With rumors floating that Hillary Clinton and her State Department will be recommending the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline—the 1,661 mile pipeline, which top climate scientists and nobel laureates have opposed, that would carry crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, to the Port Arthur, Texas.
Bill McKibben of The DailyBeast writes:
For more than a year now, it’s been one of Washington’s worst-kept secrets that Clinton wants the pipeline approved. And why not? Its builder, TransCanada, hired her old deputy campaign manager as its chief lobbyist and gave lobbying contracts to several of her big bundlers. Leaked emails show embassy officials rooting on the project; it’s classic D.C. insiderism.
And in one sense it doesn’t make much difference. Everyone in the capital’s also known that the Keystone decision, in the end, will come down to President Obama, who will weigh State’s findings and then rule whether the pipeline is in the national interest. When that happens, we’ll find out if he’s a more modern politician than Hillary, or if he’s still fighting yesterday’s wars too.
The points made against building the pipeline are strong:
- A similar pipeline built by the same company has leaked 14 times in the first year.
- One of the nation’s top climate scientists, James Hansen, has said that the construction of the pipeline would be “game over” for the climate.
- “The U.S. Pipeline Safety Administration has not yet conducted an in depth analysis of the safety of diluted bitumen (raw tar sands) pipeline, despite unique safety concerns posed by its more corrosive properties.”
- “Keystone XL will cross through America’s agricultural heartland, the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers, the Ogallala aquifer, sage grouse habitat, walleye fisheries and more.”