NTSB Photo – Ruptured Enbridge tar sands pipeline, Line 6B

Big Oil is trying to keep this project under the radar and avoid a scrutinizing presidential permitting process. A presidential permit is required for any project that crosses the American border and since the Exxon & Enbridge pipeline would cross into Canada, the permit requires that the administration assess the project and allow for public discussion (think Keystone XL).

Exxon & Enbridge Pipeline Project Under Scrutiny

Legislators from Vermont, Maine, & New Hampshire are joining tens of thousands of Northeast residents in speaking out against this proposed project. Out of the 12 northeast congressional members in the pipeline right of way states (VT, ME, NH), only Senator Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire has yet to stand with her community in opposing the project. Members are sending letter after letter after letter urging Secretary Kerry to require a new presidential permit for the proposed Exxon & Enbridge pipeline project.

When Senators Susan Collins and Angus King of Maine were visited by the tar sands lobby (including the pipeline director for the American Petroleum Institute) a few short weeks ago, the lobby were told to be prepared for lengthy and appropriate government scrutiny over the project.

King told the group that reversing the flow of the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line “is presidential-permit-worthy. And it’s up to the petroleum industry to convince me otherwise.”

Collins, in a prepared statement Tuesday, recalled that the pipeline officials “were not definitive in response to my questions” about exactly what they were up to.

“Should the company decide to seek approval for this new use,” Collins added, “I would expect that appropriate environmental impact reviews would be completed.”

Moose photo by Rick Libbey

Protecting Moose from Dirty Tar Sands

The Exxon & Enbridge pipeline project runs through important moose habitat in New England. If this dangerous project is not stopped, toxic tar sands oil would threaten the waterways where moose live–and would fuel more tar sands operations in Canada that are destroying the boreal forests and polluting fresh water.

Speak up against the risks that the Northeast tar sands pipeline poses to wildlife and our communities>>>

So, why do we want President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry to approve construction of the Keystone pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico?

Tar sands protesters at the “Forward on Climate” rally (photo: 350.org)

• Because it will allow Canada to double and then triple production of tar sands and send it to thirsty Asian consumers.
• Because it will encourage Wall Street to increase investment in tar sands mining; they’re worried now that increased amounts of tar sands can’t get out of Canada without more pipeline capacity. All the other new pipeline routes are currently being blocked by citizen campaigns in Canada and the U.S.
• Because, if we wait too much longer, Americans will realize this has nothing to do with U.S. energy security. In reality, only a small portion will be used in the United States. Oil companies can get a higher price for these fuels in Asia.
• Because it will allow Canada to say once and for all that it is no longer possible for their country to commit to a national greenhouse gas reduction target.
• Because it will create a strong incentive for Canada to continue obstructing international climate negotiations. Canada definitely doesn’t want to look like a laggard if others are moving forward. Far better to continue slowing the international process as it has been doing the last eight years.
• Because it will embolden Canadian oil industry and government representatives to continue interfering with American clean energy policymaking that offers incentives for cleaner fuels and vehicles.
• Because it will provide additional momentum to Canadian efforts to lobby Europeans against passing a clean fuels directive. If the Americans don’t take a stand, it will be harder for the Europeans to stick their necks out.
• Because it will embolden Canada’s current government to continue cracking down on Canadian civic interests and companies, who are opposed to tar sands development.
• Because it will strengthen Canada’s determined march to becoming a major petro state.
• Because once it is unstoppable, people will stop worrying about runoff into the North Canadian Athabascan watershed, or the increase in cancers in indigenous peoples living downstream; these are a small price to pay for billions in tar sands revenues.
• Because the economic benefits will overwhelm the costs of inevitable pipeline spills of nearly impossible-to-clean-up tar sands bitumen across more than 1,000 miles of American territory.
• Because it will create social license for deforesting an area the size of Florida and turning it into the globe’s largest open pit strip mine.
• Because it will provide 3,900 temporary jobsfor oil pipeline construction while undercutting electric vehicle and alternative fuels markets being developed south of the border; god forbid those industries take off before we can get the tar sands deposits out.

Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, the site of the largest inland oil spill in US history (photo: MI Department of Environmental Quality)

• Because it will take the wind out of the sails of America’s first real citizen climate movement (that demonstration on the mall was worrisome), and reduce pressure on President Obama to be bold on climate change and clean energy during his final term in office.
• Because it will dampen enthusiasm among a large number of Obama voters, supporters, and donors, who are alarmed about climate change and who have let it be known that they don’t want this pipeline built; this will further disempower pro-environment democrats contemplating clean energy and climate policy.
• Because it will put a damper on clean energy investment in general.
• Because Americans will complain less that increased imports of tar sands will increase the average amount of greenhouse gas emissions from a barrel of oil if they are all driving with tar sands in their gas tanks.
• Because it will encourage and give a green light to other countries who want to exploit their own deposits of more greenhouse intensive fossil fuels.
• Because it will support the globe’s dependency on gasoline for its automobile fleets.
• Because it will make oil companies richer and more powerful.
• Because it will make it more difficult to resist the current oil based economic system.
• Because, once approved, we can lower the volume on the massive campaign of criticism being directed at President Obama by the oil industry.
• And once we’ve finished this campaign, we can start pounding the president about Arctic drilling.

That’s why!

This article originally appeared in the Huffington Post and is reprinted with permission of the author. Michael Northrop is a Program Director for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund or National Wildlife Federation.

Protect people and wildlife from the dangers of tar sands spills and climate change — Tell President Obama to say NO! to the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Inca city of Machu Picchu

Many human hands have touched this architectural and spiritual marvel, and the wildlife impacts are apparent. The once-wild Alpaca are now domesticated. The Andean condors revered by the Inca and signified in the ruins are rarely spotted crossing the valley dividing Machu Picchu from its neighboring peak Huayna Picchu.

Yet the natural beauty endures.

The city sits almost at the summit of the mountain and is surrounded on three sides by the Urubamba River. The Quechua word for water is “Yaku.” Civilization has often flourished near rivers because they serve as a source of necessary freshwater, abundant fish, and aqueous superhighways for commerce and transportation. For the Inca and indigenous people who still inhabit the region, Yaku is life.

On the 24th anniversary of the Exxon-Valdez oil disaster, it’s disheartening that 11,500 square miles of the Amazon rainforest beneath these peaks will be auctioned off for oil production. Indigenous groups in the region rely on one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world to provide food, water, shelter, and medicines. The Achua and Quechua people reside in the river basins straddling Ecuador and Peru beneath the Andes Mountains that form the headwaters of the Amazon River.

These people shoulder the most acute cost of inherently dangerous oil exploration in this pristine setting — and they don’t feel the Ecuadorean government is taking their concerns seriously. According to Narcisa Machienta, a leader in the Achua community, “they have not consulted us…they don’t have our permission to exploit our land.”

Unfortunately, the Achua and Quechua know this from experience. Occidental Petroleum began production in the Pastaza River basin in the 1970s. Since that time, Sixto Shapiama of the Quechua community says there have been “constant spills…[T]he sediment at the bottom of the river is completely contaminated.”

Most recently, Argentine oil giant Pluspetrol has fouled the land and waters of the Quechua and Achua.

Urubamba River with hydroelectric generation.

Likewise, BP shareholders received dividend checks even as Gulf fishermen struggled to sell their catch.

In the United States, environmental laws attempt to shift some of the actual impact of oil production to the industry. As a result, BP is liable for response costs, all quantifiable damages, and civil and criminal penalties for its role in the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The Department of Justice is pursuing claims against BP in federal court. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier has an opportunity to ensure an oil company accounts for the real cost of its business.

The Peruvian government does too. The good news is that the Environment Ministry is finally taking that opportunity: In January, Pluspetrol was issued $11 million in fines for contamination at Peru’s largest crude oil field. Just this week, the Ministry declared the region an environmental state of emergency, ordered Pluspetrol and Occidental to clean up their mess, and set standards to limit soil contamination.

Let’s hope for the sake of the Quechua, the Achua, the Amazon, the condor, clean water, and future generations of honeymooners that the Ecuadorean government follows suit. And for the sake of Floridians, Louisianans, Americans, the Gulf of Mexico, sea turtles, and our children, let’s hope Judge Barbier does too.

The Port of Houston — the endpoint of the Keystone XL pipeline — is a major diesel export center (Photo: Louis Vest)

Sometimes it’s easiest to let the opposition speak for themselves, so here’s what our “friendly neighbors to the north” really hope to gain from their pipeline:

I am very serious about selling our oil off this continent, selling our energy products off to Asia. I think we have to do that.

Stephen Harper, Canadian Prime Minister – February 10, 2012

Well, not all of it’s going to be exported.

Lee Terry, U.S. Congressman – February 7, 2013

For Alberta, the strategic imperative is that we get our products to the ocean, so that we secure global prices for our products. The solutions are additional pipelines to the West Coast, to the East Coast, to the Gulf Coast, and also train-car delivery of bitumen and oil products to the coast.

Ken Hughes, Alberta Energy Minister – January 3, 2013

We have a duty to ensure that our resources, especially Alberta oil and gas, get to new markets at a much fairer price. We absolutely must find ways to get Alberta oil to multiple customers around the world and get a competitive price.

Alison Redford, Alberta Premier – January 24, 2013

Any effort to restrict market forces on commodities like oil and natural gas is a North Korean style model of economics and has no place here in America. Having the flexibility to export more should there be an occasional surplus of supply would go a long way to help reduce our trade deficit.

John Felmy, American Petroleum Institute Chief Economist – February 3, 2012

Long term, our strategy has always been to get Canadian heavy crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Bill Klesse, Valero CEO and Chairman (Valero is a major refiner contracting for Keystone XL) – March 10, 2011

“Main products [of Valero’s Port Arthur, TX hydrocracker project] are high-quality diesel and jet fuel for growing global demand for middle distillates” and it is “Located at large, Gulf coast refinery to leverage existing operations and export logistics.”

Protesters march on the National Mall during February’s “Forward on Climate” rally (Photo: 350.org)

Valero investor report slideshow – September 15, 2012

Is it all going to be used in the U.S. by U.S. consumers? No. Most of it will be, but it will be available for export.

Charles Drevna, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers President – January 31, 2012

 “No, I can’t do that.”

Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s President for Energy and Oil Pipelines (Response to Rep. Ed Markey’s question of whether he would support an export ban on Keystone XL’s refined products.)– December 2, 2011

Shippers on the Keystone XL Pipeline have contracted for access to the [US Gulf Coast] market for their oil sands production and refining needs. Not only will this directly benefit these shippers, it will also provide a benefit to all [Western Canadian] heavy crude producers by increasing the price they receive for their crude, as well as providing significant pipeline capacity to an alternative market.^[x]

This past weekend, something remarkable happened — more than 35,000 people came to Washington D.C. from all over the country to make sure President Obama heard our message: take action on climate, reject the Keystone XL pipeline. So, was President Obama listening while we took to the streets in the dead of winter? It’s hard to tell. While thousands of Americans marched in the cold to call for action on climate, the President was in Florida ‘on the green’ with leading figures in the Texas oil and gas execs. For most Washington insiders this can be chalked up to par for the course, but for a president who has stressed the urgency of addressing climate change this is a bogey.

Share on Facebook to add your support for wildlife threatened by climate change and dirty energy.

An Invitation to the President

The President’s golf game got us to thinking, how willing is he to check out things from our perspective? Jim Murphy, National Wildlife Federation’s senior counsel and tar sands campaigner, issued an invitation:

“President Obama, we realize that this is how business gets done in Washington, which is why we’d like to formally invite you to trade in your golf spikes for some hiking boots. So next time you’re down in Florida, come with us on a tour of the Everglades, where wildlife like sea turtles and Key Deer are losing crucial habitat due to climate change. Or if you’d like something closer to home, hang out with us at Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, one of the country’s best waterfowl habitats that’s facing catastrophic sea level rise.  We can’t promise a caddy, but we guarantee it will be a lot of fun.”

President Obama says he’s serious about combating climate change, but he needs to show his commitment by rejecting Keystone XL. If 40,000 people marching in Washington D.C. wasn’t enough to make our message loud and clear then we’ll get louder.  This past week is just more evidence that we need to raise our voices to make sure he is standing up for people and wildlife.

Share this photo on Facebook to stand up for wildlife at risk from Keystone XL and the climate crisis>>

On Sunday, the National Wildlife Federation and our supporters took part in the largest climate rally in history. And that’s exactly what it felt like: being a part of history. Over 35,000 people came out in the blistering cold to show their unwavering devotion and commitment to our planet and its wildlife. Thousands of us stood in solidarity to push the most powerful man on earth to stand on the right side of history.

If President Obama is serious about tackling climate change, he needs to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. Scientists have overwhelmed us with evidence that climate change is happening now and that we need to take serious steps to mitigate its effects. Wildlife all across the country are already feeling the impacts of climate change, and the upstream emissions alone from filling the Keystone XL pipeline would be equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from 6.3 coal-fired power plants or more than 4.6 million passenger vehicles. This project is moving America in the wrong direction. We have a moral obligation to protect our children’s future from climate change.  So, what do people do when they want change but their elected officials don’t, won’t or can’t: we move, we march, we build, we take action.

On February 17th, we took to the streets. In a historic moment for the climate movement we stood up and said “yes we can” solve the climate crisis. However, the fight is not over, and the President still needs to be pushed.  In order to move towards a clean energy future we need to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. Make your voice heard by telling the President that it is his turn to take action.

Share on Facebook to add your support for wildlife threatened by climate change and dirty energy.

Here are some more photos from the rally — if you attended, please add yours to the pool:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Photo: Lou Gold

How Tar Sands Impacts Our Changing Climate

Tar sands production in Canada’s Boreal Forest is fueling the climate crisis (not to mention destroying wildlife habitat in the largest terrestrial ecosystems in the world). According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has the potential to increase carbon pollution by 27 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of 6.2 million cars on the road for 50 years.  Woah! That’s a lot of emissions. This project would lock us into decades of dirty fuel dependence at the exact moment in history when we need to take serious action against a rapidly changing climate and embrace our clean energy future. We need to get it together. Our future depends on it.

What This Means For Wildlife

Scientists warn that without significant new steps to reduce carbon pollution, our planet will warm by 7 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, with devastating consequences for wildlife. The climate crisis is already changing the playing field for wildlife and urgent action is needed to preserve America’s conservation legacy, according to our new report: Wildlife in a Warming World: Confronting the Climate Crisis.

“We know what’s causing the climate changes Americans are seeing in their own backyards and we have the solutions to secure our climate and safeguard our wildlife for future generations,” said Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “What we need is the political leadership to make smart energy choices and wise investments in protecting our natural resources. We can’t leave this problem for our children and grandchildren to fix – they’ll judge us based on what we do now.”

How We Can Transform Our Energy Future

Photo: Marine Jaouen

On Sunday, February 17th, join thousands of Americans at a historic rally in Washington D.C. to protect polar bears and other wildlife at risk from climate change.

Protect wildlife from dirty fuel that is contributing to climate change!

Photo: Elvert Barnes

Only, last I checked, that hasn’t happened yet. We will hear the White House’s decision in a few short months, and here are five reasons why the country should expect a much different outcome:

1. The industry and its supporters have been wrong before

Pundits have long assumed that this pipeline was a done deal, but conventional wisdom isn’t the same as insight. Around this time last year, National Journal magazine polled “energy insiders” to see whether they thought KXL would get rubber stamped. More than 70% of these experts (I use the term loosely) said it would be approved before 2012, characterized by this sentiment:

“They’ve delayed it for a year to appease Big Green, but they will issue the permit in 2011.”

A month later, right before the massive, 12,000 person anti-KXL rally at the White House, the drumbeat was the same:

For the Obama administration, having an answer to high [gas] prices will be much more important in 2012 than it is today,” Kevin Book. managing director at the research firm ClearView Energy Partners, told CNN Money. ”We think it will get approved.”

We’re pretty close to throwing out those 2012 calendars and the pipeline still hasn’t been approved. Just sayin’.

2. Keystone XL has become a political liability

Opposition to tar sands is strong—and getting stronger (Photo: Lauri Gorham)

Asked to pick the highest priority to help solve America’s energy challenges, twice as many voters select renewable energy like wind and solar power (38 percent) than any other choice. Independents favor wind and solar over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 margin – 48 percent pick renewable energy while just 12 percent select the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and only 11 percent prioritize more oil and gas drilling on America’s public lands.

A lot of this is due to Hurricane Sandy, which was a real wake-up call to a nation that had put climate change on the back burner for a couple of years. In an article for Forbes after the release of the poll, John Zogby noted the widespread and growing concern about extreme weather:

These results show the dramatic impact 2012′s extreme weather has had across party lines, with half of Republicans, 73 percent of independents and 82 percent of Democrats saying they’re worried about the growing cost and risks of extreme weather disasters fueled by climate change.

Corporate polluters have been shouting for a while that “Americans want this project!” and so the NWF/Zogby poll may sound like a big shift in public opinion,but it’s important to recognize what these studies measure and what they don’t. The NWF/Zogby poll took into account the basic fact that we can’t have a healthy planet and more tar sands; we need to choose one or the other. Previous polls only asked “should Obama approve KXL?” and didn’t put it in the context of a choice, or weigh how strongly people felt about the issue.

Although plenty of members of Congress still plug up their ears when you talk about about global warming, the Hurricane Sandy and this summer’s drought have helped create a a new political landscape—one where extremely polluting projects like KXL are unpopular and politically risky.

3. Big Oil bet big and lost

During the election, the fossil fuel industry and its allies spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to defeat pro-environment incumbents and replace them with politicians who would maintain the pro-polluter status quo. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that firing Obama was their top priority, given the progress his administration made on things like stronger mileage standards for cars and trucks. They might as well have lit that money on fire, for all the good it did them: Mitt Romney (“I’ll approve Keystone on Day One”) lost and, as my colleague Joe Mendelson describes, Big Oil’s hand-picked Senate candidates lost nearly every race despite shattering fundraising marks.

Obama and moderates in Congress owe the oil industry no favors.

4. We don’t need Keystone XL—and we can’t afford it.

If you read my last article, you learned that the United States is already a net exporter of refined oil products like gasoline, and pipelines like KXL are intended to send oil overseas, too. Tar sands companies aren’t interested in lowering your gas bill (quite the opposite, actually) but they are interested in getting more oil out of the ground and keeping their profits rolling in. Meanwhile, the rest of us pay a steep price.

A glimpse of the future? Hurricane Sandy caused massive coastal flooding on Long Island and elsewhere. (Photo: DVIDSHUB)

Consider this: the giant international insurance company Munich Re says that climate change is “one of the greatest risks facing mankind” and estimates that extreme weather events like Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina cost North Americans over a trillion dollars since 1980. We know that climate change worsens these events, and we know that burning tar sands (or any fossil fuel) worsens climate change, so essentially when we use tar sands oil we’re raising our own taxes and insurance premiums, even if it’s not reflected in your gas bill.

Why should we pick up the tab for oil companies?

5. The next generation needs him (and us) to protect their future

Photo: David Katz/Obama For America

The President, like most fathers, cares more about the two people in the middle of this photo than he does about anything else—and that’s the most important reason he’ll reject the Keystone XL pipeline. He knows that, at its core, this is a choice about what kind of world we want to leave to our children and grandchildren, and one that has a right answer and a wrong one.

Make your voice count! Tell the White House to say “NO!” to Keystone XL and other tar sands pipelines.

Photo by Todd Powell

It’s expensive to produce, and difficult to transport. Thousands of people—from Alberta, Canada to Winnsboro, Texas to Portland, Maine—have been fighting pipeline developments in their backyards, but too often oil companies have been unabashedly ignoring the environmental and health concerns that residents and scientists alike share about pipelines and the development of this dirty fuel.

However, the conversation is changing, and this time it’s including voices that TransCanada, Enbridge, and other corporate tar sands giants can’t ignore. In addition to the investor action this week, markets showed a case of the jitters over tar sands in two separate incidents last week. Both major tar sands pipeline companies, TransCanada and Enbridge are under tight scrutiny and being watched closely.

When TransCanada announced it was shutting down the original Keystone pipeline over a safety concern, oil prices bounced downward for several hours. And when NWF issued a report that was critical of Enbridge’s operation of the aging Line 5 Midwest pipeline, NASDAQ noted Enbridge’s stock dipped downward.

Reining in Growing Giants

“Oil sands development is the fastest growing industrial source of GHG emissions in Canada, projected to approximately double by 2020.” -Environment Canada, Canada’s Emissions Trends, July 2011

Alberta Tar Sands

“When Wall Street says there are serious problems with tar sands development, it should send a clear message that betting on a dirty oil future is a loser for everyone.”

Make your voice heard! Take Action to protect climate and wildlife from the development of the dirtiest fuel on the planet!

Wealthy polluters are pouring unprecedented millions into advertisements in an effort to influence this election. Ordinary Americans who care about conservation and wildlife may not have the deep pockets of polluters, but they are speaking out.

Just this week, NWF’s Campus Ecology Program released a report: A Student’s Guide to How Corporate Oil, Gas and Coal Money Influences U.S. Energy Policy. Which is about—you guessed it—how polluters have bought their way to the front of the line on Capitol Hill. The effort is teamed up with Energy Action Coalition’s “Power Vote,” which aims to register youth and first time voters who want a say in our energy future.

Checking the Ads

Anyone who watches Mad Men knows advertisers are plugged into our psychology. How do we know what the truth is? Political transparency has become an issue on more and more radar screens, especially after Citizens United v. FEC. But how can you find out the truth during this election cycle? You’re in luck, there’s an app for that.

It’s called the SuperPACApp, and is available for iPhone users. It’s the Shazam for political advertisements. The phone listens to the ad and within seconds reports on:

1. What group funded the ad;
2. How much it costs and
3. Information on the accuracy of the ad.

This app makes the unprecedented spending on political advertisements more transparent—allowing the viewer to gain clarity on what they are actually watching and where it is coming from.

So the next time your eyes start glazing over after yet another attack ad, break out your iPhone. But be careful, you might find yourself looking forward to the next commercial break, just not for the reasons the oil industry wants you to.

Here are some other great resources that peel back the curtain on dirty money:

• Campus Ecology Report
• Sunlight Foundation
• Dirty Energy Money
• Center for Responsive Politics