Guardian: ‘White House Officials … Gave Strong Indications The President Is Inclined To Approve The Keystone XL Pipeline’

The Obama Administration has, tragically, signaled it may retreat on two major climate issues.

The UK Guardian reported Friday:

Barack Obama’s grand vision of action on climate change shrank to $200m a year to fund research into clean fuel cars, with signs of retreat on the big environmental issues of the day….

But on the most immediate environmental decision in his in-tray — the future of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project – White House officials indicated on Friday that Obama’s green and liberal supporters would be in for a disappointment. Officials signalled that the president was inclined to approve the project.

I must say that this $200 million a year, which has zero chance of seeing the light of day in the Tea-Party-controlled House of Representatives, is perhaps the tiniest bone one could imagine throwing the climate community in return for a decision to help unleash the uber-dirty tar sands.

And as if that wasn’t enough to suggest Obama’s recent strong words on climate (“If Congress Won’t Act Soon To Protect Future Generations, I Will“) were just that — words – the Washington Post reported on Friday:

The Obama administration is leaning toward revising its landmark proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants, according to several individuals briefed on the matter, a move that would delay tougher restrictions and could anger many environmentalists.

I have also heard from a source very familiar with the regulatory process that EPA now believes it screwed up the initial proposal, potentially subjecting it to court challenge.

Rewriting the proposal would significantly delay any action…

While the move could bolster the administration’s legal justification for regulating power plants’ carbon emissions, any delay on the rules would be a blow to environmental groups and their supporters, who constituted a crucial voting block for President Obama and other Democrats in last year’s elections.

As is typical of the WashPost, the administration’s moved is framed entirely as “a blow to environmental groups” rather, than, say, a blow to the environment itself or as a blow humanity.

The White House appears utterly clueless about the importance of these issues and the self-destructive nature of its “all of the above” energy strategy, as the WH official quoted by the Guardian makes clear:

The official dismissed environmental groups’ contention that building the pipeline would open up vast deposits of the Alberta tar sands, and so increase the emissions that cause climate change. “There have been thousands of miles of pipelines that have been built while President Obama has been in office, and I think the point is, is that it hasn’t necessarily had a significant impact one way or the other on addressing climate change,” the official said.

He added that Obama’s environmental policies would more than make up for any negative impacts from the Keystone XL project. “There’s no question of that.”

Seriously, that’s the White House defense for Keystone: We’ve opened thousands of new spigots for oil (and gas), so what’s one more?

Memo to White House: We are far past the point where breaking even on carbon emissions – or doing a little better than break even —  is a rational goal.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

No, Obama Didn’t Tell Republicans He Would Approve The Keystone XL Pipeline

BuzzFeed reports that House Republicans came out of their lunch meeting with President Obama confident he will say yes to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Rep. John Carter (R-La.) said Obama “indicated” he will support the pipeline.

The truth is the Keystone XL pipeline decision is still months away. There is no indication of how the State Department will decide, and it will happen as early as this summer. Administration officials and reporters confirm the report is false:

.@arthurdelaneyhp says Freshmen GOP Rep at lunch meeting said Obama fielded Keystone pipeline Q but never said he’d approve

— Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) March 13, 2013

Additional reports of the meeting indicate Obama only said he will make a decision on Keystone XL soon. It is worth noting BuzzFeed’s own story now carries the rebuttal from the White House stating that the future of the tar sands pipeline has not been determined.

Keystone XL supporters might be optimistic based on a State Department’s draft report that surprisingly concluded the project is environmentally “sound.” There are tens of thousands of activists who disagree.

Of course, Republicans aren’t content to leave the decision to the State Department. Polluter-backed House Republicans have repeatedly tried to force its approval, with their most recent attempt just last week.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Keystone: Exporting Canadian Oil Across America’s Backyard

Cross-posted from Huffington Post

Given the relentless “all of the above” energy strategy pursued by the Obama Administration, the release this past Friday of a positive environmental impact report for the proposed Keystone oil pipeline was no big surprise. The U.S. State Department essentially declared that since the extra-dirty tar sands oil designated for the pipeline was going to be shipped and burned one way or another, building the pipeline down from Canada to Gulf coast refineries would not have that much impact on the environment — despite warnings from climate scientists that burning all the tar sands oil would be “game over” in the fight to stop climate change.

This conclusion by the State Department was a laughable bit of self-fulfilling logic. But perhaps the biggest surprise in the report was the tacit admission that the tar sands oil isn’t going to be burned in the U.S. at all. Instead, it is destined for refining and export overseas.

The State Department report details how Gulf Coast oil refineries will use the tar sands crude oil delivered by Keystone to replace supplies from Venezuela and Mexico, refine the crude into high-end products like gasoline, and then export the refined fuel overseas. Meanwhile, as if to add insult to injury, fuel prices paid by U.S. consumers in the Midwest are expected to jump as the pipeline will siphon off crude oil supplies that are currently landlocked in America. The U.S. State Department did not, of course, highlight these findings at the top of its report but instead buried them down in the “market analysis” section, where it left a clear trail of breadcrumbs.

Interestingly, the State Department went way out of its way to argue that the pipeline won’t be used to export unprocessed crude oil. (Though the industry clearly expects otherwise: see here.) Yet at the same time, the State Department admits, using painstakingly disconnected phrasing, that the crude oil delivered by the pipeline will be processed by Gulf coast refineries and then exported, in a shell game whereby export refineries replace declining crude oil supplies from Venezuela and Mexico with Keystone Canadian tar sands oil.

Regarding the pipeline’s impact on the export of refined crude, the State Department report says: “…future refined product export trends are also unlikely to be significantly impacted by the proposed Project.”

And what exactly are those trends? The State Department reports that: “In 2005, exports began increasing… Export volumes have increased to over [3 million barrels of oil per day] in the first half of 2012. This increased volume of refined products is being exported by refiners as they respond to lower domestic gasoline demand and continued higher demand and prices in overseas markets.”

And why use the extra dirty crude oil to be delivered by the Keystone Pipeline? The State Department says: “Gulf Coast refiners’ traditional sources of heavy crudes, particularly Mexico and Venezuela, are declining and are expected to continue to decline. This results in an outlook where the refiners have significant incentive to obtain heavy crude from the oil sands.”

And there you have it, a shell game, with Keystone as the lynchpin for the whole effort. Gas prices go up for Midwesterners, big oil refineries profit from the overseas export of fuel processed from dirty tar sands oil, and the rest of us are that much further in the hole in our fight to stop climate change. The environmental impact statement appears to be a clear signal that the Obama Administration is headed down the road to approval. However, the growing backlash against the pipeline creates a headache for the president who just made a very public commitment to protect the climate. A fight is clearly in the works.

– Hunter Cutting is a consultant and writer.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

USA Today On Keystone XL Rally: ‘Tens Of Thousands Demand Action On Climate Change’

So that was a heck of a rally. I welcome readers who attended to share their thoughts and pics.

If you missed it, you can get details from USA Today‘s story “Tens of thousands demand action on climate change.” Or from the Sierra Club news release, “More Than 35,000 Strong March on Washington for Climate Action.”

And then there’s always the Climate Progress twitter feed — my first mass tweeting from an iPhone.

I loved the combination of passion and knowledge that was driving the day. I had the chance to talk to a bunch of the speakers and was impressed by the strength of their commitment on climate in general and Keystone XL in particular.

Van Jones made clear that all of President Obama’s other accomplishments would be wiped away if he approves Keystone, since future generations are going to judge all of us on the basis of the actions we take on climate.

I was very impressed with the celebrities who came, that they had substance to go with the style. How great to have Rosario Dawson explain that it is called “tar sands” and not “oil sands.” And in chatting with her afterwards, it’s clear she also understands the spectrum of clean energy solutions.

And Evangeline Lilly (aka Kate Austen from Lost) was there as a Canadian to apologize to all the Americans in the audience for her country’s ceaseless efforts to send the dirtiest of fuels our way. I have seen every episode of Lost but lost my nerve to tell her how much I enjoyed her show except for the last five minutes, that is. It’s not like she was one of the writers…. But I digress.

I had a long talk with Tom Steyer, the billionaire hedge-fund manager who helped lead the “No on Prop 23? campaign to save California’s climate law in 2010. He is also on the board of CAP. He is full throttle that we have to act — and act now — if we are to avert catastrophe. He said to the crowd that he has spent a lot of time reviewing investments and Keystone is a bad investment for this country.

It is good to see a movement with passion from the top all the way down to the roots.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Green groups rally on climate, urge Obama to reject Keystone project

Environmental groups gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Sunday and marched on the White House for a climate change rally largely aimed at pressuring President Obama to reject the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.

Organizers said 35,000 activists attended the rally, where speakers portrayed the battle over the pipeline as a struggle between grassroots green groups and deep-pocketed special interests.

“They’ve got the lobbyists. They’ve got the super-PACs. They made the campaign contributions. They’ve got this town in their pockets — they have got the situation under control. And then you show up. And then we show up. And we change the game,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told the crowd not long before it marched on the White House.

Obama will decide whether the project goes forward because it crosses national boundaries.

More from The Hill:
• States join battle over drone flights
• Privacy advocates: Cybersecurity bill faces tough odds
• Press corps: 'Frustration' over lack of access to Obama
• Graham: Hagel disavowed remark on Israel, State Dept.
• Defense industry focuses on minimizing sequester damage
• Dems hold fire on climate change votes

The pipeline would bring fossil fuels from Canadian tar sands fields to the Gulf Coast. Environmentalists are painting Obama’s upcoming decision as the litmus test for whether he plans to make good on recent comments about tackling climate change.

Activists at Sunday’s rally said approving the pipeline would taint Obama’s record on climate change. They said they hoped the demonstration would give the president the will to nix Keystone, even when a majority of both the House and the Senate want it built.

“His heart is there. The question is can we change the politics enough so he can do what he knows is right. And I believe that he will,” Van Jones, a former Obama adviser, told The Hill.

Courtesy of Shadia Fayne Wood | Project Survival Media | 350.org

The politics surrounding the project are formidable.

Blocking Keystone would play into Republican assertions that the president is scuttling a project that could enhance energy security and create thousands of jobs to appease environmental supporters. They have pressed the White House to green-light the pipeline.

Oil-and-gas groups, such as the American Petroleum Institute, have helped lead a lobbying effort to get Keystone built.

Canada also has tried to sway the administration into approving the pipeline, as it would benefit that nation's oil sands industry.

Obama also has his own base to consider, as several union groups are eager for the jobs Keystone would bring to their members. The AFL-CIO’s building and construction trades division has endorsed the pipeline, and that department’s leader expects the full labor federation to lend its support.

But there is no time to delay when it comes to climate change, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) international program, told The Hill.

“There is no deal to be done,” she said. “We need to do everything we can on every front.”

That is why NRDC and other green groups also want Obama to pursue more stringent carbon emissions standards.

The environmental community is pushing the White House to set emissions standards for existing power plants to build on proposed rules in Obama's first term that effectively barred construction of new coal-fired power plants.

Courtesy of Joshua Lopez | Project Survival Media | 350.org

Greens also want Obama to forge ahead with clean-energy research and deployment on federal lands, measures to boost energy efficiency in homes, buildings and manufacturing and efforts to make coastal towns and cities more storm resilient.

The green groups are focusing their pressure on Obama because of gloomy prospects for passing climate bills this Congress. Republicans will not accept fees on carbon emissions — the same goes for some conservative Democrats.

In an interview with The Hill, Whitehouse said killing Keystone and pushing ahead with stronger regulations could jolt polluting industries into working on climate legislation.

“That’s what’s going to bring them to the table very quickly,” Whitehouse said. “And as soon as the polluters want it, then obviously the Republicans are right there with them.”

View Comments

View the original article here

Republicans Already Showing Weakness on Keystone Pipeline

Well, that didn’t take long.  Just one week into the conference committee on the highway bill, Republicans are showing signs of caving on their insistence that the Keystone pipeline be approved as part of the deal.

Throughout the past few months, we have been chronicling how Republicans have been apathetic to the underlying vices of the highway bill (S. 1813).  They basically told the Democrats in committee that they have every intention of passing the Senate bill; they just want a provision approving the Keystone pipeline as part of the agreement.  As any negotiator that lacks the credulousness of a toddler understands, once you take your bargaining chip off the table, the other side has no reason to give in.  Since Republicans have guaranteed Democrats that the tax and spend highway bill is too big to fail, Democrats will wait them out until they agree to jettison the Keystone provision.  And that is exactly what is happening.

Take a look at these quotes from The Hill:

Republicans are pressing for approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline in a final House-Senate transportation bill but appear unlikely to draw a line in the sand that jeopardizes the infrastructure legislation.

While the proposed Alberta-to-Texas pipeline is a top GOP and oil-industry priority, Republicans might have incentive to keep the matter unresolved, enabling them to continue using Keystone as a political weapon during the campaign season. [...]

“The overall Republican conference position is not to sink the conference report over [Keystone XL], however, as keeping that issue alive through the elections is also acceptable,” an oil industry source told The Hill.

Let’s be straight: the Keystone pipeline should never be used to pass bad legislation.  It’s just humorous to watch these guys capitulate on their one line in the sand.  As we’ve noted before, there are numerous problems with the underlying bill:

Taxpayer Bailout of Private Pensions: As part of an oblique effort to raise revenue for the faulty highway trust fund, the Senate bill allows corporations to put less money into company pensions that are backed by the taxpayer-funded Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).  This would increase net profits for corporations, and by extension, generate $7 billion more in taxes to Uncle Sam.  In addition to serving as a convoluted way to fund the tenuous highway trust fund, it will also expose taxpayers to future bailouts of the PBGC when it becomes clear that the pension plans are underfunded.  [read more on this at the Heritage Foundation].General Fund Transfer: Just hours before the Senate bill was brought to a floor vote on March 14, Barbara Boxer slipped in a manager’s amendment that contained a provision (section 40313) authorizing a $5 billion general fund transfer to the highway trust fund.Nanny-State Enhancement Mandates: James Inhofe, the Republican architect of Boxer’s transportation bill, promised Republicans that the bill offered flexibility to the states for spending their infrastructure dollars, exempting them from the 10% “enhancement” mandates.  Well, the manager’s amendment appears to have vitiated that agreement.Other Top-Down Mandates and Anti-Free-Market Policies: There are sundry provisions that impose eco-fascism, establish anti-growth “made in America” mandates, discourage private sector investments in infrastructure, and offer giveaways to Big Labor.New Bureaucracies: The bill expands the size of government.  According to the Washington Letter on Transportation, as cited in Ken Orski’s Innovation News Briefs, the bill creates a new National Endowment for the Oceans, Coasts and Great Lakes, which will be housed in the Department of Commerce. It also provides for a seven-year reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a green program of the National Park Service within the U.S. Department of the Interior.Big Brother: The bill mandates that every new motor vehicle beginning in 2015 be equipped with a recording device designed to store data related to vehicle safety.IRS out of control: The bill grants authority to revoke passports of those who owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of this 1676-page bill.  It also serves as a stark reminder why we should not lock up authority for all transportation responsibility in Washington.  This is not a bill we should support in any shape or form – Keystone or no Keystone.

View the original article here