5 Reasons Why Keystone XL Would Damage Obama’s Climate Record
Posted at 3:56 p.m. on Jan. 14, 2014
Summarizing the findings from a recent panel of environmental experts, EcoNews lists the five reasons why Keystone XL pipeline project does not pass President Obama’s test of not “significantly” increasing carbon pollution:
More pipelines mean more tar sands development. Major investments aimed at increasing tar sands production are not compatible with preventing the planet from high-risk levels of global warming.
Without Dramatic Pollution Reductions, Climate Change’s Going to Get Ugly. There are certainly a number of ways we could look at offsetting an infrastructure project like the Keystone XL pipeline. But at the end of the day if we don’t stabilize CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which actually requires dramatic emissions reductions, climate change is going to get ugly.
Keystone XL Means 4 Million Cars a Year on Canada’s Roads. A “no” on Keystone would tell oil sands companies, and Canada’s governments, that we have to start taking climate change more seriously to compete and prosper in a low-carbon future.
Keystone Would Need 20-35 Million Credits Each Year to Offset. The difficulty with offsetting the Keystone XL pipeline derives both from its enormous emissions profile, and from the short timeframe it would provide to identify and create new offset projects.
If We Can’t Say ‘No’ to Keystone, What Can We Say ‘No’ To?