FYI- if you dont agree with building a Tar Sands/ Keystone pipeline- please
vote Strongly Disagree !
Sent: Tue, Feb 19, 2013 8:36 pm
Subject: [nysnet] Unscientific poll on Keystone XL pipeline - pls vote!
Please vote in
this unscientific online poll, in which apparently the fossil fools
have mobilized to stuff the virtual ballot
box.
and put up an online poll here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/18/keystone-xl-oil-pipeline/1929181/
They also allowed Bill McKibben to post a reply, also with a
poll, here:
More info
here:
The editorial in
the February 19th edition of USA Today calls for approval of the Keystone
XL pipeline. It offers the same old talking points. Canada will develop the tar
sands whether we buy it or not, so we should buy more. Don't worry about
pipeline safety, we have oodles and oodles of pipeline already (which frequently
leak). We are not ready to transition to clean renewable sources of energy. In
other words, what is good for the oil companies is also good for America. To
hell with the climate.
The paper did give Bill McKibben a chance to write
a rebuttal. He points out that climate change is already serious
and will be made worse by the rapid expansion of tar sands extraction.
Here is where you come in.
1. Vote in the polls on each
page:
2. Raise Your Voice :
Letter to editor: Letters@usatoday.com
Facebook post: Facebook.com/USATODAYOPINION
Tweet: @USATODAYOPINION
The Forward on Climate rallies have had an impact.
The The media, however reluctantly and derisively,
covered the rallies. USA Today even felt compelled to mention them in the
editorial.
Thousands demonstrated in Washington on Sunday against the project, asserting that the pipeline would unlock so much dirty oil that it would be "game over" for the globe if the project proceeds.Expansion of the tar sands extraction will drastically increase greenhouse gas emissions, for which Canada has no significant plans to limit. The Canadian government wants profit without responsibility.
While stopping the Keystone XL pipeline will not
stop tar sands extraction, it will make it more difficult and expensive to get
to markets. That cost will slow demand and development.
The US government has been ineffectual in
regulating emissions from refineries. Oil companies have been fighting
regulations to limit toxic emissions from refineries, much less limit greenhouse
gases. Since toxic and greenhouse emissions are much higher for refining tar
sands heavy oil than conventional crude, the environmental burden falls on
us.
This is not a critical infrastructure project for
the United States. Once built, almost all the benefits will go to the oil and
pipeline companies, along with the Canadian government. Billing it as necessary
or in the best interests of the American people is simply not true.
The cost-benefits of pipeline construction are also
unsound. Contrary to misleading claims from the oil industry, the project will
only create a few short-term construction jobs. There will be spills (all
pipelines spill). There are serious questions about the pipeline safety record
TransCanada, the company building the Keystone XL pipeline (e.g., here, here, andhere). Leaks in the Keystone XL pipeline will be more
expensive and difficult to clean up because of the heavy oil chemical cocktail.
Enbridge is still dragging its feet about cleaning up a large tar sands
crude spill in Michigan.
Anyone who thinks that tar sands oil will lower
their price at the pump is kidding themselves. Tar sands development is not
profitable until prices reach the $80/barrel range. Little will come to market
until market price is above that benchmark. Market prices of oil are set on the
global market, which is driven by global production and demand.
USA Today is wrong. We are ready for clean energy,
but the myriad of subsidies and tax breaks given to fossil fuels slows rate of
adoption.
Let's raise our voices with Bill McKibben's and say
no to Keystone XL. Let USA Today hear you.
1. Vote in th e polls on each
page:
2. Raise Your Voice:
Letter to editor: Letters@usatoday.com
Facebook post: Facebook.com/USATODAYOPINION
Tweet: @USATODAYOPINION
(Note: The paper
gathers a sample of reactions on the editorial page later in week.)
< div>
__._,_.___
Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
No comments:
Post a Comment