The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction
jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State
Department.
» The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and
manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.
» There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance.
» The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and
induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by
TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1
billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section
of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has
already been built.
» KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at
all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate,
and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the
US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it
is now.
» KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at
higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the
Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel
fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other
spending and will therefore cost jobs.
And these environmental statements:
» Pipeline spills incur costs and therefore kill jobs. Clean-up operations and permanent
pipeline spill damage will divert public and private funds away from productive
economic activity. In 2010 US pipeline spills and explosions killed 22 people, released
over 170,000 barrels of petroleum into the environment, and caused $1 billion dollars
worth of damage in the United States.
» Rising carbon emissions and other pollutants from the heavy crude transported
by Keystone XL will also incur increased health care costs. Emissions also increase
both the risk and costs of further climate instability.
» By helping to lock in US dependence on fossil fuels, Keystone XL will impede
progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal and will have a chilling
effect on green investments and green jobs creation. The green economy has
already generated 2.7 million jobs in the US and could generate many more.
The study begins with this note, given here in part:
. . .KXL is a global project driven by
global oil interests. Tar Sands development has attracted investment capital from
oil multinationals—with Chinese corporations’ stake getting bigger all the time.1 If
approved, KXL will be almost certainly be constructed by temporary labor working
with steel made in Canada and India. Much of the Tar Sands oil will be refined in Port
Arthur, Texas, where the refinery is half-owned by Saudi Aramco, the state-owned
oil company of Saudi Arabia.2 And a good portion of the oil that will gush down the
KXL will, according to some studies, probably end up being finally consumed beyond
the territorial United States.3 Indeed, the oil industry is also trying to build another
pipeline, Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway, to carry Tar Sands oil across British
Columbia for export to Asian markets, although this pipeline also faces serious public
opposition. Clearly, Tar Sands oil and energy independence really do not belong in
the same sentence.
Note that mention of the Port Austin refinery, half-owned by Saudi Aramco. The other half is possibly owned by Dutch Shell. From a report by the State of Texas (scroll way down):
. . .on December 10, 2007, in Port Arthur, Texas, a partnership of Royal Dutch Shell and Saudi Aramco broke ground on a 325,000 b/d refinery expansion that will increase the existing refinery’s throughput capacity to 600,000 b/d by 2010, replacing Exxon’s Baytown refinery as the largest refinery in the world.
So we're hearing that this pipeline is an answer to economic prayers. But taking the above into account, doesn't it seem more as if our nation's land will be used as a mere passage from Canada to our gulf coast, to a refinery at least half foreign-owned, possibly entirely foreign-owned, piping tarsands oil, which is heavier, stickier, more destructive to procure? From the Sierra Club's report on Tar Sands Oil:
Tar sands oil is mined from a black sticky substance called bitu-
men, found beneath the vast boreal forests of Alberta, Canada.
To extract tar sands crude, oil companies clear-cut ancient
trees, then strip mine the oil beneath it, using huge quantities
of fresh water and natural gas to separate the oil from bitumen.
In fact, to create one barrel of oil from surface mining requires
mining two tons of soil. The process leaves behind giant toxic
lakes that are linked to abnormally high rates of cancer in
neighboring communities and are large enough to be seen from
outer space.
“Tar sands is the dirtiest oil on
earth and puts America’s water,
air, and health at risk. It’s an
environmental nightmare.”
What about those jobs? Here's a union statement found on Tar Sands Action's website:
Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) both oppose the pipeline. Their August 2011 statement: “We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil. There is no shortage of water and sewage pipelines that need to be fixed or replaced, bridges and tunnels that are in need of emergency repair, transportation infrastructure that needs to be renewed and developed. Many jobs could also be created in energy conservation, upgrading the grid, maintaining and expanding public transportation—jobs that can help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency.”
I'd like to end with a challenge: until we address fossil fuels directly, confront our own use, reduce our own amounts, we're not nearly as likely to win these battles. Complex problems require multifold solutions. When we hear of any fossil fuel issue that riles us, coal, fracking, oil, our first thought needs to be ourselves and our lives. There are many of us, and we can make a difference.
Pass along these talking points. Many people "support" the Keystone pipeline because they've been told it'll provide needed jobs. We don't need to so much reframe this as describe it as it is: a Canadian venture piping Canadian tarsands oil (how soon do they say EPA regulations here are too tough?) a long distance across our nation to an at least half foreign-owned refinery that seems determined to sell the oil overseas.
Posted by Sierra Club Volunteer Rebecca Hammond
The world’s richest half-billion people are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.Take carbon dioxide emissions — a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions."
Next-door-neighbor Jane packed our gift in this artsy, recycled manner. The shredded paper is used gift wrap, just run through the home paper shredder. It's pretty and festive and a good way to reuse all that gift wrap. Last week we posted other ideas for gift wrap, but we all end up with some, whether we made reusable cloth bags or not. The larger pieces can be trimmed down and used next year, but there's still lots to toss. This is a better use. Save the flat pieces and shred them next year. Or use it now for packing away decorations, or send fragile items through the mail. There are other options besides that new gift bag. Search the thrift stores for Christmas containers, or look through the many baskets all thrift stores have. It's all cheap anyway, but right now is probably 50% off. Which means just about free."To ensure the list of potential Controls is as complete as possible, USACE is asking interested members of the public to review the list contained in the paper and provide information regarding ANS Controls that may be effective but not included in the paper or comments regarding ANS Controls listed in the paper. Comments will be accepted from Dec. 21, 2011, through Feb. 17, 2012 and may be submitted electronically through the GLMRIS website at www.glmris.anl.gov or mailed to GLMRIS ANS Control Comments, 111 N. Canal, Suite 600,Chicago, IL 60606. Comments must be postmarked by Feb. 17, 2012."
As I post this, it occurs to me that there may be many such northwoods chapels. Do you know where this one is? Is there one in your neck of the woods? Answer will appear soon.
"The EPA's issue is turbidity. The coal ash was found to be inert. It's time to get the facts right!"
In two phone conversations with the EPA's Region 5 office in Chicago, turbidity was not mentioned as an issue or concern at all. What the helpful people at the EPA said about the coal ash was that the methods used for testing were meant for dry land storage of ash, not dispersal in a lake, and that these situations differ quite a bit. We are back in touch with that EPA office and are waiting for a return call and will post information in response to the tweet.
Remember, this entire issue began in 2006, and the 2012 deadline for stopping the coal ash dumping was issued in 2008. The EPA recently affirmed the long-known deadline.
We've mentioned that not far south of Manitowoc, a Lake Michigan coal ash spill is being completely cleaned up, with help, flyovers, and oversight from government agencies.
There is a guest commentary in today's Detroit Free Press by Kimberly Hill on the many problems of coal, including ash. From that article:
"The problem has been clear from the get-go: Burning coal makes us sick. The pollution from burning coal causes a host of serious health problems -- especially for children and senior citizens -- including asthma, respiratory illness, cancer, neurological problems and heart disease. Disposing of toxic coal ash is also dangerous: Studies show that living near a toxic coal ash site is worse for your health than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day."
A 2008 coal ash spill in Tennessee was called an environmental disaster in a NYT article.
Why is there such a problem with consistency regarding coal ash information? It's inert in one situation, more toxic than smoking in a second, a disaster in a third? Stay tuned as we pass along EPA information and tackle the Badger's air quality issues.
Post and photo by Sierra Club volunteer Rebecca Hammond
