“There was trouble of this kind here in the George W. Bush years, when scientists were asked to toe the party line on climate policy and endangered species. But nothing came close to what is being done in Canada … This is more than an attack on academic freedom. It is an attempt to guarantee public ignorance.
It is also designed to make sure that nothing gets in the way of the northern resource rush — the feverish effort to mine the earth and the ocean with little regard for environmental consequences. The Harper policy seems designed to make sure that the tar sands project proceeds quietly, with no surprises, no bad news, no alarms from government scientists. To all the other kinds of pollution the tar sands will yield, we must now add another: the degradation of vital streams of research and information.”
New York Times Editorial by Verlyn Klinkenborg
“If the Keystone XL is built, the State Department says it could spill more than 100 times.”
“U.S. consumers are not likely to see any reduction in pump prices; after all, the whole reason for building the Keystone XL is to raise the price that producers get paid.” 24/7 Wall Street
“Oil-sands developers are counting on Keystone XL to lift heavy crude prices by connecting them to the world’s largest refining market in the Gulf Coast as they double production by 2025.” Pipeline rejection could set precedent
But if you approve the Keystone XL saying it does not ‘exacerbate carbon pollution’ then …
What could Anybody tell President Obama about the Keystone XL? © 2013 Franke James.
All writing, photography, and illustration by Franke James (with exceptions and details here). Photos of the bus shelters in Washington, D.C., by Logan Mock-Bunting.
Get Grist in your inbox