Skip to comments.State Departmentís Keystone report prompts divisive response
Posted on 03/01/2013 4:41:59 PM PST by jazusamo
The State Department released preliminary findings of a new environmental impact study surrounding the controversial Keystone XL pipeline on Friday, but made no clear recommendation as to whether the the pipeline should be held up for environmental or economic reasons.
Reporters trying to make sense of the nearly 2,000 pages of findings were flummoxed by one senior State Department official who stressed that the document does not come out one way or the other and make a decision about whether the U.S. should or should not go forward with the project.
Years of heated debate have surrounded the proposed 1,700 mile pipelined that would transport oil sands from Canada through the U.S. to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico coastline. But Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Kerri-Ann Jones told reporters that it remains somewhat premature to get into questions of whether Keystone would result in seriously negative impact on the environment.
Pro-pipeline groups applauded the findings Friday evening, while Environmental groups responded with immediate frustration claiming the State Department had only confused an already complicated fight over the project, permits for which were previously blocked by the Obama administration amid environmental concerns.
One the one hand, the findings suggest that big-picture environmental concerns such as those related to green house gases and global warming are irrelevant on grounds that western Canadas oil sands will eventually end being developed and made into burnable fuel whether the White House continues to block the Keystone pipeline or not.
One the other hand, the findings make a clear case that if the Obama administration allows Keystone to go forward, the long-term impact of the project may result in a significant increase the amount of so-called green house gasses being pumped into the atmosphere by U.S. consumers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I'm shocked, I tell ya.
The way Trumka was talking it was almost as if someone had quietly given him the impression Barry would double-cross the enviros in a second term.
That could well be it, the two thugs are tight as ticks.
This whole thing is so much B/S. The pipeline was approved by the State Department 2 years ago. Since when does the State Department get involved in digging up some sage brush???
The House needs to target State for some serious budget cuts. They keep blowing it across the globe and now their spoiling the nest.
It’s GOOD to be Assistant Secretary for Oceans!
Large campaign donor Warren Buffett makes about One Million $$ per train load hauling this oil thru cities, over wet lands, and other endangered areas.
A pipe line would avoid those endangered areas but leave less money for the dear leader.
Is that some kind of renewed call from State for NIMBYs against production and wealth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.