Group items tagged

In a draft assessment of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, consultants for the U.S. State Department judged that building it would have no significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Why? Because the analysts assumed the tar sands oil would find a way out with or without the new pipeline.

The bottom line, from a climate perspective: “oil sands crude is significantly more [greenhouse gas] intensive than other crudes, and therefore has potentially large impacts,” wrote EPA’s Cynthia Giles about the State Department’s attempts to assess the full implications of Keystone. “Lifecycle emissions from oil sands crude could be 81 percent greater than the average crude refined in the U.S.,” a difference that can grow “depending on the assumptions made.”

Supporters argue it will bring jobs and conflict-free oil to the U.S., while opponents say it will lead to unacceptably high greenhouse gas emissions from Alberta’s oil sands and threaten human health and water supplies.

But a recent poll by the Pew Research Center indicates that despite vocal protests against the pipeline, including arrests of high profile activists and celebrities outside the White House, most Americans support the pipeline. The poll surveyed 1,500 Americans by phone and found that 66% of them are in favour of building the pipeline while only 23% oppose the project.

Environmentalists have vociferously opposed the pipeline, saying it would raise greenhouse gas levels and lock the United States into long-term dependence on fossil fuels.

The pipeline would transport about 830,000 barrels per day and cost some $5.3 billion to construct.

environmental impact studies already completed would be sufficient to approve the project

deep contradiction between Canada’s plans for the development of the oil sands and the climate reality we are facing around the world