Talking Points & Resources for Information Re: XL Pipeline

Comment re: Keystone XL Pipeline Project

I am a resident of Northeast Pennsylvania who tries to live lightly upon the earth. I grow or harvest most of my own vegetables, maple sugar, and meat from the land and water of my area. My husband and I generate about half of our power from solar panels and use a geothermal system to heat and cool our upgraded 1822 house. I drive a hybrid that gets 50.2 miles per gallon. Yes, I am fortunate to have enough money to do these things, but, in order to live with myself, that is where I know I must put my money: into ways of living that will not be so destructive to the planet we call home.

I have been calling for a shift to smarter ways to save, use, and produce energy for five decades. The XL Pipeline is NOT the way to make this shift, nor are the extracting, processing or burning of any finite fossil fuels the way to a viable future for our species.

I was introduced to the idea of climate change about thirty years ago by Jan Beyea, thenchief scientist at the National Audubon Society. That speech has stuck with me and I have dedicated thousands of volunteer hours to persuade others to take it seriously. I am doing this to you, right now.

I know the land I live on. I recognize the signs of climate change: weird weather patterns and temperature fluctuations, high winds, downed trees, washed out roads and bridges, tornadoes—which were once a rarity here, much more frequent major floods, maple trees under stress from drought and then too much rain. Right now we are not enjoying the fall colors because the leaves on our sugar maples have turned brown, curled up and died caused by maple anthracnose that comes with too much rain. Because of that stress, we will not tap our trees next spring.

Other people more powerful and with much higher credentials than mine, such as military leaders, the Pentagon, world leaders, nobel prize winners, your own Secretary Clinton, and President Obama are warning us that climate change is a threat to our national security.

Tar Sands oil development is a climate change bomb, as some wise person has recently said.Jim Hansen, our NASA climate scientist has called it essentially “game over” for the planet.

Here is what Mr. Stern, your own Special Envoy for Climate Change said in his acceptance speech:

As the President and Secretary Clinton have made clear, climate change poses a profound threat to our future. If our deepest obligation in life is to care for our children and leave a better world for them and those who follow, then we must confront climate change now with an entirely new level of commitment, energy, and focus. Our scientists are telling us, emphatically, that the rate at which we are warming the planet is unsustainable and will cause vast and potentially catastrophic damage to our environment, our economy, and our national security.

…Containing climate change will require nothing less than transforming the global economy from a high-carbon to a low-carbon energy base[emphasis added]. But done right, this can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and become a driver for economic growth in the 21st century. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have left no doubt that a new day is dawning in the U.S. approach to climate change and clean energy. The time for denial, delay, and dispute is over…As a threshold matter, we must first press forward in our own country with the kind of bold, far-reaching climate and energy plan that President Obama has called for. As the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, we can only expect to lead abroad if we are prepared to act decisively at home...In the years ahead, every large emitter will have to make major changes in the way that they use energy and manage their forests and lands[emphasis added]. There is simply no other way to preserve a safe and livable world for our children.

This is no time for negotiators to cling to tired orthodoxies [emphasis added]…We should all acknowledge the good faith of those who are committed to this mission, pull our oars in the same direction, and do whatever it takes to get the job done…And we will need, above all, political will.

Mr. Stern’s reference to ending our dependence upon foreign oil, unfortunately does not fit with his call to stop clinging to tired orthodoxies, nor does it fit with his call for “…nothing less than transforming the global economy from a high-carbon to a low-carbon energy base.” And if you recommend to the President that this project go ahead, then I know that your agency lacks the courage and the political will necessary to stand up to Big Oil.

Ladies and gentlemen, this oil lies under precious boreal forest, an extremely valuable carbon sink. And tar sands extraction is destroying it? How stupid is that? We need to be protecting every last bit of carbon sink we can at this point, and using our State Department’s “Diplomacy in Action” to persuade the Canadians to do the same!

I urge you to read “Degrees of Risk: Defining a Risk management Framework for Climate Security” by Nick Mabey, Jay Gullegh, Bernard Finel, and Katherine Silverthorne.

I urge you to read “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” published in 2003 at the request of the Pentagon, which presented the possibility that global warming could prove a greater risk to the world than terrorism.

Rather than having a cozy relationship with oil and pipeline companies (yes, I know about the e-mails between your officials and TransCanada), the State Department should be actively pursuing ways to encourage life-giving industries ways to help us get to a wiser future. Rather than hiring Cardno Entrix to run the XL hearings and create your XL website, you should have State Department staff who are dedicated to and understand our democratic process do those jobs.

There are myriad other reasons to reject this pipeline. In the interest of brevity, I shall list them briefly:

Breaking of the FortLaramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868 with the Native Americans
Violation of human rights under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Threat to extremely valuable and necessary major aquifers, some shallow, some deep
Crossing bodies of water either using dry cut, open cut, or horizontal directional drilling scares me. 14 spills so far by Keystone 1 does not breed confidence. And, this would be crossing the YellowstoneRiver, already victim of a major Exxon Mobil spill in July, 2011. And, you predict 1.78 to 2.51 spills, of any size, per year.
Short and long-term impacts upon wetlands, natural prairie, forests, and threats to various species of plants, mammals, birds, amphibians, and insects. The area along the pipeline will be kept devoid of trees. How? Herbicides? I oppose use of herbicides. Heat around the line will adversely affect the endangered burying beetle—maybe cause its extinction.
Fragmentation of habitat is a major concern.
I am concerned about hydrocarbons at pumping stations, tank farms or during spills.

We have a choice: either move away gracefully from fossil fuels by acting now, or be yanked away brutally and violently from fossil fuels later. I would much prefer the graceful option. Please DO NOT recommend that the President say “yes” to anything that would encourage tar sands oil development.

Sincerely,

Katharine Dodge, Concerned Citizen

Read “Derees of Risk: Defining a Risk management Framework for Climate Security” by Nick Mabey, Jay Gullegh, Bernard Finel, and Katherine Silverthorne.

Read “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” published in 2003 at the request of the Pentagon, and presented the possibility that global warming could prove a greater risk to the world than terrorism.

Talking PointsResources for Information re: XL Pipeline

To send testimony go to:

Deadline is Midnight, October 9th.

The Department of State (DOS) is tasked with the job of recommending to the president the course to take on the Keystone XL pipeline under presidential executive order #13337. The president has the final power to decide yes or no. He does not have to involve Congress. As I understand it after talking to spokespeople at DOS, the “National Interest Determination” is in its process now with input coming from 8 cooperating agencies: DOT, DOD, DOE, etc. As there is not a separate comment period on National Interest, we should incorporate national interest concerns in the comments re: FEIS. Note: DOS sent its first EIS to EPA for review and it came back as inadequate. Thus they made a second one.

Climate Change Impacts:

According to the FEIS, tar sands oil extraction, transport, and refinement would cause 17% more greenhouse gas emissions than an average mix of U.S. crude, ranging from an additional three to twenty-one million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. This is argued by others who think the figures are too low.

Helping Canada get this oil to markets around the world is helping to prolong the world’s dependence upon oil.

Putting emphasis upon jobs created by this project is very attractive to many, but it serves to delay a transition to greener jobs that would take us toward a more viable future.

Reducing demand for oil is the best way to improve our energy security. U.S. demand for oil has been declining since 2007. New fuel-efficiency standards will help this trend continue. The EnergyDeptartment report on KeystoneXL found that decreasing demand through fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce mid-east oil imports with or without the pipeline. –from Tar Sands Action.org
Personalize your message with facts about the recent extreme weather in our own area: Several recent 100 year floods, temperature rises, high winds, downed trees and powerlines, tornadoes, violent thunderstorms and excessive rainfall, delayed planting.

Environmental Justice Issues:

People in many areas of the pipeline are low income and live in isolated communities with limited services, and thus are more vulnerable to promises of jobs, to promises of protection from spills, airborne chemical contamination, etc.
Tribal Nations deserve and have a right to be thoroughly informed and have a truthful account of the damage Keystone XL can cause. The toxic corrosive crude oil that would flow through the Keystone XL pipeline would have added chemicals to help it flow. The tar sands are located in the homelands of the Cree, Dene and Métis communities. The pipeline would cross hundreds of miles of indigenous territory, including Lakota territory, and violate treaty rights under the Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868 as well as human rights under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Go to: for a well-written article on a Native American perspective on this. Go to this excellent Native Am. action page to help you send your comments to Dept of State :
Possible contamination of water in Ogallala and Sand Hills aquifers would affect millions of people, agriculture, wildlife. Sand Hills is a very shallow aquifer which could be easily compromised. Ogallala is a huge, deep aquifer that, once contaminated, would be impossible to clean up.

National Interest/ National Security Issues:

Climate change is a threat to life as we know it on our planet.In a study funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, a group of retired four-star generals and admirals concluded that climate change, if not addressed, will be the greatest threat to national security.
The Pentagon was sufficiently alarmed to call for a study titled: “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security.’ This was published in October, 2003 and presented the possibility that global warming could prove a greater risk to the world than terrorism.
Peter Ogden, chief of staff to Todd Stern, the State Department’s top climate negotiator said, “The sense that climate change poses security and geopolitical challenges is central to the thinking of the State Department and the climate office.” See NYT article by John M. Broder, August 8, 2009.
Quote below from “Degrees of Risk, Defining a Risk Management Framework for Climate Security.” By Nick Mabey, Jay Gulledge, Bernard Finel, and Katherine Silverthorne, February, 2011 This incorporated expertise from senior security, intelligence, and defense officials from the US and other countries.

The implications of current security analysis are clear: unless climate change is limited to levels where its impacts can be managed effectively, and unless successful adaptation programs are implemented, there will be major threats to national and international security…There is a growing consensus in the security community that climate change presents significantrisks to the delivery of national, regional and global security goals. Through sea level rise,shortages of food and water and severe weather events, climate change will have significantimpacts on all countries, which in turn could affect their social stability and economic security.

In the coming decades such impacts will increase the likelihood of conflict in fragile countries and regions. Peaceful management of even moderate climatic changes will require investment in increased resilience in national and international security and governance systems.

Ethics/Conflict of Interest Issues:

Public hearings on federal approval for the pipeline are being run by a contractor for the pipeline company itself. DOS’s public hearings are under the purview of Cardno Entrix, a “professional environmental consulting company” that specializes in “permitting and compliance.” This company also manages the DOS’s Keystone XL website, and drafted the EIS. Comments we send in go to a cardno.com email address!

Through the Freedom of Information Act, Friends of the Earth has uncovered evidence that the Department of State (DOS) has a cozy relationship with Trans-Canada. Among the allegations: Trans-Canada withdrew its request for a higher pressure pipeline than previously allowed in the US because it might raise a red flag, but, in a behind-the-scenes strategy discussed with DOS, it was agreed that they would file later for a high pressure permit, thus avoiding controversy over that during this major permitting process. Go to a NYT article published Oct. 4 for full story:

The plan as stated in the exec. summary of the FEIS relies upon a “senior officer of Keystone” to provide PHMSA (DOT Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) with a certificate showing compliance with “Special Conditions” that were originally in place because of the request for a permit for a higher pressure pipeline, but that Keystone is keeping in place even though that permit request has been withdrawn to avoid that red flag as mentioned above. We think that compliance should be monitored by an independent third party.

General Environmental Issues:

There have been 14 spills since June, 2010 on the existing Keystone 1 pipeline: 7 were 10 gallons or less, 4 were 100 gallons or less, 2 were between 400 and 500 gallons, and 1 was 21,000 gallons. These figures are from the FEIS. The July 1, 2011 rupture of the Exxon Mobile pipeline under the wild YellowstoneRiver spilled 42,000 gallons of crude into that river (to be crossed by the XL). July 27, 2010: “largest oil spill in the history of the Mid-West”—US Rep Mark Shauer: 800,000 gallons of crude from Western Canada spilled into a creek and into the KalamazooRiver from a pipeline owned by Enbridge Liquids Pipelines.
The DOS FEIS predicts 1.78 to 2.51 spills, of any size, per year.
Short and long-term impacts upon wetlands, natural prairie, forests are listed along with threats to various species of plants, mammals, birds, amphibians, and insects. The area along the pipeline will be kept devoid of trees. How? Herbicides? Heat around the line will adversely affect the endangered burying beetle—maybe cause extinction. USFWS is evaluating that now.
Fragmentation of habitat is a major concern.
And, of course, water contamination—surface and aquifers.
Air quality: what about emissions of hydrocarbons at pumping stations, tank farms?

--Kathy Dodge, for Waynepeace