The State Department’s analysis of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal notes that tar sands crude is 17 percent more greenhouse gas intensive than conventional oil, reports Sierra Club President Michael Brune at the Huffingtonpost. But the overall environmental impacts of the pipeline are limited, says the analysis, because, the oil would be mined and drilled anyway. That’s not accurate. Currently, almost 2 million barrels of oil are produced daily in the tar sands. While further extraction permits have been issued to oil companies, though, they first need transport capacity to proceed. And that’s where a pipeline is crucial. Railroads don’t come close. So, the analysis is not only inaccurate – it’s incredibly cynical, Brune notes. With logic like this, why bother to stop coal plants as countries continue to burn it? Or replace fracking gas with clean energy? As it is, real leadership in turning towards clean energy sources is happening outside Washington DC, but we have til mid-April to tell Obama speak out, and show the president that there is a national movement demanding he keep his climate promises. Send your message to the administration today.
Join the swelling numbers of voters TELLING Congress they’ll vote for Clean Energy candidates here: http://signon.org/sign/we-are-the-clean-99?source=c.em.cp&r_by=487176 . This is an ongoing campaign (the next Congressional election is in 2 years!) so please, spread the word. It’s our way of telling Congress that a strong clean energy voting bloc is out there. This is how YOU can make a difference.
Keystone XL pipeline report slammed by activists and scientists. Green activists and climate change scientists have slammed a new report from the Obama administration that raises no serious objections to building a massive and controversial oil pipeline. The Guardian