Greens urge Obama to say no to Keystone

On Friday, January 31st, 2014 in Press Releases
Share

The Green Party of Canada is calling on President Obama to reject the proposal for Keystone XL following today’s release of a State Department report on the pipeline’s environmental and economic impact.

Today’s surprisingly tepid Report suggests that in the coming years, the Alberta oil sands will be highly vulnerable to any restrictions on new pipeline construction, stating in part that “If there were long-term constraints on any new pipeline capacity… there could be a substantial impact on oil sands production levels.”

In light of these findings, which would seem to contradict the assumption that the Alberta oil sands would be developed whether or not Keystone is built, the Green Party is urging the Obama Administration to reject the proposal.

“It is clear that current capacity to move raw, unprocessed bitumen out of Canada is hampered by relying solely on rail. Any new pipeline will create expanded oil sands operations, and with them increased greenhouse gas emissions,” said Elizabeth May, Green Leader and MP for Saanich–Gulf Islands. “We should insist on sensible Canadian policies that create jobs in Canada in refining bitumen.”

The release of the State Department’s environmental assessment of the proposed project means that President Obama now has 90 days left to make a final decision on whether to accept or reject TransCanada Corp.’s application to build the 1,400 km pipeline, which would connect the Alberta oil sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.

The Report states that during its operations, greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the Keystone XL pipeline would be equivalent to “approximately 300,000 passenger vehicles operating for 1 year, or 71,928 homes using electricity for 1 year.”

Print this page

  • jayelle
  • jayelle
  • Cris Paunescu

    The latest State Department report actually confirms what all the previous reports did – that the Keystone pipeline will have no impact on oil production in Alberta or on greenhouse gas emissions. It will create (in the States, since this is a US report) some 40,000 jobs and bring in a whole load of tax money.

    It will obviously be quite beneficial for Canada as well.

    Yet Ms May continues her despicable activity by fighting against Canada’s best interests.
    I have to ask myself – and hopefully others will ask themselves too – why is she doing this? Maybe Ms May doesn’t understand a simple fact: the US will be buying oil. Period.
    This oil may come from countries like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Why is Ms May supporting their economies? Canada certainly has better environmental controls than those countries. The oil sands are the most scrutinized oil extraction operation on the planet.
    (Let’s not forget to mention that it’s Canada that pays wages and benefits for all the Green politicians.)
    Or this oil may come from Canada, with all the benefits for our economy. It WILL flow South. The choice will be between a pipeline and the railroad. What does Ms May think is better and less polluting?

    Speaking about railroads, if Ms May is not aware, there are huge interests involved in oil transport from Canada to the US, interests that stand to lose a lot of money if things change. Warren Buffet comes to mind. Why would Canadian politicians and other groups prefer those interests to make money instead of us?

    Ms May seems to be willing to have the oil sands bitument refined in Canada.
    Great.
    I asked her on Twitter and on this website two simple questions:
    1 – does she support the building of new refineries in Wester, Canada – since we don’t have the capacity?
    2 – does she support the pipeline reversal (Line 9) to help move western oil to eastern refineries?

    I haven’t received an answer yet.

    But for those of you who may be fooled by this, please note: The building of new refineries will require very large investments by the oil companies. Aside from that – and this is where Ms May will shine – it also requires extensive environmental studies, followed by protests and all the usual crap. It will be some 3 to 5 years before an approval is given for construction. Meanwhile, Canada will suffer from a lower export volume.
    That while Ms May and the Green Party will keep telling everyone that they work in our best interest.

    Let’s put an end to all this unproven garbage about “dirty” oil, AGW and “man-made climate change” and focus on what really matters – a better life for Canadians.
    Do you really believe that importing some 723,000 Barrels of oil PER DAY (2012 statistics) from places like Saudi Arabia, Africa and Venezuela is better for the environment than using Canadian oil sent by pipeline?

    • Dan White

      You’re obviously a climate denier, so I am not even going to bother with that one, I will just suffice to say you must be some kind of mythical ostrich.

      But you said it yourself, if the pipeline was denied and refineries built in its stead here in Canada, you’re right. It would take 3-5 years just to get the ball rolling. But that’s her point. That’s the whole damn point. We have to slow down production and stop this runaway development that has no interest in Canadians at all. Just the foreign companies piping it out

      Now like it or not Canada needs a sustainable energy economy for the future that does not acidify our ocean, leaving us with an ocean with no oxygen and no sea life in the next 50-100 years. Which in turn would leave us with no oxygen in the next 100 or so years. If we suck up all that bitumen and burn it willy nilly

      • Dan White

        That’s what we will be left with. Ocean acidification is climate changes greatest threat to us, and the tar sands are our best chance of making that a reality.

        There are 10x more jobs created in the green energy sectors and unlike oil and gas, they’ll be around forever. And anyone who says they’re unprofitable simply hasn’t done their homework.

        • Cris Paunescu

          I’m sorry, your last statement is just stupid beyond belief.
          Looking at world wide statistics (as well as Ontario), for every “green job” created there were 4 (FOUR) jobs lost.
          In Ontario, the Samsung deal was supposed to create some 50,000 jobs already. The reality? I think it’s less than 700.
          Try and educate yourself a bit.

        • Judy 113

          Paunescu is obviously a front for some low-level functionary in the PMO. Don’t waste your time responding to his outrageous comments.

      • Cris Paunescu

        First, please explain what you mean by “climate denier”. Once you see how ridiculous your statement is, we might actually have an intelligent conversation.

        Slowing down production will accomplish what? In case you don’t understand this – oil will flow regardless of it’s source. At this time, Canada is importing a lot of oil – did you know that? Some 70,000 bpd. Slowing down AB production will result only in increasing the imports.

        For the ocean acidity, check out the statistics – it went up even when CO2 emissions were a lot lower. On the other hand, if the oceans absorb a lot of CO2, plant life will suffer – did you know plants cannot survive without this gas? No? You’re welcome.

        Oh, and please explain why the fuss over Alberta oil, when a Canadian member of the Green Party, MLA to boot and a lead IPCC author – Andrew Weaver, calculated that burning Alberta oil will cause a 0.03 Degree Celsius temperature increase. Is that what AGW is about?

  • Cris Paunescu

    Hey, guess what?
    That pillar of integrity, all for the environment fighter, Sierra Club is saying the pipeline has the effect of 5.7 MILLION cars on the road… not just 300,000. Which one of you is wrong?

    It’s mind-boggling!

    https://secure.sierraclub.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=12467&s_src=710ZSCSH01#.UuyGpHYzzKk.twitter

    And they have the nerve to discuss about EPA findings when it was proven they were in communication with them. Wow!

  • Cris Paunescu

    After 4 days from the publication of this article, there is no one here – not even your greatest butt-kissers (I mean supporters) – to applaud your decision.
    Just one link to a CBC (of all publications) article that contradicts your statements.

    What does that tell you, Ms May?

How you can help

Follow Me

facebook-icon Facebook Twitter YouTube Digg

eNewsletter


Learn how to support Elizabeth May with her work in Parliament ALT

Island Tides

The News No-One Noticed
September 18th, 2014

The price of cheap shrimp
September 4th, 2014

Dumbing down of diplomacy
August 21st, 2014

Canada In The World This Summer
August 7th, 2014

Whistle-stops: Getting Passenger Rail Back On Track
July 28th, 2014

Green Party Logo

Constituency Office

1-9711 Fourth St
Sidney, BC  V8L 2Y8

Phone: 250-657-2000
800-667-9188
Fax: 250-657-2004

E-mail: elizabeth.may.c1a@parl.gc.ca

Parliament Hill Office

518 Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Phone: 613-996-1119
Fax: 613-996-0850

E-mail: elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca