The Keystone Principle: Stop making it worse

[Oscar]

The Keystone Principle: Stop making it worse

[ http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-keystone-principle/ ]

By KC Golden Cross-posted from GRIP February 16, 2013

The big President’s Day rally on the National Mall is more than a Keystone pipeline protest. It’s a statement of principle for climate action.

After a year of unprecedented destruction due to weather extremes, the climate fight is no longer just about impacts in the future. It’s about physical and moral consequences, now. And Keystone isn’t simply a pipeline in the sand for the swelling national climate movement. It’s a moral referendum on our willingness to do the simplest thing we must do to avert catastrophic climate disruption: Stop making it worse.

Specifically and categorically, we must cease making large, long-term capital investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure that “locks in” dangerous emission levels for many decades. Keystone is a both a conspicuous example of that kind of investment and a powerful symbol for the whole damned category.

It’s true that stopping a single pipeline — even one as huge and odious as Keystone — will not literally “solve” climate disruption. No single action will do that, any more than refusing to sit on the back of a single bus literally ended segregation. The question — for Keystone protestors as it was for Rosa Parks — is whether the action captures and communicates a principle powerful enough to inspire and sustain an irresistible movement for sweeping social change.

Stopping Keystone nails the core principle for climate responsibility, by preventing investments that make climate disruption irrevocably worse. Again, it’s not just that burning tar-sands oil produces a lot of emissions; it’s that long-term capital investments like Keystone (and coal plants, and coal export facilities) “lock in” those dangerous emissions for decades and make catastrophic climate disruption inevitable.

Now, if you are a fossil fuel company, “locking in dangerous emissions” means locking in profits. It is your business strategy, precisely. For the rest of us, it’s a one-way, non-refundable ticket to centuries of hell and high water. We must not buy that ticket.

This is the Keystone Principle. It emerges from multiple lines of scientific and economic research, most notably the International Energy Agency’s 2012 World Energy Outlook, which starkly warned that the chance to avert catastrophic climate disruption would be “lost forever” without an immediate shift away from fossil fuel infrastructure investment.

MORE:

[ http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-keystone-principle/ ]

[Oscar]

Congressional bill on Keystone XL pipeline expected in January

[ http://canadians.org/blog/congressional ... ed-january ]

November 7, 2014 - 10:19am

We may see a new momentum behind the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline now that the Republicans have the majority of seats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives following the mid-term elections earlier this week. Keystone XL is the proposed 1,897 kilometre pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Houston, Texas that would move 830,000 barrels of tar sands bitumen a day and produce more than 22 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis.

The Council of Canadians has travelled to Washington, DC on at least three occasions to join protests against the Keystone XL pipeline, including calling on the Canadian embassy in August 2011 [ http://canadians.org/node/7545 ] to demand that they stop lobbying for the pipeline, participating in the Surround the White House action in November 2011 [ http://canadians.org/node/7891 ] , and the Forward on Climate protest in February 2013 [ http://canadians.org/node/9248 ].

The Republicans will take control of Congress in January. Reuters reports, "U.S. Senate Republicans will push ahead early next year with a bill to approve the long-stalled pipeline." [ http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticN ... 2V20141107 ] In fact, Republican Senator John Hoeven says, "I think you're going to see us bring up energy legislation right away and Keystone will be on of the first things we pass." [ http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy ... 415189043/ ] The Globe and Mail editorial board also notes, "The Republicans in Congress will surely introduce bill after bill authorizing the project." [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e21485683/ ]

There is some question about whether the Republicans will have the votes needed to move this forward.

The Globe and Mail editorial board says, "They almost certainly won’t have enough votes to make those bills veto-proof." But Forbes takes a different view and argues, "[Several attorneys who lobby Congress on behalf of energy producers] feel that legislation would pass both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate to build the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would be more than enough to override a potential presidential veto. Sixty votes would be needed, which would easily cover the new majority plus all supporting Senate Democrats. The House just needs a simple majority."

Could Obama pre-emptively approve Keystone XL?

The Globe and Mail suggests, "Mr. Obama has never appeared to be personally opposed to the pipeline, but the green end of his Democratic base is – so he’s spent years keeping the project in limbo, refusing to give it either a yea or a nay." They argue, "The President should get ahead of the Republican attempts to work a wedge issue – his union backers and most other Americans support Keystone – and approve the pipeline soon." Slate senior writer Josh Voorhees also says this is a credible option, "Obama [could] relent and approve the pipeline—either by signing the Keystone bill or potentially even signing off on the project later this year before Republicans take control of the Senate." [ http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ident.html ]

And while the Harper government has been an aggressive proponent of the pipeline in Washington, Finance minister Joe Oliver's comments this week also seemed subdued. Oliver said, "We remain committed to the project. We believe at the end of the day it will achieve approval. We're hopeful that will happen." [ http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticN ... 2V20141107 ]

Perhaps that's because, as the Globe and Mail has reported, "Middlemen are increasingly opening paths of least resistance [to get Canadian crude to the Gulf Coast]. ...Linkages to move Canadian crude to the Gulf have already been built, and workarounds to Keystone XL are under way. [That includes the] seven new or expanded pipeline projects aimed at moving Canadian crude to the Gulf Coast [that] are slated to start up by 2016, adding combined capacity of 2.5 million bpd. [As well, there are] more than a dozen rail or rail-to-barge projects along the Gulf Coast and Mississippi River can receive a total of 1.2 million bpd." [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e21350866/ ]

And recognizing that the United States is now the world's leading oil producer due to fracking, Oliver also noted, "We have a specific challenge, which is that we only have one customer, and that customer, the United States, has found vast amounts of shale and gas and oil. Those discoveries, which will be of enormous benefit to the United States, is changing the global energy picture. So we have to look at that and clearly have to diversify our markets and we're going to be pursuing that."

As such, it could be that the Harper government is now much more committed to the Energy East, Trans Mountain and Northern Gateway pipelines and the energy markets in Asia, Europe and India.

Brent Patterson
Political Director of the Council of Canadians
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/brent-patterson ]

[Oscar]

Keystone XL could face new lawsuit from Nebraska ranchers

[ http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -challenge ]

Monday’s legal pushback arrived despite a new push in Congress to wrest the decision out of Obama’s hands

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent Monday 12 January 2015 20.45 GMT

The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline faces a potential new legal challenge and the prospect of further delays from ranchers along its proposed route in Nebraska who say they “aren’t finished fighting” yet.

The threat of a new lawsuit, delivered in a video ultimatum from the ranchers’ lawyers, is almost certain to extend the saga of the Keystone XL in Nebraska – and in Washington, where open debate was scheduled to begin in the Senate on Monday afternoon ahead of an expected veto threat from Barack Obama.

Days after a ruling from the Nebraska state supreme court seemingly cleared one legal obstacle, lawyers for Keystone XL opponents said the pipeline company could expect to return to court.

“The landowners here aren’t finished fighting, and neither are we,” Dave Domina, a lawyer representing Keystone XL opponents, said in a video released on Monday.

MORE:

[ http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -challenge ]

[Oscar]

As Congress passes Keystone, TransCanada objects to EPA's criticism

[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/as-cong ... 53242?cid= ]

Calgary pipeline builder writes to State Department over call for review of climate change effects

The Canadian Press Posted: Feb 11, 2015 10:37 AM ET| Last Updated: Feb 11, 2015 7:26 PM ET

TransCanada Corp. has written to the U.S. State Department to dispute the Environmental Protection Agency's latest criticism of the stalled Keystone XL pipeline project.

The Republican-controlled U.S. Congress passed a bill approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline on Wednesday.

It will now land on the desk of U.S. President Barack Obama, who has vowed to veto it over climate change concerns.

The company takes issue with the EPA report, which said the recent drop in oil prices will increase Keystone's contribution to greenhouse gases and climate change.

The EPA reasoned that building the pipeline to carry oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast would enable Canadian companies to further develop the oilsands, which cause greater emissions of greenhouse gases than conventional oil.

MORE:

[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/as-cong ... 53242?cid= ]

[Oscar]

Keystone XL bill vetoed by Barack Obama after approval by Congress

[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keyston ... -1.2969874 ]

President says final decision on pipeline is his to make after reviewing all data

CBC News Posted: Feb 24, 2015 3:42 PM ET| Last Updated: Feb 24, 2015 6:48 PM ET

U.S. President Barack Obama has vetoed a bill that would have approved construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The move, while expected, is still significant because it is only the third time that the current U.S. president has opted to shoot down a bill passed by Congress.

"I am returning herewith without my approval … the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act," the president said in a letter to the U.S. Senate notifying it of the veto. "Through this bill, the United States Congress attempts to circumvent long-standing and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest."

The White House position is that cross-border pipeline permits are a matter for the president to decide — not Congress — and that the Keystone XL bill was an attempt to usurp a presidential responsibility.

But the move doesn't signal the end for the pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada to refineries in the U.S. The regulatory process is in its final phase as the State Department has finished collecting input and is now preparing a recommendation to the president. Obama must then decide whether the project is in the U.S. national interest.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a press briefing this morning that the president has an "open mind" on the Keystone XL pipeline and could very well approve it after the State Department review.

MORE:

[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keyston ... -1.2969874 ]

[Oscar]

No, Obama did not veto the Keystone XL pipeline

[ http://grist.org/climate-energy/no-obam ... gn=climate ]

By Lisa Hymas on 25 Feb 2015

Normal people, who don’t follow every torturous twist and turn in the never-ending Keystone XL saga, would be forgiven for misunderstanding yesterday’s news when they saw “Obama” and “veto” and “Keystone” in the headlines. Despite that confluence of words, Obama did not in fact veto the Keystone XL pipeline. Rather, he vetoed a bill from Congress that would have forced approval of the pipeline project, but he did this because he wants to retain the power to make the Keystone decision himself — and he could still decide either way.

The people who should understand this, and who should be particularly conscientious about helping other people understand this, are green group activists fighting the pipeline — like, say, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project.

So it was particularly galling to see those two groups spreading misleading meme boxes on social media yesterday:

MORE:

[ http://grist.org/climate-energy/no-obam ... gn=climate ]

[Oscar]

No, Obama did not veto the Keystone XL pipeline

[ http://grist.org/climate-energy/no-obam ... gn=climate ]

By Lisa Hymas on 25 Feb 2015

Normal people, who don’t follow every torturous twist and turn in the never-ending Keystone XL saga, would be forgiven for misunderstanding yesterday’s news when they saw “Obama” and “veto” and “Keystone” in the headlines. Despite that confluence of words, Obama did not in fact veto the Keystone XL pipeline. Rather, he vetoed a bill from Congress that would have forced approval of the pipeline project, but he did this because he wants to retain the power to make the Keystone decision himself — and he could still decide either way.

The people who should understand this, and who should be particularly conscientious about helping other people understand this, are green group activists fighting the pipeline — like, say, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project.

So it was particularly galling to see those two groups spreading misleading meme boxes on social media yesterday:

MORE:

[ http://grist.org/climate-energy/no-obam ... gn=climate ]

[Oscar]

On Keystone, the Conservatives made one fatal blunder

[ http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/25 ... l-blunder/ ]

Tasha Kheiriddin | February 25, 2015 | Last Updated: Feb 26 2:57 PM ET

EXCERPT:

The move was not unexpected. For years, the White House had repeatedly delayed its decision on the project. In an interview given to The New York Times in July 2013, Obama pooh-poohed Keystone’s job-creation potential, and warned that he would insist that environmental standards be the ones that prevailed. And now, with crude prices hitting rock-bottom, oil sands projects shutting down, and U.S. petroleum inventories growing, it’s hard to argue the pressing need to pipe in more oil from Canada.

Why did this happen? It’s not like Canada didn’t try: The federal government threw everything at the Keystone file. Yet despite heavy lobbying by Ottawa and Alberta, despite the fact that Canada produces “ethical” oil untainted by gross human rights violations, despite our nation’s military engagement in Afghanistan and now Iraq, despite paying for the U.S. customs plaza at the new Windsor-Detroit bridge, in short, despite being a damn good neighbour, friend and ally, all Canada got is a sharp stick in the eye.

Through all this, however, the Conservative government made one fatal blunder: It underestimated the importance of the environment to the Obama presidency. Throughout his time in office, Obama has struggled, and mostly failed, to achieve his promises on education, health care, the economy, foreign policy and even race relations. As he looks toward his legacy, all that’s left is the mantle of the “environmental president,” a fittingly fuzzy title for a president who excelled at rhetoric, but delivered little in reality.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in contrast, has displayed near-zero interest in the environment. The Tory base doesn’t care much about the issue, making it a loser at the polls. In contrast, slamming the Suzuki crowd was a winner, even a way to raise money. In 2013, a Tory fundraising letter drew sharp criticism — but no doubt quite a few donations — for labelling scientists fighting the proposed closure of Ontario’s Experimental Lakes facility as “radical ideologues.” Since taking office in 2006, the Tories also repeatedly raised the ire of the international community, by backing out of Kyoto, standing accused of “muzzling” scientists, and failing to present new carbon emissions targets at last year’s UN Climate Summit.

While the Tories did spend hundreds of millions of dollars on green initiatives, such as clean energy research, home energy retrofit programs and national parks, this wasn’t enough to counter the perception of Canada as an environmental laggard — and the White House knew it. In the aforementioned New York Times interview, Obama said Canada could “potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release” — a.k.a., “I’ve found my excuse to veto Keystone.”

Another element that kiboshed Keystone was the lack of personal chemistry between Harper and Obama. While their underwhelming relationship didn’t outright kill the project, it certainly didn’t help save it. Contrast this with the camaraderie between former prime minister Brian Mulroney and former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, which enabled Mulroney to push for the signing of the Canada-U.S. Acid Rain Treaty in 1991, despite Reagan’s general lack of interest in environmental matters. In a speech given on the 21st anniversary of the treaty, in 2012, Mulroney recalled the events and pointedly commented that, “Anyone who tells you that personal friendship doesn’t count in the conduct of foreign affairs — that nations only have interests and nothing else — doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.”

The lessons here for the Tories? Don’t neglect the big picture because you’re focussed on votes at home. Sometime when you win the base, you also lose the war.

[Oscar]

MAY: Keystone and the tipping point away from fossil fuels

[ http://elizabethmaymp.ca/keystone-and-t ... sil-fuels/ ]

March 17, 2015

Last spring when the U.S. State Department Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Keystone XL was released, it was heralded by project boosters as the green light to approval. It was actually more of a flashing yellow.

The EIS was dense and lengthy. It was a policy wonkish document. When the NEB report on Enbridge came out I couldn’t help but to contrast the approach taken by two different nations and their regulators. The NEB produced a PR document — complete with pretty pictures, but with a dearth of evidence — to boost a foregone conclusion: the NEB would approve the Enbridge pipeline. As I plowed through the EPA advice to State Department on Keystone, it was equally clear that there was no foregone conclusion. Secretary of State John Kerry could go either way in his advice to the U.S. President.

Last year, Joe Oliver and Gary Doer should have read the EPA report before praising it. Had they done so, they might have noticed the finding that Keystone would not boost GHG only if the price of a barrel of oil remained above $100. If prices dropped to $80/barrel the report found that building Keystone would boost oil sands expansion and thus be a significant contributor to global warming. Gary Doer’s recent attack on the EPA was shockingly undiplomatic. Suddenly the same report he once praised, he attacked as dishonest. I wonder if being Canada’s Ambassador to the United States is really worth Gary Doer’s loss of personal integrity. It must be humiliating to berate the U.S. Secretary of State claiming the EPA “ignores a decade of Canadian achievement in cutting greenhouse gas emissions,” when the EPA report had not ignored the evidence. It cited Environment Canada statistics that confirmed Canada would entirely miss our Copenhagen target.

Meanwhile, some other energy prices are tumbling with less notice. For global energy watchers there is game-changing news in the plummeting price of wind and solar. Several international reports this fall analyzed the levelized cost of energy. Reports from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), investment bank Sanford Bernstein, and financial firm Lazard came to a remarkably similar conclusion: in some regions renewable energy is now competitive with fossil fuels.

The “levelized cost” is a measurement based on the ratio of the lifetime costs of a power plant to the amount of electricity it will generate. The levelized cost factors in all costs – construction, fuel, financing, etc. It does not include subsidies. The drastic drop in the price of renewable energy, particularly solar, is big news. The cost of solar has dropped as much as 60% in only the last five years. In parts of the U.S. solar is already competitive with fossil fuels.

The “levelized cost” is a measurement based on the ratio of the lifetime costs of a power plant to the amount of electricity it will generate. The levelized cost factors in all costs – construction, fuel, financing, etc. It does not include subsidies. The drastic drop in the price of renewable energy, particularly solar, is big news. The cost of solar has dropped as much as 60% in only the last five years. In parts of the U.S. solar is already competitive with fossil fuels.

There are caveats of course. It is still cheaper to keep an existing coal plant running than build a new solar or wind facility, but the fact remains that in some regions, including in South East Asia, the cost of solar is competitive with the cheapest and dirtiest of fossil fuels – coal.

The impact globally of cheap wind and solar is still relatively small. But the smart money is looking at what happens in a decade.

Bernstein explained, “…we have previously calculated how large the solar sector would need to be in order to become a material share of incremental energy supply each year and therefore begin to displace high-cost oil and gas supply and start to depress prices.”

“We estimate that the solar industry would need to be an order of magnitude larger than it is today to have this kind of impact. At the point where solar is displacing a material share of incremental oil and gas supply, global energy deflation would become inevitable: technology (with a falling cost structure) would be driving prices in the energy space. But even on an aggressive view, this could take the better part of a decade.”

Bernstein notes that within a decade, solar could drive down demand for LNG from China and the rest of Asia and depress demand for natural gas in the US, Europe and Australia. And he points out the obvious. When large energy multinationals see this shift as inevitable, they won’t wait until they are hemorrhaging profits from unwanted fossil fuel production: they will switch to cheaper renewables.

Last year was the first year in which global investment in renewable energy was larger than investment in fossil fuels. We are nearing the tipping point. So while our prime minister shills for a pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico to ship out unprocessed bitumen, global investors are shifting their bets. Canada is the only country on earth not a member of the International Renewable Energy Agency. Maybe Harper and company haven’t noticed these reports. Maybe Christy Clark hasn’t realized the long-term bet on LNG is a bad bet for BC. But Canadians better start noticing that betting on fossil fuels is not only stoking the furnace on future climate disasters; in purely economic terms, it’s stupid.

Elizabeth May, MP

Mailing Address

518 Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A0A6
Canada

[Oscar]

‘Major Victory for Nebraska Landowners’ as TransCanada Drops Lawsuit, Switches Course

[ http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/30/transcan ... 0-85909581 ]

Deirdre Fulton, Common Dreams | September 30, 2015 12:30 pm | Comments

In a move that environmental activists and local landowners hope puts another nail in the Keystone XL coffin, pipeline giant TransCanada announced Tuesday it will withdraw lawsuits seeking to gain access to the property of landowners who oppose the project.

Jane Kleeb, director of the advocacy group Bold Nebraska, called the decision “a major victory for Nebraska landowners who refused to back down in the face of bullying by a foreign oil company.”

In a press statement on Wednesday, the pipeline giant said it was switching course and would file an application with the Nebraska Public Service Commission (PSC) to seek approval for the Keystone XL route through the state—an approach it previously tried to avoid. The company said it is withdrawing its current eminent domain actions and is taking steps to terminate constitutional court proceedings in Holt County, Nebraska.

“After careful review, we believe that going through the PSC process is the clearest path to achieving route certainty for the Keystone XL Project in Nebraska,” stated Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. “It ultimately saves time, reduces conflict with those who oppose the project and sets clear rules for approval of the route.”

But others said the development spells doom for the controversial pipeline project.

As Canada’s Globe and Mail reports:

“The Canadian pipeline company that has been seeking U.S. approvals for the $8-billion pipeline for the past seven years said the new strategy is about avoiding a lengthy legal process in the Midwest state. However, opponents of the project said it was a clear signal the company—now laying off staff—needs to reduce its legal costs and is acting ‘desperately’ as it becomes less likely the pipeline will be approved while Barack Obama remains U.S. President.”

“Last week TransCanada announced it will cut a fifth of its senior leadership positions and will soon begin laying off some of its rank-and-file employees. It cited low oil prices and regulatory delays stemming from environmental opposition to some of its projects as factors.”

And the Wall Street Journal wrote that TransCanada is “trying to tap the brakes on the review process, hoping that by 2017 a potential Republican administration would approve the project or opposition to it would simmer down.”

All Democratic presidential candidates oppose the pipeline.

On Twitter, Bold Nebraska’s Kleeb put it another way:

“It has long been clear that TransCanada has no legal route through the state of Nebraska and no legal right to use eminent domain against landowners,” she added in a statement. “Now they’ve recognized that they’ve lost in Nebraska and are desperately trying another tactic to see their risky pipeline built through our state. We are happy to continue this fight in the Nebraska PSC, but we are confident that it will never come to that.”

“We know President Obama understands that this pipeline is all risk and no reward for Americans,” Kleeb added. “We call on him to do the right thing now and fully reject the permit once and for all.”

And Kleeb told the Omaha World-Herald that no matter where the fight takes place, “We have a hundred landowners who will continue to refuse to give up their land through eminent domain.”

According to the Associated Press:

“[A spokesman] said TransCanada could apply to the Public Service Commission as early as Friday. Reviews by the commission generally take seven months to a year to complete and its decisions can be appealed in the state’s district court system.”

“Art Tanderup, a farmer and pipeline opponent whose land is on the proposed route, said he’s confident the commission will not allow the pipeline to cross the Sandhills—a region of fragile, grass-covered sand dunes—or the Ogallala Aquifer, a major groundwater supply that lies beneath Nebraska and parts of seven other states.”

In addition to trusting the commission’s authority, Tanderup added that he is “confident President Obama will reject the pipeline before the PSC even has a chance to conduct a review.”

Of course, the Keystone XL fight has implications beyond just one pipeline. As journalist Nick Cunningham wrote earlier this month at OilPrice.com, Canadian tar sands oil will be trapped without more pipeline capacity. “[W]ith the U.S. potentially closing the door on Keystone XL, the industry will have to find another way,” he wrote. “Otherwise, less oil will be flowing from Canada’s oil sands.”