The “red wave” midterm signaled many big changes. Apparently including a green light to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline.

It doesn’t come as any surprise that our state’s two GOP House members are willing to prioritize this project. They have voted numerous times to do so. Matter of fact, House Republicans are probably more willing to sacrifice the environment and promote eminent domain for private gain than ever, now.

But we are disgusted that some Democrats, including our own Sen. Joe Manchin, appear to only want to be on whichever side is winning. Of course, politics makes for strange bedfellows. But it also makes for strange opponents, too.
Which helps describe who the lead sponsors of the recent Keystone XL legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-La. — the chief sponsors — are facing a December 6 runoff election vote for Landrieu’s seat. Sounds like politics, as usual.

However, we have to draw the line at Manchin co-sponsoring a similar Keystone XL pipeline bill this year and being Landrieu’s No. 1 cheerleader. Holding the line in the “war on coal” or facilitating the production of natural gas is one thing, but rallying to allow Canada to build and expand a pipeline across America’s heartland to the Gulf of Mexico for export is another.

It’s true that the U.S. State Department’s report on the Keystone XL pipeline noted that the controversial tar sands oil in Canada would be extracted and processed whether this pipeline is authorized by Congress or not. However, that report also noted that though this pipeline will create thousands of temporary jobs during its two-year construction period, once it’s in service, it will support only about 50 U.S. jobs.

But politics and jobs aside, the environmental threats that surround tar sand oil are all too clear. They range from the extraction and separation process to produce tar sand oil to the potential for spills and leaks, to its corrosive effects and the fact that the carbon emissions released from burning this unconventional oil are far greater than conventional oil.

These bills come on the heels of a recent election, when at least every candidate we met appeared to be a proponent of clean-coal research. At the very same time, these candidates argued that any reduction of carbon emissions would only amount to paltry declines, since the worst offenders do not restrict emissions at all.

So, why not help to sell them an even more devastating form of energy to pollute the world’s air? After all, we’ve always put the coal industry’s profits before our land and water. Why not do the same for the oil industry?

Good point, David. That is interesting. It’s a complex issue, given the size of these pipeline projects and the disruption to land owners, to stream beds, to steep terrain, plus accident risks.

The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues at a high rate,
too high for the Earth to accommodate. Oil from tar sands is a big offender, called “dirty oil”, as with the extremely large XL pipeline.

Thank you for your studies on these issues. Duane Nichols