I find the following “reasoning” amazing: if we don’t let Keystone cross the US, the Canadians and the Chinese will wreck the environment in Canada. But the pipeline in the US would be absolutely safe. Huh?
The Journal repeats the lie (until it becomes truth) that this pipeline has anything to do with US energy independence. ALL of the product will be shipped overseas. This is ALL about who profits; screw the environment, screw the nation, screw everybody but the board and the shareholders (and don’t let them know you’re screwing them, too). Greed motivates liars.
ABQJournal Online » Editorial: Keystone XL Decision Impacts Energy Edge
Already in the permitting process is a proposal by another Canadian company — with investments from China — to build a pipeline from Alberta to a remote and culturally sensitive area on Canada’s west coast, home to the Gitga’at tribe. It also would go through the protected Great Bear Rainforest, one of the world’s largest remaining unspoiled temperate rainforests and home to the “spirit bear,” a rare white black bear. Some locals fear that giant tankers threading through narrow channels to Kitimat, the pipeline’s proposed destination, could result in an Exxon Valdez-like disaster.
The U.S. is the most logical market for oil sands crude. But the Obama administration, instead of coming down on the side of job creation and energy security, jilted one of our strongest allies in an apparent bid to curry election-year favor from environmentalists.
If Canada does develop a West Coast oil port, U.S. refineries and consumers will be left out of this energy independence game — and the oil will still be moved, refined and consumed. Who wins? [mjh: Who profits?]
This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.
ABQJournal Online » Editorial: Keystone XL Decision Impacts Energy Edge
Journal Acknowledges a Crack in the Keystone Jobs Argument By Denise Tessier, www.abqjournalwatch.com
Media Matters found that industry claims of the pipeline’s importance in terms of energy security was rarely questioned, either:
Print Media Frequently Touted Keystone XL As A Step Towards U.S. Energy Security. The purported contribution from the Keystone XL pipeline to American energy security was mentioned in 52% of print coverage, 22% of broadcast coverage, and 28% of cable coverage. USA Today, whose editorial board supports the pipeline, mentioned energy security in 67% of its coverage, more than any other print outlet. Fox News mentioned it more than all the other television networks combined. Only items in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times questioned the energy security benefits of the pipeline.