Aug 272013

Barack Obama has said that the only way he will approve Keystone XL is if it can be shown that it will not significantly increase atmospheric carbon.  So the State Department, which is, by the way, Hillary’s domain, hired a contractor with ties to TransCanada Corporation, and they produced a bogus report.  Now we have evidence that the Canadian government knows that it’s bogus, because they know Keystone XL will increase carbon pollution.  Here’s why.

27KeystoneEver since President Obama said in June that a litmus test for the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada was whether it would “significantly” worsen global warming, Canadian government officials have insisted it would not.

They reasoned that because the pipeline would not have any major effect on rate of development of Canada’s oil sands, as a State Department environmental review concluded in March, it would not significantly raise the amount of carbon emitted.

But documents obtained by a Canadian environmental group suggest that the staff at Natural Resources Canada viewed Keystone XL as an important tool for expanding oil sands production. The documents were released to the Pembina Institute, a group based in Calgary, Alberta, after a request made under Canada’s Access to Information Act.

Briefing notes prepared for the natural resources minister, Joe Oliver, before a trip to Chicago to promote Keystone XL in March, noted that “in order for crude oil production to grow, the North American pipeline network must be expanded through initiatives, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline project.”

Clare Demerse, director of federal policy for Pembina, said in an interview on Saturday that expanding crude oil production in Canada is synonymous with developing the oil sands. Canada has 168 billion barrels of oil sands reserves compared to about 4.1 billion barrels of conventional oil reserves… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

Photo credit: Earth Times

The bottom line requires no rocket science.  If Keystone XL would cause oil sands production to grow, more crude oil of the dirtiest kind would be refined and used, and that would increase carbon pollution.  QED.


  14 Responses to “Keystone XL WOULD Increase Carbon Pollution”

  1. I find it worrying that Hillary Clinton's Dept (presumably with her approval) 'hired a contractor with ties to TransCanada Corporation' to see if the Keystone XL would increase carbon emissions – and it produced the report it was expected to which was full of 'errors'.  (Surely to anyone with half a brain obviously it WILL increase carbon emissions!). There are half a dozen types of Green Power – why not invest in those – which WON'T increase carbon emissions?!

  2. Barack Obama has said that the only way he will approve Keystone XL is if it can be shown that it will not significantly increase atmospheric carbon.

    Since it will be scientifically impossible to prove that it will not significantly increase carbon, I stand with the President. 🙂

  3. I am not a chemist, physicist, geologist, or politician, but even I can realize that this project is destructive to both Canada and the United States.  Profit remains the basis for any project like this.

  4. If anyone doesn't think Harper and his harlots are not planning on expanding production of the tar sands, think again!  If anyone doesn't think that Harper and his harlots will do whatever they damn well please, think again!

    From 13/06/11

    This year, Canada is taking a unique approach to lower its reported emissions in preparing the annual carbon inventory – it has purposefully excluded information in order to give the false impression that when it comes to climate-altering tar sands pollution, “everything is fine.”

    From 01/11/12

    By 2020, the industry could have over 110 million barrels per day (bpd) of production capacity in place. This is over 22 million bpd more than International Energy Agency (IEA) models say we should be using in that year if we are to reduce the risk of warming the planet more than an average 2 degrees C.

    Does this sound like a government that is honest and transparent?  Does this sound like a government that cares about the planet and people?

    The original environmental assessment submitted to the US State Department by a company that had done work previously for TransCanada, was a sham.  Can you say "conflict of interest"?  Yet the State Department engaged their services and to nobody's surprise, I'm sure, the report "extolled the virtues of the Keystone XL".

    "Barack Obama has said that the only way he will approve Keystone XL is if it can be shown that it will not significantly increase atmospheric carbon."  

    We've all heard him say it more than once, I'm sure.  Well guess what Mr President, the Keystone XL can't help but boost the carbon emissions, and more than everybody thinks because the Rt disHonourable Stephen Harper has plans.  There are about 4 billion barrels of regular crude oil reserves in Alberta, but there are about 168 billion barrels of the toxic bitumen tar sands oil.  That should tell everybody where Harper is headed.

    As most know, many Canadians are fighting against the other pipeline, the Enbridge Northern Gateway, that would see a bitumen pipeline run from Alberta, across pristine wilderness to the Pacific coast near Kitimat, BC, loaded onto oil tankers and then sent across to China and down the coast to California I'm told.  From California it is supposed to be transported to Texas.  Harper is currently running radio ads about increasing air patrols to monitor the Pacific coast tanker traffic, more strenuous inspections of all tankers all in order to help the environment.  Now there has been no official decision about the Northern Gateway after the hearings were concluded earlier this summer.  Despite the outcome from the hearings, I think Harper, in his usual controlling and bullying style, is going to approve the Northern Gateway, no matter what.  Does that sound like a plan that will reduce carbon emissions?

    Whether it is the Keystone XL or the Northern Gateway, carbon emissions are going to increase because of the expansion of the tar sands. 

    • And here's an earlier report from 2009

      A report from one of the world's top energy consultancies says oil production in Canada's tar sands could see a five-fold increase by 2035.

    • Oh, and BTW, there are also talks about using the TransCanada #9 line to ship bitumen east which would like end up in Maine for shipment to the Gulf, or a new line that would go to the Arctic coast. The eastern route is the one being talked about the most, other than Enbridge. Let's just say that the Rt disHonourable Stephen Harper is not putting all his eggs in one pipeline. 

      In my opinion, 2015 can't come fast enough. Unfortunately, Canada does not have impeachment options.

  5. To the Oil Sands shill commenting under the rather dubious name of "Save the Planet":  You werfe not censored beause pf your comment, and are welcome to share it as soon as you stop lying about your email address.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.