MEDIA ADVISORY Contact: Scott Banbury, TN Chapter Conservation Program Coordinator 901-619-8567 or smbanbury@gmail Sierra Club and Others Rally to Ask President Obama to Reject the Keystone XL Pipeline Members of the Tennessee Chapter of the Sierra Club will join other citizens concerned with climate change to demonstrate their opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline at noon February 03, 2014 at the Kefauver Federal Building, 801 Broadway, Nashville, TN, 37203. Friday, the State Department finalized its environmental review of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline project. The State Department’s hiring of biased oil industry consultants remains under review by the agency’s Office of Inspector General. In response, Scott Banbury, Conservation Programs Coordinator for the Tennessee Chapter of the Sierra Club, issued the following statement: “Given the findings of this review, we hope that President Obama will reject the Keystone XL pipeline and, by doing so, establish a precedent for rejecting other tar sands pipeline projects in the works, like the Trunkline Pipeline in West Tennessee that is being re-purposed from carrying natural gas north, to carry tar sands “dilbit” south—the same same dirty tar sands that this review identifies as being more toxic, more corrosive, more difficult to clean up, and more carbon intensive than traditional oil.” Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director, issued the following statement: “Reports of an industry victory on the Keystone XL pipeline are vastly over-stated. The final environmental review that the State Department released today sets the stage for President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. The State Department wisely walked away from its earlier contention that Keystone XL would have ‘no significant impact’ on climate disruption. Now the report concludes that Keystone XL will create the equivalent climate pollution of the exhaust of nearly 6 million cars each year, which the president cannot fail to recognize as significant and not in the nation’s best interest. The report also establishes that tar sands crude is more toxic, more corrosive, more difficult to clean up, and more carbon intensive than conventional oil. It’s the dirtiest form of crude oil in the world, and we just don’t need it. What the report fails to consider is just as significant. The market analysis assumes that over the next twenty years there will be no new efforts to curb carbon pollution and stimulate advanced batteries, fuel efficiency and clean energy – which, if true, would prevent us from meeting the challenge of climate disruption. Carbon pollution is the test for Keystone XL, and Keystone XL is the test for President Obama’s commitment to protect this and future generations from the worst impacts of climate disruption. We should not spend billions on a pipeline that will deepen our dependence on dirty oil when advanced batteries and clean energy are affordable and already meeting our energy needs in record amounts. KEY FINDINGS OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RELEASED FRIDAY: ...facilities that cross the international borders of the United States require a Presidential Permit. The Secretary of State has the authority to approve or deny such applications for Presidential Permits, and to issue such permits on terms and conditions that the Secretary determines are appropriate, pursuant to Presidential authority under Executive Order 13337 of April 30, 2004 (69 Federal Register25299), as amended. To support a Presidential Permit approval, the Secretary must find that the border crossing and the resulting conditions associated with that crossing would serve the national interest. Consistent with the Nations environmental and historic preservation laws, ...the Department’s purpose, therefore, is to consider Keystone’s application in terms of how the proposed Project would serve the national interest taking into account the proposed Project’s potential environmental, cultural, economic, and other impacts. - FSEIS, Chap. 1, Section 1.3.2 ES.4.1.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Proposed Project The proposed Project would emit approximately 0.24 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents (MMTCO2e) per year during the construction period. These emissions would be emitted directly through fuel use in construction vehicles and equipment, as well as, land clearing activities including open burning, and indirectly from electricity usage. During operations, approximately 1.44 MMTCO2e would be emitted per year, largely attributable to electricity use for pump station power, fuel for vehicles and aircraft for maintenance and inspections, and fugitive methane emissions at connections. The 1.44 MMTCO2e emissions would be equivalent to GHG emissions from approximately 300,000 passenger vehicles operating for 1 year, or 71,928 homes using electricity for 1 year. - ES.4.1.2 Lifecycle Analysis WCSB crudes are generally more GHG intensive than other heavy crudes they would replace or displace in U.S. refineries, and emit an estimated 17 percent more GHGs on a lifecycle basis than the average barrel of crude oil refined in the United States in 2005. ...The total lifecycle emissions associated with production, refining, and combustion of 830,000 bpd of oil sands crude oil transported through the proposed Project is approximately 147 to 168 MMTCO2e per year. - FSEIS, Executive Summary, p. ES-15 ES.4.1.3 Climate Change Effects The total direct and indirect emissions associated with the proposed Project would contribute to cumulative global GHG emissions. However, emissions associated with the proposed Project are only one source of relevant GHG emissions. In that way, GHG emissions differ from other impact categories discussed in this Supplemental EIS in that all GHG emissions of the same magnitude contribute to global climate change equally, regardless of the source or geographic location where they are emitted. This Supplemental EIS assessed whether the projected changes in the climate could further influence the impacts and effects attributable to the proposed Project. Elevated effects due to projected climate change could occur to water resources, wetlands, terrestrial vegetation, fisheries, and endangered species, and could also contribute to air quality impacts. In addition, the statistical risk of a pipeline spill could be increased by secondary effects brought on by climatic change such as increased flooding and drought. - FSEIS, Executive Summary, p. ES-17 Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the rate and amount of GHGs have increased as a result of human activity. The additional GHGs intensify the greenhouse effect, resulting in a greater amount of heat being trapped within the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries around the world, in its Fifth Assessment Report concludes that global warming in the climate system is unequivocal based on measured increases in temperature, decrease in snow cover, and higher sea levels. - FSEIS, Executive Summary, ES.4.1 Climate Change, p. ES-15 WHAT: Rally to demonstrate opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline WHEN: February 03, 2014 at 12:00 PM WHERE: Kefauver Federal Building, 801 Broadway, Nashville, TN, 37203 ##
Posted on: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:55:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015