Clean Economy News
Most Viewed Stories
Nebraska Governor to Call Special Session on Keystone XL Pipeline
Nebraska's governor will call a special session of the state's legislature over TransCanada Corp's proposed oil sands pipeline that would cross ecologically sensitive areas in his state, an aide said.
Governor Dave Heineman does not oppose the Canada-to-Texas pipeline outright but wants TransCanada to change the route away from Nebraska's Sand Hills region, which sits atop the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest sources of water for farms in the central United States.
If Nebraska succeeds in changing the route for the Alberta-to-Texas pipeline, it could add delays for the project. The pipeline would take oil sands crude from Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries, and potentially to its ports for export.
Supporters say the line would provide thousands of jobs and increase imports from a friendly neighbor. Opponents say oil sands crude causes more greenhouse gas emissions and that the petroleum is more corrosive to pipelines than average crude oils.
Last week, Mike Flood, the speaker of the state legislature, advised against a measure that would force TransCanada to move the right-of-way from the Sand Hills, saying such a move would unlikely hold up in court.
TransCanada has said it is too late in the federal approval process to move the proposed path for the line.
The U.S. State Department hopes to decide whether to greenlight the 700,000-barrels-per-day or more pipeline by the end of this year.
Republished with permission.
Comments
Keystone XL Pipeline
Submitted by Urs (not verified) on October 25, 2011 - 12:03pm.
Why are opponents only quoted as objecting to the corrosivity and the added greenhouse gases. What about the unavoidable leaks, spills, breaks and blow-ups that will occur during and after this boondoggle is built? And what about the destruction of miles and miles of desperately needed forests in Canada? What about the incredible pollution created in those tar sand fields? What about the carbon released from the destruction of all the trees that once stood on those tar sand fields? What about the wildlife?
There are many more reasons to oppose this environmental and human disaster. There is only one reason to build it: Obscene Profits for a very few CEOs and Bankers. Granted many politicians and so called 'scientists' are being bribed by them and will profit a little bit too. And there will be a few hundred extra jobs for a few months too. But these people will suffer from accidents and toxic spills more than they will gain from employment.
Why is the oil industry so hell bent on killing humanity slowly and miserably through pollution and global warming just becuase of their CEO's profits? Right now we have the Oil Company created famine in Somalia (drought because of Global Warming) and nobody holds those CEO's and the Bankers who are financing them responsible. Do we really want the same in the USA? Are we going to hold them responsible for the fires in Texas or the floods in Vermont?
The jobs are in renewable enrgy: manufacturing and installing solar panels and windmills, cleaning up the mess the oil companies refuse to clean up, developing much more energy efficient cars, bulidngs, transportation, manufacturing etc..
A Rational Approach is Needed
Submitted by Ryan (not verified) on November 2, 2011 - 11:24am.
not everyone lives in a location that is conducive to solar power. in the north, we have this thing called winter where the sun's angle to the earth is simply not suitable for generating the kind of power needed to power homes using solar panels. As for wind, do you think everyone can afford their their power bill to increase 20 times? And I see you didn't mention the birds and other wildlife who are killed or otherwise displaced as a result of the wind farms operations. there is no one best solution and there will always be trade-offs. we need to proceed on all fronts in as safe a manner as possible.
Post new comment
|
© InsideClimate News |