The State Department has announced that it finds no objection to the newly configured XL pipeline, meaning, on a preponderance of evidence it is in the national interest. Providing a “MarketLink” for our own dirty Bakken is a significant aspect of what the State Department considers to be “in the national interest”
It is important for all of us who are committed to lowering the nation’s and the globe’s carbon footprint to understand the full context of the XL Pipeline and the existing legal framework within which it will most certainly be approved. Hillary Clinton said it best last year.
“we’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the [Persian] Gulf or dirty oil from Canada … until we can get our act together as a country and figure out that clean, renewable energy is in both our economic interests and the interests of our planet.” Hillary Clinton http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41668.pdf KeystoneXL Project Key: Issues Congressional Research Service January 24, 2013
And to that we could add..or our own dirty oil.. Bakken is not significantly better on a “well to wheel” (total carbon footprint) basis than West Canada Select or Syncrude. In terms of LCFS “well to wheel’, Venezuelan and Mexican crudes which we have been routinely moving through U.S. pipeline into U.S. refineries and consuming..right here in Maine isn’t all that much better than either tra sands based crudes or Bakken.
It is ludicrous to think Maine is a LCFS state or that our fuels are “clean”.
Activists have to move their campaign away from the arguement that dilbit pipeline spills are more likely or any worse from what we are moving through pipeline now. There is no difference great enough that keeping only tar sands out of the U.S. will reduce our carbon footprint. if we focus on only tar sands and narrowly within that on piepline spill hazards we lose the war.
We have to move the arguement to where Hillary points in her comment last year even as she was for ed to say she was inclined to approve the XL as “in the national interest. Until we make our national interest a full push away fom futhe development of and investment in petoleum and non renewables it really is just a matter of where we get our dirty oil from.
We Americans are 5% of the world’s population and we consume 25% of the world’s petroleum.
There is no more clean oil.
It’s all dirty.All the same ( I am speaking here in scientific terms, in terms of properties and processes well to wheel)
If we realy want to end our dependence on dirty oil, we as activits s have shift our campaign to to moving national policy away fromall oil and to recuding our consuption of oil. If we don’t change our consumption habits they will keep drilling dirty oil. How many folk at at the big rally were drinking poland spring or other bottled water.???? That’s the point. That’s the issue.
March 2, 2013
May 29th,2013 Quebec Taking a Lo Carbon Position on its energy/fuel use saying use of the lowest carbon fuel is more important than where their fuel comes from. They are opposing Harpers plans to bring tar sands east to Canadas refineries. We in Maine could make that same point by boycotting Irving for its use of Bakken which is almost as bad well to wheel as tar sands and for its determination to use tar sands. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/transcanada-exports-of-crude-through-quebec-would-spark-opposition-refinery-union/article12244539/
June 1,2013 Refineries Looking to Rolling Pipeline over Fixed Pipeline for flexibility
June 4,2013 California Refineries Qiuetly Moving Tars Sands by Rail http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_23383032/canadian-tar-sands-crude-heads-refineries