WASHINGTON — The State Department released a report Friday concluding that the Keystone XL pipeline would not substantially worsen carbon pollution, leaving an opening for President Barack Obama to approve the politically divisive project.
The department’s long-awaited environmental impact statement appears to indicate that the project could pass the criteria Obama set forth in a speech last summer when he said he would approve the 1,700-mile pipeline if it would not “significantly exacerbate” the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, the report appears to indicate that regardless of its construction, carbon-heavy oil would still be extracted at the same rate from pristine Alberta forest and transported to refineries by rail instead of pipeline.
The report sets up a difficult decision for Secretary of State John Kerry, who must make a recommendation on the international project to Obama. Kerry, who hopes to make action on climate change a key part of his legacy, has never publicly offered his personal views on the pipeline. Aides said Kerry was preparing to “dive into” the 11-volume report and would give high priority to the issue of global warming in making the decision. His aides offered no timetable.
“He’ll deliberate and take the time he needs,” said Kerri-Ann Jones, the assistant secretary of state for oceans and international affairs.
Environmentalists said they were dismayed at some of the report’s conclusions and disputed its objectivity, but they also said it offered Obama reasons to reject the pipeline. They said they planned to intensify efforts to try to influence Kerry’s decision. For more than two years, environmentalists have protested the project and have been arrested in demonstrations around the country. But many Republicans and oil industry executives, who support the pipeline because they say it creates jobs, embraced the findings.
Conflict of interest?
The State Department is expected to soon release the results of an inspector general investigation into the preparation of an earlier draft of the environmental impact report. The investigation was ordered after an environmental group obtained documents indicating that some consultants for the firm that wrote the draft report had previously done work for TransCanada, the company seeking to build the pipeline. If investigators determine a conflict of interest in the preparation of that draft, the State Department may have to conduct a new environmental review.
In light of the investigation, environmentalists were particularly critical of Friday’s report.
“In what could be perceived as eagerness to please the oil industry and Canadian government, the State Department is issuing this report amidst an ongoing investigation into conflicts of interest and lying by its contractor,” said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth.
Some environmentalists saw reason for optimism in the review, which models several oil market possibilities. Most involve high oil prices and robust demand, in which the tar sands oil is rapidly developed with or without the Keystone pipeline.
However, the report offers one alternative scenario, in which oil prices and demand are low. In that case, not building the pipeline might slow development and thus slow carbon emissions. That possibility is unlikely, but it could provide the administration something to point to should it deny the project.
“We’re taking the inclusion of that scenario as good news,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of international programs at the Natural Resources Defense Center.
Oil industry pleased
The oil industry applauded the review.
“After five years and five environmental reviews, time and time again the Department of State analysis has shown that the pipeline is safe for the environment,” said Cindy Schild, senior manager of refining and oil sands programs at the American Petroleum Institute.
Although the pipeline is a potent political symbol, its true effect on the environment and the economy would be more limited than either its supporters or its opponents suggest.
The new State Department report concludes that the process used for producing the oil — by extracting what are called tar sands or oil sands from the Alberta forest — creates about 17 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than does traditional oil. But the report concludes that this heavily polluting oil will still be brought to market.
The new State Department analysis took into account the growing global demand for oil and the rapidly growing practice of moving oil by rail in areas where pipelines have not been built.
“Given the anticipated outlook of oil prices and the cost of development, no single project will likely affect the rate of extraction,” said a senior State Department official, who asked not to be named under rules imposed by the department.
But moving oil by rail has its own hazards. As the practice has increased in recent years, so have incidents of explosions of rail cars carrying oil.
Supporters of the pipeline say it will create jobs, though the number may be limited. A study by the Cornell Global Labor Institute concluded that the pipeline would create about 3,900 construction jobs over two years.
Privately, people close to Obama say that although he is committed to building a climate legacy, he does not see the pipeline as a central part of that effort. Instead, the president is moving forward with a set of Environmental Protection Agency regulations on coal-fired power plants.
Coral Davenport,
The New York Times
Source: Top Stories - Google News - http://ift.tt/1fjeJf3
0 comments:
Post a Comment