Pipeline opponents Bill Burton, Anthony Swift, Tiernan Sittenfeld and Daniel Weiss discuss the negative consequences of extending the Keystone XL, such as the increase of carbon pollution. Preetisha Sen/Medill
WASHINGTON – Anti-pipeline environmentalists cited carbon pollution and high tar costs Wednesday as arguments against building the next phase of the Keystone XL pipeline.
A panel of experts affiliated with the All Risk, No Reward Coalition – an anti-Keystone public interest group – at a breakfast urged federal agencies to nix the fourth installment of the oil pipeline, even though the project would create thousands of new jobs.
“We cannot end our addiction to oil if we continue to support such filthy, high carbon projects,” said panelist Bill Burton, a senior adviser at the League of Conservation Voters and former White House deputy press Secretary. “It is simply not in our national interest.”
The TransCanada Corp.’s $7 billion project to extend the Keystone XL pipeline south by 1,179 miles got a favorable report from the State Department last month and is now in a 90-day comment period with eight other federal agencies. By the end of this period, President Obama will likely make a decision based on Secretary of State John Kerry’s recommendation.
Environmentalists on the coalition’s panel said they were confident that Obama and Kerry would continue their “strong leadership” and rule against Keystone.
“It wouldn’t make sense to have taken such major steps forward– to make such progress, to give such an incredibly powerful and inspiring speech [on clean energy] as Secretary Kerry just did and then turn around and approve this project that is absolutely inconsistent with all of that leadership,” said Teirnan Sittenfeld, a senior vice president at the League of Conservation Voters.
Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said it would be a mistake to continue with Keystone if the U.S. wants to meet its 2020 energy efficiency goals – which the nation ison track to do.
Obama has not formally responded to the State Department’s report, but his opinion may not be the final word. Republicans in Congress have threatened in the past to authorize the pipeline through legislation.
At a news conference earlier this month, several congressmen in support of the Keystone project urged Obama to approve it.
This bipartisan group of lawmakers argued that the next phase of Keystone would help in job creation as well as give America more energy independence as crude oil is transported from Canada into the U.S.
The Canadian government has also strongly pushed for the pipeline to be approved, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has met with Obama several times to push for the project.
“There’s no question that our closest ally really wants this pipeline badly,” Weiss said. “Unfortunately, at some point, Obama may have to say to our closest ally, ‘I’m sorry, we’re not going to help you with this one because it’s not in our national interest and frankly, Mr. Prime Minister, it’s not in your interest either.’”
Sittenfeld said the argument against Keystone should not “be a choice of what kind of dirty infrastructure” is used, but rather a move towards a sustainable, clean energy future. The Secretary of State has advocated for clean energy in recent speeches.
“Make a climate change an issue that no public official can ignore for another day,” Kerry said in a global climate speech Friday. “Make a transition towards clean energy the only plan that you are willing to accept.”
