Photo: Jiri Rezac/Greenpeace
With the Keystone climate protests in Washington bringing climate change back into the media, we’re hearing a lot about how the Keystone pipeline will, at the very least, mean that we’ll be getting our oil from a nice country. On NPR‘s All Things Considered (2/17/13) environment correspondent Elizabeth Shogren explained:
There’s a benefit from this oil that comes from Canada. That means that oil won’t be coming from the Middle East. And there are lots of reasons why the president wants to have oil from a friendly nation instead of from someplace far away.
Right wing pundit Charles Krauthammer (Fox News Special Report, 2/18/13) made the same point:
The Keystone issue is the most open and shut case I have ever seen. Not only will it reduce dependence on Hugo Chavez and the Middle East if we get it from Canada, and not only would it be an insult to slam the door on Canada, our closest ally, but refusing the pipeline and not building it would have absolutely zero effect on the environment.
And the USA Today editorial page (2/19/13) argues that
the pipeline would bring reliable new oil supplies to a U.S. that still imports 40 percent of its crude, 7.6 million barrels a day last year. And 40 percent of those imports come from OPEC nations such as Venezuela, Iraq and Nigeria. Keystone is expected to supply 830,000 million barrels a day, a key step toward the long-sought goal of North American energy independence, which suddenly seems attainable.
And from New York Times columnist Joe Nocera (2/19/13):
Like it or not, fossil fuels are going to remain the world’s dominant energy source for the foreseeable future, and we are far better off getting our oil from Canada than, say, Venezuela.
One would hope by now that there’s some understanding that this is not “our” oil. It would be sold on a global market, like any other oil. The fact that there is a massive pipeline being built to deliver the oil to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico could be a sign that the oil isn’t, in fact, destined to stay in the United States, but will be exported and sold like any other petroleum. As a New York Times editorial (10/3/11) pointed out, “much of the tar sands oil that would be refined on the Gulf Coast is destined for export.”
And it is worth mentioning that getting oil from Canada’s tar sands will mean the destruction of boreal forests, with severe consequences for wildlife and wetlands. How on Earth the United States, or the world, is “better off” for having done this remains a complete mystery.
But at least it’s not Hugo Chavez’s oil.
It’s a viscous circle
Selling tar sands oil
With snake oil
“FAIR” my ass. The tar sands will be developed regardless of whether Keystone is built. The oil will just be shipped to China instead. To say that rejecting the pipeline will save any forests is simply a fairy tale.
Jack
4 hours
“FAIR” my ass. The tar sands will be developed regardless of whether Keystone is built. The oil will just be shipped to China instead. To say that rejecting the pipeline will save any forests is simply a fairy tale.
And so the money still wouldn’t come to us, because it would other wise go down south for processioning, or be shipped out, like the article mentioned. The only people that are going to benefit from this is the Billionaire Traders on the Futures, And since it is the same people who are buying it from themselves, they make a nice little profit, and that is added on to the cost of the end product. So no real relief there. Plus look at the numbers. 40% of our import? 7.6 MBPD, and we are only taking 830 KBPD. Come on, that isn’t going to make a dent if it all came to the U.S.
So you think that just because it will be built that some how it must run trough our house, in the front door and out the back door along with the money it makes. And what happens when it busts, and all the crap drains out in the lands around it.
So please tell us why we should be so eager to take a screwing from the corporations, Again.
Hey, FAIR, I know it’s not as fun as pointing out the political mendacity, but why give a free ride to the USA Today editorial writers’ pure innumeracy and/or lack of copyediting?
“Keystone is expected to supply 830,000 million barrels a day …”
That’s 830 billion barrels, or several times what Wikipedia has as Canada’s total reserves, per day.
Maybe they just left in the stray “million”, and I guess what’s a little matter of six orders of magnitude between friends? Or maybe they screwed up the number in some other way.
Anyway, it’s still on the USA Today site that way as of now, so I don’t suppose that many people on either side of the issue care too much about boring old numbers.
video of TSVN interviews at the massive Washington DC march against Keystone XL along with the speeches and the march itself can be found at http://www.thestruggle.org/stop_keystone_rally_videos.htm
David G your exasperated, wisened rant would be even more delicious if we knew what you were talking aobut–ie., HOW MANY ‘ barrels per day will it be then?
There should be an FCC regulation that requires krauthammer to pass a basic competency test on any subject he wished to complain about on TV.
Everyone of those reports ignores Venezuelan oil used by CITGO, its US subsidiary, to provide free heating oil to poor Americans–another story kept secret from the MSM audience.
In response to Jack-the reason the pipeline is being developed to go through the US is because Canadians have effectively blocked the route through BC to China. Regardless where the pipeline goes, the oil will be refined to be sold on the European and Asian markets where it will make the most money. There is a real fight in Canada over whether this oil gets developed at all.
What is wrong with Hugo Chavez’s oil? FAIR should have made an attempt to give us objective facts on why it is bad to import oil from Venezuela besides a personal dislike of its leader who is dying from cancer anyway.
If Venezuelan oil is bad on moral grounds, what about oil coming from a country where they behead people including underage girls?
There’s going to be a pipeline whether we the people want it or not.
I personally think that there must be one hell of a sweetheart deal in there somewhere, for some well connected people, to sell our country like a cheap prostitute to be violated at will by profits for the few.
This is a terribly one sided, oil company dominated report. We need to find methods to reduce and eventually eliminate fossil Fuel use. If this business as usual approach is used I hope I am not on the East Coast when Sandy’s Big Brother pays a visit.
I am so sick and tired of all the bickering about where our fossil fuel energy should come from, when the REAL fight should be against the entire fossil fuel industry over getting renewables implemented ASAP. Enough with fossil fuels. It’s (WAY past) time to go green.
@Michael – Take a look at tishado’s comment. If we refuse it, there’s a good chance there won’t be ANY pipeline at all.
There are many reasons we don’t want the pipeline completed.
1) the crude oil from the tar sands is the dirtiest, nastiest oil on the planet. It will take all kinds of toxic chemicals to make it where it can be used.
2) to get to it and drag it out requires the the rape of the land, forest, and homes.
3) Canadians don’t want this. They have a right-wing evil leader, and they can’t get rid of him or even talk to him.
4) this project is not to provide oil for America. The reason it is to be piped down to Texas is to put it on a boat to sell to China and everybody else.
5) to build the pipe line requires a wide swath of land, farms, rivers, creeks, homes, parks, forest etc. They need a big ditch, never mind what used to be there. They will take your house. To get their huge equipment in there, forests are clear cut. This will go on from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. (Draw a line on a map.)
6) it’s gonna leak. It’s just a matter of time and which river it is going to ruin. (Look it up)
7) when they get to Texas they will have to build more refineries. The pollution and destruction of the refineries is already unbelievable; many of the people have had to leave their homes and move away. But they will build more. And build more ports for the big ships to come in, never mind the marshland and coast that used to be there.
8) This does not make a huge numbers of jobs. Their huge equipment does not require many men. And most of the guys (Canadians) are already hired.
Well, there are more reasons but, please look it up. Thank you for listening.
As a Canadian, I’d like to add that there’s nothing good about our current government. It’s a particularly cruel, rightist, fascist government, hellbent on deceit and attacks on the poor and minorities that don’t donate huge cash to its coffers, i.e. Zionists. Considering their contexts, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is a far better person than Canada’s Stephen Harper. Canada’s oil isn’t “ethical” at all!
Okay, why are we so adamant about it?
Because President Obama said in more than one speech recently that he wanted to do something to help prevent climate change.
Here is something he can do with his pen.
Yes, all he has to do is to reject it on a piece of paper.
If we can’t get him to do that . . .
I would like to suggest, Peter Hart, that you find out some things for yourself, instead of just quoting the big guys. There were only 40,000 of us in Washington, so of course we didn’t make a ripple in major media. But look up online reports such as EcoWatch.
I was at the Feb 17 protest in D.C., in brutal cold. What warmed my heart most was seeing so many young people there, from all over the country. Today I learned (via CBC podcast) that Canadians are tiring of the govt.-funded propaganda that supports the tar sands boondoggle. There’s hope!