keystone xl pipeline = tar sands expansion = accelerated climate change

[xchrom]

http://www.nationofchange.org/new-analysis-shows-simple-math-keystone-xl-pipeline-tar-sands-expansion-accelerated-climate-change-1

New research confirms what we have heard time and again from the industry itself: the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be a direct cause of an increase in tar sands oil development. More tar sands oil taken out of the ground means more dangerous pollution that hurts our climate and health. And, this new research also shows that tar sands will cause even more climate pollution than we previously thought due to the impacts of the high carbon byproduct petroleum coke.

This is especially important in a time where our communities are feeling the damage of climate change in violent storms, wildfires, droughts and floods. Just recently a federal advisory panel—established by Congress in 1990 to analyze climate research—released the draft of its third National Climatic Assessment. The report confirmed there is “unambiguous evidence” that the earth is warming.

The Pembina Institute’s analysis, “The climate implications of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline”, shows that pipelines are a key determinant of tar sands expansion, and argues that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with supplying the Keystone XL pipeline with tar sands bitumen represents a significant barrier to Canada meeting its domestic and international climate commitments.

Oil Change International’s new report “Petroleum Coke: The Coal Hiding in the Tar Sands” reveals that current analyses of the impacts of tar sands fail to account for a high-carbon byproduct of the refining process: petroleum coke. Because it is considered a refinery byproduct, petcoke emissions are not included in most assessments of the climate impact of tar sands. Thus, the climate impact of oil production is being consistently undercounted.

[daleanime]

1. K&R

[enough]

2. k&r (nt)

[limpyhobbler]

3. I wonder if approving this pipeline could be considered a form of climate change denial.

Is there really a meaningful difference between a person who says climate change is not real and another person who pays lip service to it, but still ignores scientific warnings about the consequences of opening new forms of extreme fossil fuels like tar sands?

[raouldukelives]

4. One could argue the latter is actually worse.

It can be a quite a shock to find out people who you thought deeply cared about the environment, human rights, labor, equality and wildlife are in actuality financial partners of the very same corporations doing the damage.
If they can at least have the common decency to be up front about the inability to consider an idea of personal responsibility over the need for currency it would be the most invaluable addition they could offer in the quest for a sustainable future for all living things.

[quadrature]

5. move the oil by rail ...

or move the oil by pipeline.
pick one

[Nihil]

6. c) None of the above

> move the oil by rail ...
> or move the oil by pipeline.
> pick one

Welcome to DU: read, learn and have a nice stay.