Green Groups Turn Up Heat Against Keystone

A report released Thursday by Oil Change International and other environmental groups says the pipeline is not in the national interest.

A band stands by at the Keystone XL protest at the White House on Sunday Nov. 6, 2011.
National Journal
Clare Foran
Add to Briefcase
Clare Foran
Aug. 29, 2013, 10:59 a.m.

Oil Change In­ter­na­tion­al, in part­ner­ship with the Si­erra Club,, and En­vir­on­ment Amer­ica, re­leased a re­port Thursday call­ing for Pres­id­ent Obama to re­ject the Key­stone XL pipeline.

The re­port — “Re­spond­ing to the Pres­id­ent’s Cli­mate Chal­lenge: A Fail­ing Grade for Key­stone XL” — states that con­struc­tion of the pipeline will in­crease car­bon emis­sions and speed de­vel­op­ment of Ca­na­dian oil sands. In short, it would be a sig­ni­fic­ant driver of cli­mate change.

These find­ings stand in dir­ect op­pos­i­tion to the State De­part­ment’s draft en­vir­on­ment­al ana­lys­is of the pipeline, re­leased in March, which said that Key­stone XL would not sig­ni­fic­antly af­fect oil-sands de­vel­op­ment in Canada or at­mo­spher­ic levels of car­bon di­ox­ide.

The State De­part­ment’s as­ser­tion hinges on the idea that Key­stone XL is — in a sense — ir­rel­ev­ant. That’s be­cause, ac­cord­ing to State, Ca­na­dian oil sands will be de­veloped with or without the pipeline.

En­vir­on­ment­al groups dis­agree. “Re­spond­ing to the Pres­id­ent’s Cli­mate Chal­lenge” chal­lenges this claim dir­ectly, say­ing that oil com­pan­ies won’t have the ca­pa­city to ex­tract and ship crude from the oil sands as quickly or ex­tens­ively as they could if the pipeline were in place.

In a press call Thursday morn­ing to pro­mote the re­port, Si­erra Club Ex­ec­ut­ive Dir­ect­or Mi­chael Brune said that more than a third of oil-sands growth could be de­ferred if the pipeline is re­jec­ted. “Key­stone XL is crit­ic­al to tar-sands ex­pan­sion,” he said. When asked if oil com­pan­ies would be able to move crude by rail or oth­er means if the pro­ject stalls out, Brune replied: “I would say we have seen rail growth in­crease, but it’s also clear that rail growth can’t meet [oil] pro­duc­tion fore­casts.”

Rep­res­ent­at­ives from, En­vir­on­ment Amer­ica, and Oil Change In­ter­na­tion­al also ar­gued that Key­stone XL would dra­mat­ic­ally in­crease car­bon emis­sions. One of the ma­jor points raised dur­ing the call was that oil sands crude ex­trac­tion is more car­bon in­tens­ive than con­ven­tion­al meth­ods of oil drilling.

“The State De­part­ment es­tim­ates that oil from tar sands is 22 per­cent more car­bon in­tens­ive than con­ven­tion­al oil,” Brune said. Adding to this, Steve Kret­zmann, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of Oil Change In­ter­na­tion­al, said: “Of course the pipeline will in­crease car­bon emis­sions. The only thing that’s more cer­tain than that is that it will in­crease big oil’s profits.”

State has been tasked with mak­ing a de­term­in­a­tion as to how Key­stone XL will af­fect the en­vir­on­ment as well as if the pro­ject is in the na­tion­al in­terest. The de­part­ment is not ex­pec­ted to fi­nal­ize its re­com­mend­a­tions un­til later this year or early in 2014.

The pres­id­ent, however, has fi­nal say on wheth­er the pipeline will be ap­proved. Obama has said he will re­ject Key­stone XL if it sub­stan­tially adds to at­mo­spher­ic levels of car­bon di­ox­ide. Rep­res­ent­at­ives of the vari­ous en­vir­on­ment­al groups re­spons­ible for re­leas­ing the re­port circled back to this point throughout the call, say­ing that Obama must re­ject the pipeline be­cause it will in­crease car­bon emis­sions. “Pres­id­ent Obama can move us for­ward on cli­mate and re­ject this pipeline once and for all,” Brune said.

Read the full re­port here

What We're Following See More »
Health Care Vote Delayed
13 hours ago
Senate Procedural Vote Now Coming on Wednesday
14 hours ago
Heller, Paul Won’t Vote on Motion to Proceed
1 days ago
CBO Says 22 Million More Would Be UNinsured
1 days ago

The Senate bill "would increase the number of people without health insurance by 22 million by 2026, a figure that is only slightly lower than the 23 million more uninsured that the House version would create. Next year, 15 million more people would be uninsured compared with current law...The legislation would decrease federal deficits by a total of $321 billion over a decade."

Cornyn Says Health Vote Needed This Week
1 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.