Feb. 26
Washington (CNN) -- A debate of more than five years could stretch even longer with Wednesday's call for a health study on the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.
Two Democratic senators -- Barbara Boxer of California and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island -- urged Secretary of State John Kerry to examine higher rates of cancer and other illness reported in places impacted by the "tar sands" oil from northern Alberta.
Their letter to Kerry sought to further delay the project that has support from Republicans, some Democrats, the oil industry and labor unions. A Pew Research Center poll in September showed 65% of respondents favored building it.So why is this still being debated?
Answers show how the pipeline has become a political albatross around the neck of President Barack Obama and Democrats as they try to hold onto control of the Senate in November's congressional elections.
Washington (CNN) -- A debate of more than five years could stretch even longer with Wednesday's call for a health study on the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.
Two Democratic senators -- Barbara Boxer of California and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island -- urged Secretary of State John Kerry to examine higher rates of cancer and other illness reported in places impacted by the "tar sands" oil from northern Alberta.
Their letter to Kerry sought to further delay the project that has support from Republicans, some Democrats, the oil industry and labor unions. A Pew Research Center poll in September showed 65% of respondents favored building it.So why is this still being debated?
Answers show how the pipeline has become a political albatross around the neck of President Barack Obama and Democrats as they try to hold onto control of the Senate in November's congressional elections.
What's this all about?
A Canadian company wants to complete a pipeline from
northern Alberta to the Gulf Coast that would carry the tar sands oil across
six U.S. states.
The $5.3-billion project by TransCanada needs federal
approval because the pipeline crosses an international border. For now, the
decision rests with the State Department headed by Kerry.
Environmental groups oppose the pipeline because
extracting and refining the tar sands oil emits 17% more of the carbon
pollution that contributes to climate change than conventional oil production.
Detractors fear the project would increase U.S.
reliance on the dirtier oil at a time when the nation -- one of the world's
biggest carbon emitters -- should be moving away from fossil fuel dependence to
limit climate change.
"At the end of the day, Keystone XL is not just
another oil pipeline; it's a gateway to the unchecked development of one of the
world's dirtiest fossil fuels," wrote Tom Steyer of NextGen Climate Action
in a CNN opinion piece on February 20.
Supporters say the years of study since TransCanada
first sought U.S. permission in 2008 show the pipeline itself wouldn't
significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions.
They note the project will create more than 3,000
temporary U.S. jobs, as well as a likely greater number of indirect jobs. Once
it is built, the pipeline would need less than 50 permanent U.S. jobs to
operate it.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican
of Kentucky, called the pipeline "the single largest shovel-ready project
in America" and an "important project that won't cost taxpayers a
dime to build but will bring thousands of private-sector jobs to Americans who
desperately need them."
Where does the Keystone oil come from?
The pipeline starts in western Canada where tar-like
black oil called bitumen saturates the sand around the Athabasca River and
other areas.
In the 1920s, scientists discovered how to mix what
was called tar sand with hot water and caustic soda to separate the components
so they could extract the bitumen.
Now, major international oil companies have invested
tens of billions of dollars to construct huge extraction and refining complexes
around Fort McMurray, just over 200 miles northeast of Edmonton.
Where does the pipeline go?
The Keystone XL pipeline would begin in Hardisty,
Alberta, and extend for 1,179 miles through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota
and Nebraska to connect with existing segments in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.
Once completed, it would carry 830,000 barrels a day
that could travel to Houston and Port Arthur on the Gulf Coast.
Who wants it?
The September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terror attacks
prompted a U.S. push to reduce its dependence on Middle East oil.
Interest rose in getting it from Canada, a neighboring
ally, and rising prices made the high cost of tar sands oil production more
feasible.
Oil companies invested billions in tar sands complexes
to extract and refine the Canadian bitumen, and now want to cash in with
increased production to meet both the U.S. and export demand.
Republicans who traditionally support the oil industry
and big business want the pipeline to keep the profits flowing and bolster the
economy, while labor unions that historically align with Democrats also back
the project because of the jobs it will create.
In addition, four Democratic senators facing tough
re-election battles this year -- Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Begich in
Alaska, Mark Pryor in Arkansas and Kay Hagan of North Carolina -- back the
pipeline.
"This single project will inject billions of
dollars into Louisiana and national economies and reduce our dependence on oil
from hostile countries," said Landrieu, whose state has major oil
production facilities.
Who
opposes it?
The environmental lobby, with backing from wealthy
liberal donors, has mounted a growing campaign of protests and other opposition
to the pipeline.
Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund manager, says
he will spend up to $100 million in the 2014 election cycle to promote the
fight against the climate change.
"America cannot lead the fight on climate change
abroad while allowing even more pollution to be produced in our own
backyard," he wrote. "To truly be a global leader on climate change,
President Obama must first make the right choices here at home. He must
deny the Keystone XL pipeline."
Boxer and Whitehouse opened a new front Wednesday with
their call for the State Department to include a full health review in
assessing the pipeline project.
"Elevated levels of carcinogens and mercury have
been documented downstream from tar sands extraction sites, and communities in
these areas show elevated levels of rare cancer rates," they said in their
letter to Kerry. "Tar sands oil is very difficult to clean up when a spill
occurs, and a 2010 tar sands pipeline spill into the Kalamazoo River still has
not been resolved."
They also cited "significantly higher levels of
dangerous air pollutants and carcinogens" downwind from tar sand
refineries, with people living those areas "suffering higher rates of the
types of cancers linked to these toxic chemicals, including leukemia and
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma."
Where does Obama stand?
In both of his inaugural addresses and his most recent
State of the Union speech, Obama cited climate change as an issue of
administration focus.
He has mandated improved auto and truck fuel
efficiency standards and toughened pollution regulations for new power plants,
but the Keystone issue has become the most visible symbol of the climate change
debate.
In a speech last year on climate change, Obama said
the pipeline must be basically carbon-neutral, meaning that approving it would
have no more impact on climate change that not approving it.
A recent State Department environmental report concluded
that building the pipeline would have little impact on overall carbon emissions
from tar sands oil.
Approval or denial of any single project was unlikely
to affect how much oil gets extracted from the tar sands, explained Assistant
Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones.
Election-year politics also come into play. Obama
would risk a voter backlash against Democratic candidates in November if he
rejects the pipeline, which could cost the party its vital control of the
Senate.
The split over the issue between pillars of the
Democratic liberal base -- with the environmental lobby opposing the pipeline
and organized labor supporting it -- further confuses the President's approach.
What happens next?
More delay, most likely.
Release of the State Department environmental report
on January 31 launched a 90-day period for public comment and consultation.
Kerry, who is known for his effort to combat climate
change, will then determine if the pipeline project is in the national
interest, thought the final call clearly rests with Obama.
On Wednesday, the State Department inspector general
cleared one potential hurdle from a final decision by concluding there was no
conflict of interest involving a group with ties to TransCanada that took part
in the environmental impact study.
Republican Rep. Ed Royce of California, who chairs the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the inspector general's conclusion ended
questions about the process, adding: "Let's stop the excuses and get
America back to work."
However, the call for a health review by Boxer and
Whitehouse offers potential cover for putting off a decision.
So does a Nebraska state court ruling last week threw
out the governor's approval of the pipeline route through the state. With an
appeal likely to take months, the court process gives the Obama administration
a plausible reason for waiting until after the November vote.
It wouldn't be the first that the process got delayed
until after an upcoming election.
In 2011, the Obama administration postponed a decision
on the pipeline due to concerns raised by Nebraska officials and environmental
groups about the original route near the Ogallala Aquifer, a major source of
drinking water that is important for the state's agricultural economy.
Republicans accused Obama of putting off the issue
until after the 2012 presidential election, but their efforts to force an
earlier decision failed to work. Meanwhile, TransCanada rerouted
the pipeline in the state.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/keystone-pipeline-7-questions/
Comments
Post a Comment