to a gentle buzz, the sit-ins took that gentle buzz and put it through a large blow-horn to amplify and spread the buzz—in the media, in the Obama Administration, and in the environmental community.

Once the sit-ins had concluded, Bill McKibben’s next idea was to attempt to encircle the whole White House with people. No arrests – this would be a totally legal action on November 6, 2011. I rode the circumference on my bike in the early planning stages when we were trying to see if this was really feasible. It was over a mile. Yikes. Planning the November 6 action took the amplified buzz and pushed it over the top, making fighting Keystone XL the highest priority for the environmental community. While our groups had been united in our position against the pipeline, there had still been a divide between those who were organizing the sit-ins and those who could not endorse civil disobedience. Since there was no civil disobedience component to the November 6 action, NRDC, Sierra Club and others were able to put their full muscle behind the event. Over 10,000 people came together for a rally in Lafayette Park, and then deployed around the White House to tell President Obama NO to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. As McKibben said, we were either giving the White House a gigantic hug or putting President Obama under house arrest. We held signs with quotes from President Obama’s 2008 election campaign. “Let’s be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil,” some of the signs read.

Photo Credit: Clayton Conn/Tar Sands Action

Then just four days later, the Obama Administration announced that it would conduct the more rigorous environmental review we have been calling for, which would push the decision about the pipeline at least into 2013. Last week’s announcement was a true victory against Big Oil, and a testament both to the work we all have done to refute the pipeline proponents’ lies about jobs, energy security and safety, and to the power of unity.

But the fight is not over. This is not just a fight about one pipeline. I became acutely aware of this in late September when I traveled for the first time up to the tar sands in Fort McMurray, Alberta, and up to Fort Chipewyan – a First Nation community downstream from the tar sands which has faced high levels of rare cancers. The tar sands emitted an odor that felt toxic – something between gasoline and rotten eggs, and when I breathed in the air, my throat constricted a little and I coughed. The Alberta government has refused to do a study about the causal relationship between the tar sands pollutants and the health problems faced by Fort Chip. When I went up to Fort Chip, I was surprised to find that the main topic of conversation was moose meat and moose hunting. As a fly-in community, Fort Chip residents rely heavily on moose meat to make it through the winter. I talked with one person who said that when he was younger, he played travel soccer – so he visited many places; none of these places had better water than Fort Chip. But, he said, that all started to change about 20 years ago. Now, they can no longer eat the fish; they have to bring bottled water with them when they go hunting; and when the children swim in the water, they emerge with funny rashes. Right now, there is a study being done about heavy metal contamination in the moose meat; if they find out that the moose they are hunting contains an unhealthy level of heavy metals, the very livelihood of these people will be compromised.

President Obama still needs to reject the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, and ultimately, we – as a country and as a world – need to reject tar sands oil, dirty fuels, and fossil fuels more generally and instead embrace a clean energy future. We have a lot of work to do, but my spirits are high. As a newly reunited and reinvigorated community, with groups working together and respecting each other in brand new ways, we have tremendous strength. Rejecting Keystone XL should be a no-brainer; just one step in a much broader effort to reject fossil fuels and protect our climate and our communities.

Actor and NRDC Board Member Robert Redford: Join Hands Around the White House on November 6 to Tell President Obama No to Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline

2011-10-31T21:34:38Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Today, actor and NRDC board member Robert Redford released a video produced by NRDC and Tar Sands Action inviting people to come to the White House this coming Sunday, November 6 to tell President Obama that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in the national interest.

In the video, Redford says:

In 2008, then Senator Barack Obama made a challenge to the country. "Let’s be the generation that frees itself from the tyranny of oil," he said. Now that he’s in the White House, President Obama has the opportunity to help us meet that target by saying no to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

This is not the first time that Redford has spoken out strongly against tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline. Earlier this month, the New York Times published a video op ed by Redford in which he called on Obama to reject Keystone XL:

It’s the 21st Century, we’re not about to turn back now. Mr. President, stand up for American workers and our land. Stand up for energy security. Stand up for the energy future you know we deserve. Say no to the Keystone XL pipeline.

And last month, Redford published a piece in the Houston Chronicle entitled Let’s say no to the pipeline that threatens U.S. heartland. In it, he discusses both the severe impacts to the climate and to the Boreal forest from extracting tar sands, and the risks of transporting the dirty, corrosive crude across the U.S. heartland.

The fight against the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not just a fight against a pipeline, but a fight for our climate, our communities, our water, and our people. You can sign up here to join the NRDC delegation for November 6 led by NRDC founding director John Adams, and if you cannot make it down to Washington, DC, you can write to President Obama here.

Actor and NRDC Member David Strathairn Invites You to Say No to Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline on November 6

2011-10-28T14:22:42Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Actor and NRDC member David Strathairn released a video yesterday, produced by NRDC and Tar Sands Action, inviting people to come to Washington, DC on November 6 to join hands around the White House to tell President Obama NO to the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

President Obama and his Administration could make a decision about whether or not to permit Keystone XL as early as this December. The Keystone XL pipeline would transport as much as 900,000 barrels per day of dirty, high carbon tar sands oil 2000 miles from Alberta to Texas, crossing through the Ogallala Aquifer – a critical source of drinking water and irrigation water for millions of Americans – and threatening Gulf Coast refinery communities with even greater levels of air pollution.

With a decision about the pipeline looming – based on whether or not it is in the “national interest” – Strathairn emphasizes the need for President Obama to hear the people’s voices. One way you can make your voice heard is by coming to Washington, DC on November 6 to participate in the human chain around the White House and tell President Obama that Keystone XL is NOT in the national interest. Strathairn says:

President Obama ran for office speaking of the dangers of our fossil fuel addiction, promising to fight climate change and fully embrace a clean energy future. The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is a dangerous step away from that commitment. This is President Obama’s decision to make: yes or no to this dangerous pipeline. And he needs to hear voices other than those of greedy oil companies eager to keep us addicted to fossil fuels. He needs to hear the people’s voices.

Sign up here to join us on November 6, where the NRDC delegation will be led by NRDC’s founder John Adams. And if you can’t make it to DC on the 6th, you can ask President Obama to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline at www.stoptar.org.

State Department Keystone XL Environmental Review: It's Easy to Find "No Significant Impact" if You Do No Significant Study... (Guest Blog by Danielle Droitsch)

2011-08-26T15:54:36Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

This is a guest blog post by Danielle Droitsch, who is a Senior Advisor to NRDC's International Program.

Today, the U.S. State Department released its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The State Department’s finding that there will be no significant environmental impact to most resources is completely without merit. Our initial analysis of the environmental review makes one thing clear: it was premature for the Department of State to issue the review. The detailed studies needed to fully demonstrate the need for and evaluate risks of this tar sands pipeline have not been completed. In fact, the FEIS seems to ignore information that clearly points more to how the pipeline will cause an increase to air pollution, greater greenhouse gas emissions and a higher potential for oil spills threatening drinking water resources. What the FEIS should find is that the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not worth the environmental and safety risks. We have better alternatives to meet our transportation needs than dirty tar sands oil from Canada.

Unfortunately, Secretary of State Clinton did not fulfill her promise to “leave no stone unturned” and the State Department’s pledge to do a “thorough and objective” assessment. The things missing are all the more glaring because they relate to the issues that have been most controversial and the source of most of the public debate. It appears the State Department continues to rush the decision on this pipeline manufacturing an urgency that doesn’t exist.

While the State Department claims they have exhaustively considered all of the issues, there in fact are gaping holes that have remained with only superficial analysis since the beginning of the process:

We have called on the State Department to have the U.S. Pipeline Safety Administration conduct an in depth analysis of the safety of diluted bitumen (raw tar sands) pipeline. We saw no evidence of this assessment being done and it does not seem to be included in the FEIS. The review of what diluted bitumen can do to pipelines and in the case of spills is especially critical given there has already been 12 leaks in the first 12 months from TransCanada’s first Keystone tar sands pipeline.
The State Department’s claim that they have enhanced the “overall safety” of the pipeline by requiring “new” and more “stringent” conditions for the project are outrageous. As my colleague Anthony Swift recently pointed out, these 57 conditions are smoke and mirrors. There are serious flaws with this argument and most of these conditions are already required by the existing law.
The State Department still has not fully considered reasonable alternative routes as requested by seven U.S. Senators that would avoid the Nebraska Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer. If they had, we would have seen some evidence of on-the-ground assessment of other routes. Instead, we fear that as they did in the earlier environmental reviews, the State Department will once again have identified unnecessarily long alternative routes that TransCanada suggested and then dismissed them because of their length. Meanwhile, it has ignored other, shorter routes for the pipeline that avoid the sensitive Sandhills. As my colleagues Liz Barratt-Brown and Anthony Swift have stated, the State Department has been artificially limiting its choices to longer alternative routes that still puts more of America’s heartland and the Ogallala Aquifer at risk. An investigation of alternative routes seems pretty reasonable---and basic---given the billions of dollars the Ogalalla represents to American agriculture.
We find it interesting that the State Department is now committing to have an independent consultant review the Keystone risks assessment. They acknowledge this could result in changes to the project. Why would the State Department feel compelled to issue the FEIS without this analysis? This is yet more evidence that the State Department is rushing this project.
We have also not seen evidence of the State Department out in Gulf Coast communities doing an environmental justice study. It seems that once again, the environmental review will fail to assess the critical health and safety issues that local community members in Port Arthur and Houston may face. The proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline may increase toxic air emissions from refineries having a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. The pipeline would bring a steady supply of heavy Canadian crude to local refineries and could act as a major source of carcinogenic air emissions. Just last week, dozens of members of Congress made a final plea to the State Department to conduct the essential review of the impact of toxic air emissions that was apparently ignored. Given the administration's very public focus on addressing environmental justice issues, a lack of deeper investigation of resulting pollution impacts in the Gulf refining communities is surprising.
And on our first review, while the environmental review continues to acknowledge that tar sands oil has higher lifecycle greenhouse emissions than conventional oil, it still incorrectly finds the pipeline will not add to global greenhouse emissions. This is one of the key public concerns about this pipeline and about anything that expands our dependence on tar sands – as seen by the wide range of people willing to risk arrest over the last week in front of the White House. By making this fundamental and mistaken assumption, the FEIS ignores how the proposed Keystone XL pipeline will cause the expansion of tar sands extraction in Canada. While Canada has made an international commitment to reduce its emissions by 17 percent by 2020, it is actually on track for a 7 percent increase in emissions. Tar sands emissions have more than doubled since 1990 and are expected to triple between now and 2020.
One of the fundamental flaws in the past environmental reviews that we fear has not been corrected in the FEIS is a total failure to demonstrate the need for the pipeline and consider alternatives to meet America’s energy security. From the very beginning, the Environmental Protection Agency and others have been calling for the State Department to think about the need for the pipeline in the context of America’s declining demand for oil, the need to shrink oil use with measures such as more aggressive fuel economy standards and investments in clean energy.

The calls for the additional analysis have been made repeatedly over the past year by the environmental community in 2010 and again in 2011. In fact, there have been many voices calling for detailed studies including Congress, mayors, the Environmental Protection Agency, landowners, and others.

However, the issuance of the FEIS is far from the end of the entire process for TransCanada. States along the pipeline path still need to issue the necessary permits and not all of the landowners along the route have settled with TransCanada. And as required by executive order, the State Department must still consult with other agencies to determine whether the pipeline serves the national interest and they have committed to a public process of meetings and taking comments.

The State Department continues to rush the decision of whether to permit the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, ignoring clear requests from a wide range of interests from all walks of life to ensure the safe operation of the pipeline. Public safety and health, the protection of drinking water for millions of Americans, and the imperative to set America on the right course to combat climate change should be the administration’s top priority. Helping TransCanada and tar sands producers secure profits is not. The proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not worth the environmental risks. We have cleaner and more secure choices to meet our transportation needs in America.

Tar Sands: They Won't Be Going to Asia without Keystone XL

2011-08-18T21:05:04Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Alberta and its tar sands oil are landlocked, and without more pipelines to transport them to the either Canadian coast or to the U.S. Gulf coast, that is where the dirty, high-carbon fuel source will stay. All too frequently, industry has tried to “play the Asia card” when talking about Keystone XL. They make the false claim that if Keystone XL is not built, tar sands will be extracted and will be sent to Asia instead. This could not be further from the truth—at the moment it is largely impossible; the infrastructure simply does not exist and is not likely to be built any time soon.

How can this be? There aren’t similar pipelines in Canada? The short answer is no. And the only slightly longer answer is that proposals on the books to link Alberta tar sands operations to the British Columbia coast are facing even bigger hurdles than Keystone XL. The pipeline that thousands are in DC to protest is far more likely to open the Asian markets that Big Oil desperately craves to export what many call “the dirtiest oil on the planet.”

Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline, and its associated tanker traffic through sensitive British Columbia Coastal waters, faces tremendous opposition – especially by First Nation groups, who have the legal authority to block a pipeline that traverses their lands and waters. Their resistance has been fierce and continuous – the following are just some select examples of their opposition and is not a complete list:

On March 23, 2010, British Columbia First Nations of the Central and North Pacific Coast issued a declaration banning tar sands crude oil tanker traffic from traveling through their territories. West Coast Environmental Law’s Legal Comment on Coastal First Nations Declaration explains that “Coastal First Nations have the right to issue a ban on crude oil tankers in their waters, based in their own ancestral laws, in Canadian constitutional law, and in international law” and that they can “take steps to enforce their declaration under their own laws, through the Canadian courts, and/or through legal action at the international level.”
On December 2, 2010, a group of 61 First Nations whose lands and waters would be threatened or traversed by the Northern Gateway Pipeline released the Save the Fraser declaration, which includes the following text: “Therefore, in upholding our ancestral laws, Title, Rights and responsibilities, we declare: We will not allow the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, or similar Tar Sands projects, to cross our lands, territories and watersheds, or the ocean migration routes of Fraser River salmon.”
Also in December 2010, a group of First Nations publicly rejected a 10% equity stake in the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. This would be a LOT of money for the First Nations and is a strong indication that they are not going to be bought.
In May this year, a group of First Nations people protested outside the Enbridge shareholder meeting in Calgary.
Last month, 35 Dene chiefs came out publicly opposing the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline.

The Northern Gateway Pipeline is far from a done deal. Other proposed pipeline projects to either coast of Canada are further behind and will face equal if not greater opposition as they move through their permit decision processes. Some have postulated that the Gateway Pipeline doesn’t even make economic sense for Asia, which currently does not have the capacity to refine large quantities of bitumen from the tar sands – and that the main reason for the proposal is to put pressure on the State Department to approve Keystone XL.

Keystone XL may be industry’s first shot at accessing a global market for tar sands. There is no mechanism in place to keep the oil in the U.S. and we are now an overall exporter of finished petroleum products. So, after putting landowners like Randy Thompson and David Daniel at risk, and after being processed by community-polluting refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, oil companies will be able to ship the tar sands that is sent through Keystone XL just about anywhere in the world.

The State Department has said that they plan to issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement this month for Keystone XL, which will trigger the beginning of the 90-day “National Interest Determination” period. It looks like this National Interest Determination period will begin during two weeks of daily sit-ins in front of the White House – organized by Bill McKibben – designed to show President Obama that Keystone XL is not in the national interest. The protesters should be asking this question of everyone who they speak with: “In whose interest would this pipeline be built?” It seems to me that landowners and farmers get to risk their lands – while oil men in Canada reap the profit of selling their particularly climate-changing product to markets in China and India. That doesn’t sound like energy security to me…more like profit security and climate insecurity. Say no to Keystone XL at www.stoptar.org.

Guest blog by Danielle Droitsch: National Congress of American Indians opposes Keystone XL tar sands pipeline

2011-08-18T17:41:40Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

This is a guest blog post by Danielle Droitsch, who is a Senior Advisor to NRDC's International Program.

Today, the nation’s oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), announced their opposition to the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. This important announcement adds to the growing chorus of voices across the United States opposed to this pipeline and clearly finds that an additional tar sands pipeline is not in the national interest.

The NCAI resolution firmly states how Keystone XL is not in the national interest:

...the United States is urged to reduce its reliance on the world’s dirtiest and most environmentally destructive form of oil – the ‘tar sands’ – that threatens Indian country in both Canada and the United States and the way of life of thousands of citizens of First Nations in Canada and American Indians in the U.S., and requests the U.S. government to take aggressive measures to work towards sustainable energy solutions that include clean alternative energy and improving energy efficiency…

Why is the National Congress of American Indians concerned? Should Keystone XL rupture, it has the potential to impact many tribes and thousands of their individual members. The resolution says “it is probable that further environmental disasters will occur in Indian country if the new pipeline is allowed to be constructed.” The NCAI may be rightly concerned about the almost 1 million gallons of tar sands that spilled into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan a year ago, the spill of 42,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River this summer and the more than 30 leaks from TransCanada’s brand new Keystone pipeline in its first year of operation in the US and Canada.

The resolution also expresses solidarity with the Canadian First Nations who have been raising concerns about Keystone XL and tar sands development in the province of Alberta for years. The Chief of the Assembly of First Nations in Canada, representing over 630 First Nations communities and more than 700,000 First Nations spoke of concerns about the impact of tar sands development on affected communities:

"The health impacts of the oil sands are a real concern and have been raised in recent studies. In Canada, we are particularly disturbed by the high rate of cancer in the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and support the call for an independent health study to examine the people there to assess potential health damage from the oil sands." --Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, Assembly of First Nations.

President Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should pay heed to the voice of tribal governments. As the NCAI resolution states, there are broader questions about whether Keystone XL is aligned with America’s clean energy future. Shortly, the US State Department will release the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the pipeline. The question will be whether that environmental review was thorough enough. But there will also be a new question: Does Keystone XL serve the national interest? The National Congress of American Indians will very likely say no.

20 Scientists call on President Obama to block Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and invite public to join protests

2011-08-04T13:20:00Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Yesterday, 20 scientists led by Dr. James Hansen released a letter to President Obama asking him to block the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, concerned about the environmental impacts of developing the tar sands. They write:

When other huge oil fields or coal mines were opened in the past, we knew much less about the damage that the carbon they contained would do to the Earth’s climate system and to its oceans. Now that we do know, it’s imperative that we move quickly to alternate forms of energy—and that we leave the tar sands in the ground.

The group of scientists includes the founder of the Woods Hole Research Center; professors at four Ivy League universities; and a professor from Montana – one of the states which Keystone XL would traverse. Their fields include climate science, oceanography, ecology, and hydrology.

In their letter, the scientists not only express that this pipeline is not in the national interest, but also include a call to action: “We hope those so inclined will join protests scheduled for August and described at tarsandsaction.org.”

On June 22, Bill McKibben along with ten other prominent “elders” from the United States and Canada published an open letter inviting the public to participate in civil disobedience at the White House to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. This scientist letter is the third letter that has followed calling people to participate in the protests.

On July 5, a group of local leaders from Maryland, Virginia and Washington, DC brought the tar sands issue home, writing:

This development is doubly tragic for the Maryland, Virginia and DC area. That’s because, as a region, we are right on the cusp of developing our own major new energy resource: offshore wind power. Indeed, there is enough clean, harness-able wind power off the coasts of Maryland and Virginia to power millions of electric cars – forever. With zero pollution.

And on July 20, a group of over 2 dozen Executive Directors from environmental, religious and social justice organizations discussed some of the local issues as reasons to protest the pipeline:

The demonstrations, which may involve some peaceful civil disobedience, are designed to persuade the administration to block plans for the so-called Keystone XL pipeline. That pipeline will run from the tar sands of the Canadian province of Alberta down to Texas. It raises great risks from leaks and spills along the way, and it damages indigenous lands; native leaders and local farmers and ranchers have mounted spirited protest along the way.

The Keystone XL pipeline is a bad plan from start to finish: it would cause environmental and health problems where the tar sands are extracted, along the pipeline route where the extra corrosive acidic oil would put America’s heartland at risk of catastrophic oil spills, and in the already-polluted Gulf Coast communities where this dirty oil would be refined. Not to mention, it would actually raise gas prices – and all so that Big Oil can have access to a port from which to export the tar sands around the world. You can help stop this dangerous pipeline right now by taking action at www.stoptar.org.

Tar sands fight at full boil with New York Times and 28 executive directors opposing Keystone XL pipeline

2011-07-22T14:59:56Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Like the sweltering heat that has enveloped much of the country, the fight against tar sands and the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has escalated to a full boil with the New York Times publishing their second editorial opposing the pipeline yesterday and a group of executive directors of 28 organizations urging people to consider taking part in planned protests against Keystone XL this summer. Ironically it is just at this time that the House is considering a bill to rush through approval of the proposed pipeline, even though, as the New York Times notes, the assessment is still completely lacking. The House should not approve H.R. 1938 but should instead encourage the Administration to make sure they have the best information to make a decision on the pipeline. We believe that information shows that America does not need the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and we cannot afford the cost in oil spills in our rivers and aquifers.

The New York Times editorial, entitled “Wrong Pipeline, Wrong Assessment,” concludes, “On the merits — economic and environmental — and in terms of future energy policy, this is the wrong pipeline for the wrong oil.” They say that they oppose the pipeline not only because it threatens the Ogallala Aquifer and Nebraska Sand Hills but also because there is already enough capacity to carry tar sands oil from Canada to the United States. This editorial is only the most recent of an outpouring of editorials and letters urging President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to conduct the necessary environmental analysis for the project and oppose Keystone XL.

On Wednesday, the executive directors of 28 organizations posted a letter requesting – in their capacity as individuals – for people to take part in planned protests later this summer in Washington which may involve some peaceful civil disobedience. These protests are specifically designed to persuade the administration to block plans for the so-called Keystone XL pipeline.
On Monday, the Omaha World-Herald wrote an editorial that concluded that “everyone can agree that at a minimum, this proposed project should not go forward unless Nebraskans receive the needed information about every aspect of pipeline safety, in order to reach informed, responsible judgments. And our congressional delegation should insist that any State Department analysis and recommendations address these concerns completely.”
My colleague Susan Casey-Lefkowitz blogged about last week’s Los Angeles Times editorial that said the environmental risks of Keystone XL should be thoroughly studied and mitigation measures put in place, rather than rushing the decision-making process for the pipeline.
Also last week, a group of influential Senators called for a halt in the permitting process for Keystone XL in a letter to Secretary Clinton.
Earlier this month, the Nebraska Journal Star published an editorial entitled “Regrettable proof of oil pipeline risk” following the Exxon pipeline spill into the Yellowstone River, declaring that “If there were any Nebraskans who were still unconcerned about the possibility that the Sandhills could face long-term damage from an oil spill from the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, they ought to be worried now” and that the pipeline should be re-routed to avoid the Sandhills.

Despite such reasonable concerns about the pipeline and the analysis that has been conducted thus far on it, Nebraska Representative Lee Terry’s wrongheaded legislation to expedite the decision-making process on Keystone XL may come to the floor for a vote as early as next week. At the same time, in a major escalation of the tar sands campaign, thousands of Americans from across the country are planning to travel to Washington, D.C. next month to risk arrest in an effort to convince the Obama Administration not to permit the pipeline.

While the heat wave is likely to break within a few days, this boiling opposition to Keystone XL is only going to grow fiercer over the coming months. It is time for President Obama and Secretary Clinton to listen to the American people and say no to tar sands in favor of a clean energy future. You can add your voice to the mix at www.stoptar.org.

Group of influential Senators calls for halt in permitting process for Keystone XL tar sands pipeline

2011-07-15T18:25:11Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Today, a group of influential Senators wrote to the State Department calling for a halt in the Keystone XL pipeline permitting process. Senator Whitehouse led the letter, with Senators Boxer, Cardin, Lautenberg, Leahy, Menendez, and Wyden all joining to express their concerns about the proposed pipeline and its permitting process, focusing in on pipeline safety and routing issues.

They question Secretary Clinton: “Does the [Department of State] intend to request a full safety assessment of the Keystone XL from the [Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration] before proceeding with a final environmental impact statement (FEIS)?” The tragic oil pipeline ruptures into the Kalamazoo River last year, and into the Yellowstone River earlier this month should make it clear that conducting assessments about pipeline safety and diluted bitumen – the corrosive substance that would be pumped through Keystone XL from the tar sands – is an incredibly reasonable request.

Keystone XL would have the capacity to pump up to 900,000 barrels per day of tar sands from Alberta, Canada over 2000 miles to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Like the Exxon pipeline that ruptured, it would cross beneath the Yellowstone River. And TransCanada hopes to build the pipeline right over – and in some places through – the Ogallala Aquifer, which millions of Americans rely on for their drinking and irrigation water. In numerous written and verbal statements and letters, Nebraska Senators Nelson and Johanns have declared that building a tar sands pipeline through the Nebraska Sandhills and Ogallala Aquifer is simply too risky. Confirming their concerns, Dr. John Stansbury, an engineering professor at the University of Nebraska, released a report earlier this week which indicated that a spill from the Keystone XL pipeline into the Ogallala Aquifer could contaminate as much as 5 billion gallons of groundwater. A large spill into the Yellowstone River could release as much as 5 million gallons of tar sands crude – over a hundred times what the Exxon pipeline spilled.

Despite these unaddressed risks, the State Department has indicated that they plan to make a decision by the end of the year about the pipeline. Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska has decided to side with the oil companies over the people of Nebraska, and is trying to rush the process even more. He introduced H.R. 1938, which would force a decision about Keystone XL by November 1, cutting short both the environmental review and the National Interest Determination process. The bill has passed through the Energy and Commerce Committee and is likely to come to the House floor for a vote next week. NRDC and forty other groups sent a letter to the House of Representatives on Tuesday asking Members of Congress to oppose the legislation. The groups signed on to the letter include not only national and local environmental groups, but also farmer and landowner groups. The letter concludes:

At a time when we must find ways to end our dependence on fossil fuels, deepening our reliance on the dirtiest form of oil on the planet is simply not in the national interest. We believe that conducting the appropriate analysis under NEPA – which cannot be done properly if rushed – will make this clear. For all of these reasons we urge to you oppose H.R. 1938.

We hope that the letter just sent by the Senators will not only encourage the State Department to do the necessary analysis, but will also help to make it clear to Members of the House of Representatives why rushing the decision-making process for Keystone XL is a bad bet. To help stop the Keystone XL pipeline, visit www.stoptar.org and tell Secretary Clinton that dirty tar sands oil is the wrong direction for the United States.

Alberta Caribou herds could perish in 30 years with unchecked tar sands development

2011-06-30T14:57:46Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Rushing the permitting of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is a bad idea and a new study on the Alberta caribou herds gives us one more reason why the Obama Administration needs to slow down and do a more thorough environmental review. Alberta claims that it is managing the environmental impacts of tar sands production – but surely extinction of caribou in the tar sands region is not good practice. No pipeline is worth extinction of major caribou populations.

The new study entitled “The influences of wolf predation, habitat loss, and human activity on the caribou and moose in the Alberta oil sands” indicates that tar sands development is having a major impact on caribou and could be detrimental to the caribou herd in the tar sands region. As this recent New York Times article on the study summarizes, “Humans are a much bigger problem than wolves for a caribou herd in the oil sands area of Alberta, Canada.” In other studies, scientists have indicated that if development trends continue, within 30 years the caribou herd on the east side of the Athabasca River could go extinct. While Alberta and Canada like to make claims that they are effectively managing the tar sands, Alberta’s caribou protection plans are so ineffective several Canadian environmental groups have taken the issue to court this month. Alberta’s Lower Athabasca Regional Plan is no different, only protecting 11% of caribou habitat.

Tar sands are a highly polluting, high-carbon fuel that can be extracted in Alberta, Canada. This alone ought to be enough to make the Obama administration think twice before approving the 2000 mile Keystone XL tar sands pipeline from Alberta to Texas. The utter mismanagement of the tar sands region, Boreal forest and associated species including caribou should make this decision a no-brainer.

The Alberta and Canada governments and tar sands industry groups have advocated for removing wolves as a means to bring back the caribou population, but this study – commissioned by Statoil Canada, which has leases in the tar sands – found that removing wolves would not be an effective means to deal with the problem, but could harm the ecosystem.

Of concern, despite scientists making it clear that killing wolves is not an effective way of easing pressures on caribou, the Edmonton Journal reports that “Over the past five years, the government of Alberta has spent more than $1 million poisoning wolves with strychnine and shooting them from the air. In all, more than 500 wolves in the Little Smoky River region have been killed.” While this region does not contain tar sands – rather, there has been forestry and other oil and gas development contributing to caribou decline – it is reasonable to assume that Alberta will likely soon start killing wolves in Northeastern Alberta rather than protecting habitat from industry.

Mismanagement of the tar sands and of its impacts on communities and wildlife is not a new story in Alberta. In April, I blogged about Alberta’s Draft Lower Athabasca Integrated Regional Plan, which would only protect 11% of the region’s caribou habitat. Groups from the United States and European Union are so concerned about this inadequate plan that NRDC and fifteen other groups wrote an open letter to the Government of Canada – published in the Edmonton Journal on June 17 – asking Alberta to address the serious weaknesses in the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan.

The letter states that:

The LARP fails to meet the Government of Alberta’s purported goal of healthy air, water, land and biodiversity that support healthy ecosystems and world-class conservation areas. The plan does not establish a regional disturbance limit, halt water withdrawals from the Athabasca River during periods of low flow, define limits of pollution in the Athabasca River, or adequately protect caribou habitat.

Ultimately, our groups request in the letter that the Government of Alberta and Government of Canada commission an independent panel to conduct an assessment of the LARP and recommend improvements.

Just days after the publication of the letter, Ecojustice, on behalf of the Pembina Institute and Alberta Wilderness Association went to court for a lawsuit launched last summer, seeking a court order to force Environment Minister Peter Kent to recommend emergency protection of critical habitat for threatened caribou herds in northeastern Alberta.

In the affidavit from the Canadian Federal Government from March of this year in response to the lawsuit, the government acknowledges Alberta’s mismanagement of the caribou:

Overall, Alberta has not, to date, effectively managed the cumulative effects within caribou range and has not applied appropriate mitigation (e.g., habitat restoration, minimizing footprint) in a coordinated landscape-level approach to conserve caribou. The level of habitat disturbance is above 45% for 12 of the 13 local populations. This level of disturbance is beyond the biologically acceptable threshold for self-sustaining local populations as evidenced by the continued decline of most boreal caribou local populations in the province.

Yet they go on to argue that losing all the Alberta caribou herds is not that significant – and that they are therefore not required to enact an emergency order, essentially making a de facto decision to allow all Alberta’s caribou herds to go extinct to support maximum levels of tar sands development. We hope that the Canadian courts will make the right decision and take action to protect caribou habitat.

However, the bottom line is that Canada and Alberta are not taking environmental protection and management of the tar sands seriously. Currently, the State Department is in the process of reviewing the application for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that would run 2000 miles from Alberta to Texas, putting American lands, waters and people at risk. At a time when we desperately need to be transitioning to a clean energy future, it makes no sense to build a pipeline to pump nearly a million barrels per day of some of the dirtiest, most irresponsibly extracted oil in the world to the U.S. Gulf Coast. The United States should send a clear message to Canada that they need to clean up the tar sands and protect the Boreal forest and its wildlife by saying no to this dangerous pipeline. Take action to stop the Keystone XL pipeline at www.nrdc.org/NoKXL.

Keystone Pipeline leaks and Corrective Action Order show tar sands pipelines too risky: State should re-open comment period for Keystone XL supplemental review

2011-06-08T18:51:51Z

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Today, NRDC and over 30 groups wrote to Secretary of State Clinton requesting once again that the comment period for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) be extended. Despite numerous requests from a diverse array of individuals and groups to keep the comment period open, the State Department closed the comment period on Monday. However, it is not unprecedented for comment periods to be re-opened, particularly when new information has come to light which would significantly alter a project’s environmental review. In this case re-opening the comment period is critical.

After TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline spilled for the 12th time, the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a Corrective Action Order to TransCanada, indicating that continued operation of the pipeline would be a “hazard to life, property and the environment.” Pipeline safety regulators at DOT have allowed the Keystone pipeline to resume operating under constrained conditions, which will allow them to investigate both the causes of the recent spills and other threats the pipeline poses to the public and environment. As part of the order, regulators have asked TransCanada for a significant amount of information to help identify what has been causing an average of a spill per month since the pipeline began operating. Because the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would be linked to Keystone, the environmental review process for Keystone XL should be informed by the results of DOT’s investigation.

The letter concludes:

The history of Keystone has demonstrated that the safety issues with diluted bitumen pipelines have not been fully addressed. The State Department needs to give U.S. pipeline regulators at DOT the time they need to determine why the first Keystone pipeline has had so many problems before moving forward with the Keystone XL. Given these legitimate safety concerns with the pipeline and its proposed route, the public deserves an opportunity to understand and comment based on DOT’s findings.

This letter, signed by local and national groups as well as groups in Canada and Europe is only the most recent cry for more time to review the highly deficient SDEIS, which EPA gave a failing grade in their comments posted yesterday. There has been an outpouring of requests for better analysis and more time not only from environmental groups but also from farmers, refinery communities that would be hit hard by pollution, the faith community, and Members of Congress. And prior to the publication of the SDEIS, a hundred landowners and ranchers and 25 Mayors made requests for analysis in the Supplemental that were not met by the State Department.

National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson wrote a letter to Secretary Clinton last week, saying: “An extension of the comment period is necessary to provide greater opportunity for input from farmers and ranchers, many of whom are currently busy with spring planting. Opportunity should also be provided for public hearings along the proposed route to allow for input from impacted communities.”
Nearly 50 faith-based groups, led by the Columban Fathers, wrote to Secretary Clinton last week: “As a people of faith, we are in awe of Earth’s goodness and its ability to provide life for all of God’s creation. As such we need to ensure that proper steps are taken to secure this ability for future generations to come. As a people, society, and government we need to respect the intrinsic value of creation, and thus, the environment as well. We urge you not to permit TransCanada the opportunity to build the Keystone XL Pipeline.”
Over 40 Texan refinery community leaders asked Secretary Clinton “to support us by ensuring that the State Department provide a scientific study of how Keystone XL’s tar sands imports will impact our communities and that we be granted local public hearings during the SDEIS’s official comment period.”
Over 3 dozen Members of Congress, led by Representative Cohen said that “While we appreciate the Department of State’s decision to issue a supplemental review, we are concerned that once again the Department of State has failed to appropriately address issues that were ignored or inadequately analyzed in the first environmental review.” The letter also calls for a 120 day comment period and requests a meeting the State Department officials.
Nebraska’s Senators Nelson and Johanns as well as Nebraska State Senators have asked the State Department not to rush the process, and to move the proposed Keystone XL route out of the Nebraska Sandhills and Ogallala aquifer.

The State Department is failing to listen to the reasonable, sensible requests of hundreds of thousands of American people, numerous groups and U.S. politicians from both sides of the aisle – siding with the oil companies and rushing the permitting process of Keystone XL without doing analysis that is critical to keeping Americans safe. Congressman Waxman said recently at a hearing on a bill that would expedite the decision-making on Keystone XL, “Some will say we have to make trade-offs and sacrifice our air quality for lower gas prices. But with this project, we would be sacrificing our air quality for higher gas prices.” It is time for Secretary Clinton and President Obama to start listening and protect their country and their people from a bullying pipeline company with a terrible safety record.