JUST SAYIN’-Washington (one of the most dysfunctional places in recent history) rarely gets it right, but not this time! Despite the close vote, Keystone XL (or as Senator Boxer referred to it, “X-tra Lethal) went down for the count (hopefully for the last time).
There has been so much dissemination of bad information, that it is time once again to try to straighten things out. The pro-pipeline people either like to scare us into supporting their point of view or attempt to coax us (based upon all the “benefits” they describe) into wanting to cheer when we hear these prevaricators speak.
First of all, installation and expansion of Keystone (first authorized in 2008) will not create thousands of jobs. In fact, its construction over a relatively brief period of time would require only about 5000 temporary workers. Upon completion, only 50 laborers would be kept on for maintenance (of which only about 15 would be permanent hires).
Congressional representatives, like Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana (photo below), who have been fearful about their ability to get re-elected, particularly in red and purple states, have been touting this project without having a real command of the facts or choosing not to use the them in their arguments. It is ironic that Landrieu’s state will not be impacted one way or the other from the currently designed pipeline which would skirt Louisiana altogether, terminating instead at two sites in neighboring Texas. [Interestingly enough, should Landrieu lose in her December run-off, the South would be left with only one Democratic Senator—¡increíble!]
Secondly, many people claim that using these pipelines would dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly because fewer rail cars and trucks would be utilized for transport. At the same time, we must keep in mind that increasing numbers of locomotives and trucks are already utilizing cleaner fuels—thus throwing a wrench in the discussion. Furthermore, the tar sands from Canada that are planned for international transport (from Canada to America and beyond) are unquestionably among the most highly contaminated on the earth—their further use would be a natural disaster waiting to happen.
To counter the emission argument offered by Big Oil and its conservative minions in Congress, recent scientific research has concluded (to most everyone’s surprise) that use of Keystone would produce four times more emissions than had been previously thought.
Because the Keystone project crosses international borders, a permit would first have to be cleared through the State Department and then signed by the President before the agreement could move forward (and still the President would have to sign a bill forwarded to him from both Houses). What is more is that Canada’s plan (with America’s partnership) is ultimately to ship its toxic product away from the United States--from its terminus here to lands beyond, thereby providing us no energy benefits from the transmission.
Next, there is the Native American question. How many more times can we breach our legal agreements with tribal nations? The Ogallala Tribe (most affected by this issue) is adamant in its refusal to authorize any Keystone presence on its land (and have the legal right of refusal).
Trans-Canada (Canada being the point of origin) has made an effort to accommodate the tribe, but even the new configuration would trespass on a portion of Ogallala territory. It is bad enough that the Federal government, generations ago, “gave” the tribal nations among the worst lands in America. Now we are once again considering violating the sanctity of their land by allowing the placement of pipelines, structures that will surely contaminate the precious water, air, and land that are an integral part of the regions!
There is no perfect pipe nor can there ever be—no matter what state-of-the-art construction may be utilized. Ruptures of various magnitudes are bound to happen. What will such spillage do to the environment? How will it be cleaned up (if possible)? Who will do it? Who will be responsible? What then? Do we turn to clean energy only after a catastrophe occurs (or before it is too late)?
Approval of Keystone would quite literally be a slippery slope (tar sands and oil) for extending and expanding dirty-energy programs. The Senate filibuster this time worked in the favor of all those who have environmental concerns. Next year, however, is a different situation entirely—both the Senate and House will have Republican majorities which for the most part will march to the beat of a different drummer (or to the same one)—Big Oil, Big Money, and Big Corporations.
We must let our President know now (and each time in the future when it is necessary) that we have his back and will support a veto (and repeated vetoes, if necessary) to block what is likely to be persistent introductions and re-introductions of some variation on the theme that would favor Keystone expansion.
We and our land should never become the sacrificial lambs for the sake of the oil that is going to be shipped elsewhere! Keystone won’t reduce the price of gas at the pump, but reduced demand for fossil-fuel energy here in America will.
Just sayin’.
(Rosemary Jenkins is a Democratic activist and chair of the Northeast Valley Green Alliance. Jenkins has written A Quick-and=Easy Reference to Correct Grammar and Composition, Leticia in Her Wedding Dress and Other Poems, and Vignettes for Understanding Literary and Related Concepts. She also writes for CityWatch.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 94
Pub: Nov 21, 2014
