Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNYT: E.P.A.'s Keystone Report Card
Do the right thing, Secretary of State Kerry and Mr. President. Stop the Keystone XL pipeline.
E.P.A.s Keystone Report Card
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: April 26, 2013
In the bland, formal language of interagency correspondence, the Environmental Protection Agency has written a trenchant review of the State Departments most recent effort to assess the consequences of building the Keystone XL pipeline. The E.P.A.s letter, issued Monday, at the end of the public comment period on the departments latest draft environmental impact statement, is hardly a favorable report card.
The letter commends the State Department for inching slowly toward an understanding of the significant difference in the amount of greenhouse gases caused by the energy-intensive production of Albertas heavy oil compared with the amount caused by the production of conventional oil. But it wishes that the department had given greater emphasis to the cumulative impact of these gases in the atmosphere over the next 50 years. It also says the department gave short shrift to the corrosive effect of the oil and its dangers to the vital aquifer underlying part of the pipelines latest route.
But the departments biggest problem, the agency said, is a flawed assumption that distorts all of its analyses: that oil sands crude will find a way to market with or without the Keystone pipeline. This is a kind of magical thinking. If this pipeline wont do, the State Department argues, other pipelines will be built or rail traffic will be ramped up. One way or another, the department says, oil sands production will go ahead full speed. For a variety of reasons, not least the cost of rail transportation, the E.P.A. has serious doubts.
One of the things we have found distasteful about the State Departments views from the start is their air of inevitability. But we should not regard the pipeline or the eventual scale of tar sands production as inevitable. Nor should President Obama, whose decision is expected later this year, or Secretary of State John Kerry, who will advise him. In his Earth Day statement, Mr. Kerry, discussing global warming, said that the science is screaming at all of us and demands action. Blocking the pipeline is one obvious response.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/opinion/the-epas-keystone-report-card.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1&
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: April 26, 2013
In the bland, formal language of interagency correspondence, the Environmental Protection Agency has written a trenchant review of the State Departments most recent effort to assess the consequences of building the Keystone XL pipeline. The E.P.A.s letter, issued Monday, at the end of the public comment period on the departments latest draft environmental impact statement, is hardly a favorable report card.
The letter commends the State Department for inching slowly toward an understanding of the significant difference in the amount of greenhouse gases caused by the energy-intensive production of Albertas heavy oil compared with the amount caused by the production of conventional oil. But it wishes that the department had given greater emphasis to the cumulative impact of these gases in the atmosphere over the next 50 years. It also says the department gave short shrift to the corrosive effect of the oil and its dangers to the vital aquifer underlying part of the pipelines latest route.
But the departments biggest problem, the agency said, is a flawed assumption that distorts all of its analyses: that oil sands crude will find a way to market with or without the Keystone pipeline. This is a kind of magical thinking. If this pipeline wont do, the State Department argues, other pipelines will be built or rail traffic will be ramped up. One way or another, the department says, oil sands production will go ahead full speed. For a variety of reasons, not least the cost of rail transportation, the E.P.A. has serious doubts.
One of the things we have found distasteful about the State Departments views from the start is their air of inevitability. But we should not regard the pipeline or the eventual scale of tar sands production as inevitable. Nor should President Obama, whose decision is expected later this year, or Secretary of State John Kerry, who will advise him. In his Earth Day statement, Mr. Kerry, discussing global warming, said that the science is screaming at all of us and demands action. Blocking the pipeline is one obvious response.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/opinion/the-epas-keystone-report-card.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1&
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1122 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYT: E.P.A.'s Keystone Report Card (Original Post)
flpoljunkie
Apr 2013
OP
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)1. "Blocking the pipeline is one obvious response."
Now, if he'll follow the logical conclusion of the obvious; we will be spared another horrible republican idea.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)2. Looks like corporations trump the EPA
AGAIN!
Corporations will be the death of our planet!