Frankly, I’m not betting the farm on Obama vetoing the bill, particularly if Republicans in exchange go along with his cherished hike in infrastructure spending, designed precisely to create jobs. As the article says, even his Democratic base is split on the pipeline, at a time when jobs truly are THE issue in this election.

The case for a veto no matter what is, I believe, stronger. Politically, he shows backbone and principle, can blast Republicans for the same anti-job position they want to pin on him, and secures the grassroots support he so desperately needs from his environmental base, the same base he has mutilated into apathy with other antagonistic ecodecisions.

But then again, on the subject of backbone and principle, the president has been quite convincing of late that he doesn’t have any when it comes to climate change. The signs are anything but reassuring.

The U.S. was one of the countries that most blocked progress (even simple steps) at Durban. Obama’s new all-or-nothing energy policy proudly includes record hikes in American oil and gas exploration. And when he “killed” Keystone, I’ve warned earlier that we would be ill advised to celebrate much, so absent from his statement was any mention of climate change. Now, if he was willing to turn on the climate at these crucial moments, what makes us think he’ll stick to the Keystone decision in the face of potential political risk?

The writing is all over the wall, folks. This man has simply abandoned the climate in favor of his reelection. He fails to see the political, historical and economic value (to him!) of standing up to the Republicans on this all-important issue. So don’t let his support of cleantech fool you. On Keystone, we simply do not know which way he’ll go.

The government of Iran spent the most on promoting fossil fuel consumption in 2010, doling out $81 billion in subsidies. This equaled more than 20 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Saudi Arabia was a distant second at $44 billion. Rounding out the top five were Russia ($39 billion), India ($22 billion), and China ($21 billion).

Kuwait’s fossil fuel subsidies were highest on a per capita basis, with $2,800 spent per person. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar followed, each spending close to $2,500 per person.

Carbon emissions could be cut in scores of countries by simply eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. Some countries are already doing this. Belgium, France, and Japan have phased out all subsidies for coal, for example. As oil prices have climbed, a number of countries that held fuel prices well below world market prices have greatly reduced or eliminated their motor fuel subsidies because of the heavy fiscal cost. Among those reducing subsidies are China and Indonesia. Even Iran, which was pricing gasoline at one fifth its market price, dramatically reduced its gasoline subsidies in December 2010 as part of broader energy subsidy reforms.

In contrast to the $500 billion in fossil fuel supports in 2010, renewable energy received just $66 billion in subsidies — two thirds for electricity generation from wind, biomass, and other sources, and one third for biofuels. Not only do fossil fuel subsidies dwarf those for renewables today, but a long legacy of governments propping up oil, coal, and natural gas has resulted in a very uneven energy playing field.

A world facing economically disruptive climate change can no longer justify subsidies to expand the burning of coal and oil. The International Energy Agency projects that a phaseout of oil consumption subsidies by 2020 would cut oil use by 3.7 million barrels per day in that year. Eliminating all fossil fuel consumption subsidies by 2020 would cut global carbon emissions by nearly 5 percent while reducing government debt. Shifting subsidies to the development of climate-benign energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal power will help stabilize the earth’s climate.

This data highlight is adapted from World on the Edge by Lester R. Brown. For more data and discussion, see the full book at www.earth-policy.org.

Yes, it’s great that the pipeline is dead, and everyone from Bill McKibben and 350.org to every single demonstrator who got this done by leading the charge against the project against all odds, deserves our sincerest and most heartfelt congratulations and gratitude. It really would have been game over for the climate had the pipeline gone through.

But as we get past the celebration and refocus on the hard work ahead to ensure that the game is won in the end, it’s crucial to note what the president’s Keystone statement says about our chances for victory. And it’s not one bit encouraging.

Two things stand out. First, there’s not a single mention of the climate threat as one of the motivations behind the decision, when in fact it should have been the MAIN motivation. He blames it on the administration’s inability to meet the arbitrary Republican deadline.

What??!! Are you kidding me? You mean to say he would have gone along if Republicans had been more lenient and agreed to more time? This alone raises a huge red flag, the same he raised with his stance at Durban, where the U.S. shocked everyone with its inexplicable foot dragging and outright opposition to any significant progress.

Second, Obama once again boasts about his perplexing all-of-the-above energy policy, which includes the support of domestic oil, gas and coal in addition to renewables. Congratulate me, he seems to say, because oil and gas are up in America, alongside increases in solar and wind.

This is simply mind blowing. The planet risks an end-of-the-world scenario in a few decades with today’s runaway climate change and record increases in carbon and methane emissions. The latest science is the scariest yet, saying we’re this close to passing the dreaded 2 degree C temperature rise, and dreaded indeed it is. Avoiding that threshold already requires a herculean task, which leaves zero room for NEW fossil-fuel generation that locks in tipping-point emissions for decades more.

So why is the president of the United States, the same one who once promised with inspiring passion to halt the rise of the oceans, feeling great about today’s increase in oil and gas production? That’s the alarming part of his statement, the fact that this is something he is PROUD of, not something he apologetically laments being cornered into by politics.

No, he’s not sorry at all. Not one iota. He is concerned solely, it seems, with enhancing our security by ending the country’s reliance on foreign oil and replacing it with an all-of-the-above American menu. His often stated concern over climate change, we are then led to think, must be blurred by the 1990s assumption that we have a long time to solve this mother-of-all problems.

Mr. President, we do not have that luxury. You have to stand for the end of fossil fuels TODAY. Stopping Keystone helps, but you can’t stop there. When you signed up for the job, you told us you knew damn well that you would be the final president with any chance at preventing irreversible climate change. If you lose this year, we all know your Republican successor will lose the game in regulation, so we’re still cheering for you, because you may still be able to pull it off, even if it takes double-overtime. But not like this, Mr. President.

Not like this.

But this rejection from the US state department is only a temporary setback for TransCanada, the developer, and not a definite “no” to the pipeline. As a result of a legislative standoff in 2011, where Republicans forced a final decision-deadline on the pipeline plan within 60 days, the state department didn’t have the time to do a full and proper investigation. And thus the Keystone XL pipeline was rejected by the state department.

President Barack Obama acknowledges this and blames the denied permit on the Republicans. According to Obama the rejection by the state department “is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline”:

“As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.”

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security,” Obama said.

TransCanada has announced that they are “disappointed” by the outcome but that they are still “fully committed” to the Keystone XL pipeline project:

“This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project,” said Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. “We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

Several Republicans have criticized Obama for the rejection of the pipeline. Mitt Romney, one of the front-runners in the 2012 Republican primary, have said the decision shows a “lack of seriousness” when it comes to bringing down unemployment in the US. “President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs,” a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said. And Republicans in Congress have proclaimed that they will try and put forward new legislation to push the Keystone XL pipeline project forward, the Guardian reports.

But it’s interesting to note that the US state department concluded in their report that the Keystone XL pipeline “is unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employment” levels. The report also concludes that the pipeline would make little difference to economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term in the US. According to the report only around “5,000 to 6,000 direct construction jobs” would be created because of the Keystone XL pipeline. And these jobs “would last for the two years that it would take to build the pipeline”.

So we can now be sure on a couple of things. The Keystone XL pipeline has only been temporary stopped. TransCanada will re-apply, and most likely they will get their permit a couple of months after the presidential election. Barack Obama doesn’t acknowledge the dangerous effects the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands will have on our environment and climate. He would gladly approve the pipeline project today, if that was possible. If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline will only create a few thousands temporary jobs and it will not help the US reach energy independence or energy security. And if the tar sands are exploited, it would only result in the destruction of our climate.

Kent claimed that the Kyoto protocol “will not work” when China and USA is not participating and that the global climate change agreement doesn’t “represent a way forward for Canada”.

“As we said from the outset, the Kyoto Protocol did not represent the path forward for Canada”, Kent said in a statement to the House of Commons.

“Before this week, the Kyoto Protocol covered less than 30% of global emissions. Now it covers less than 13% — and that number is only shrinking. The Kyoto Protocol does not cover the world’s two largest emitters – the United States and China – and therefore will not work.”

The Kyoto protocol, Kent said, would force Canada to implement “radical and irresponsible action” that would result in “the loss of thousands of jobs.” Kent also expressed criticism against Canada’s obligation under the protocol to transfer about $14 billion to poorer countries to help them to mitigate and respond to the effects of climate change.

And so the conservative government in Canada ignores both the economical differences between the North and the South as well as the historical responsibility Canada has when it comes to climate change.

“The Harper government has imposed a death sentence on many of the world’s most vulnerable populations by pulling out of Kyoto,” said Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema.

But why is Canada really withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol? The Canadian government blames it on USA for not being part of the global climate treaty, saying it stops Canada from competing economically on the world market. But others say that the real reason is Canada’s climate killing tar sands.

“One of the reasons that Canada is not meeting its goals is because it has opted not to hobble oil-sands production — in fact, the government has encouraged it. And although many sectors of its economy have drawn down emissions, the tar-sands industry has more than made up for those drops. So Canada was faced with a choice: money from tar sands or climate change. It’s choosing climate change.”

Back in Europe, another conservative government led by PM David Cameron has secretly been helping Canada to push its dirty and deadly tar sands project on EU markets. Conservative governments and politicians around the world are busy trying to delay the implementation of climate policies and now even abandoning the world’s only global climate treaty. At the same time socialistic governments are trying to device the “radical” changes needed to confront the climate crisis. Such as the red and green coalition in Denmark which has set plans in motion to completely end their reliance on fossil fuels.

So what does Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol mean? Considering the fact that Canada has increased their greenhouse gas emissions with nearly 20% since 1990 they never really were a part of the Kyoto protocol anyway. So for the climate crisis it doesn’t do much difference. But future UN negotiations will certainly become even more polarized and the mistrust created will surely delay, or in worse case even sabotage, efforts to secure a global climate deal for 2020 and beyond. But one thing that is painfully clear now is that a legally binding climate deal does not guarantee countries won’t ignore or walk away from their commitments.

“It may be true, as many say: the ultimate goal of a comprehensive and binding climate change agreement may be beyond our reach – for now,” Ban Ki-moon said.

The UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa, were supposed to end this past Friday night after nearly two weeks of negotiations. But the talks continued long into Sunday night with the delegates desperately trying to come up with at least some sort of agreement to avoid another COP15-style failure. In the very last hour the delegates managed to agree on a deal. This outcome was largely thanks to three powerful women politicians, one of them being EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard.

And so the 17th climate summit ended with an agreement that at least the EU believes commits all major developing countries such as China, USA and India among others, to accept legally binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately these binding targets won’t come into force until 2020, or even later in worst case. So basically, “the deal saves the talks”, but not the climate.

By waiting till 2020 to enforce cuts in greenhouse gas emissions our leaders have successfully ignored the 2 degrees target, which scientists regard as the final upper limit of safety against irreversible climate chaos, and set us on a path towards an increase of 4 degrees in global temperatures. Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International, said that “delaying real action till 2020 is a crime of global proportions” and that this delay would mean a 4 degrees temperature increase.

“This means the world is on track to a 4C temperature rise, a death sentence for Africa, small island states and the poor and vulnerable worldwide. The richest 1% of the world have decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice the 99%.”

Greenpeace International director Kumi Naidoo said that “the chance of averting catastrophic climate change is slipping through our hands with every passing year that nations fail to agree on a rescue plan for the planet.”

But not everyone agreed that the Durban deal was a failure. Chris Huhne, the UK’s secretary of state for energy and climate change, was a bit more optimistic and said that COP17 was a “significant step forward“.

“For the first time ever we have a process within the [UNFCCC] where there are regular reviews of the scientific evidence and seeing where the commitments of countries are. [...] Up to now we have not even had a commitment to [be guided by] the scientific evidence,” he said. “If you talk to the Russians, they will tell you their scientists say there is no global warming.”

Ban Ki-moon welcomed the outcome and said that the deal is “essential for stimulating greater action and for raising the level of ambition and the mobilization of resources to respond to the challenges of climate change.”

“Taken together, these agreements represent an important advance in our work on climate change,” Ban said, calling on countries to “quickly implement these decisions and to continue working together in the constructive spirit evident in Durban.”

We made it. EU’s strategy worked. We got a roadmap that marks a breakthrough for international fight against climate change. Good night.

— Connie Hedegaard (@CHedegaardEU) December 11, 2011

So what’s in the Durban deal? Reuters has a good rundown on what was agreed on this past week during COP17. If you can handle the dry legal language you can find the final texts here. The text talks about a process to “develop a new protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force that will be applicable to all Parties to the UN climate convention.” What the terms “legal instrument” and “agreed outcome” really means for a future climate deal is still pretty uncertain. It wouldn’t surprise me if countries will use these unclear terms to delay much-needed action on climate as the UN process develops. The delegates in Durban also made little progress on the much-needed Green Climate Fund.

“The Durban talks made headway on agreeing the design of Green Climate Fund to channel up to $100 billion a year by 2020 to poorer nations, but achieved little on establishing where the money will come from to fill it”, Reuters writes.

Celine Charveriat, director of campaigns for Oxfam, said that “governments must immediately turn their attention to raising the ambition of their emissions cuts targets and filling the Green Climate Fund.” If countries doesn’t quickly intensify their emissions cuts “we could still be in store for a 10-year timeout on the action we need to stay under two degrees [of temperature increase],” Charveriat said.

So despite the delegates reaching an agreement in the very last hour, and then some, this was another COP failure. But what would you expect from a summit which received minimal media attention and interest from world leaders? Our climate will die while we’re busy saving the banks and a failed economic system.

The proposed plants would theoretically eliminate the problem. The two desalination plants that are being proposed here would produce 150 million gallons of water per day, which would be enough for 300,000 homes. So, what is the issue with desalination plants?

Firstly, they are an eyesore on the landscape. The plants are huge in their construction and way more noticeable than, say, your average garage door. Aesthetics aside, desalination plants are also responsible for the death of many fish eggs and larvae. They dump millions of gallons of brine back into the ocean, which can also hurt fish, and they need MASSIVE amounts of energy in order to function properly.

Obviously, not everyone supports these plans. Joe Geever is the California policy coordinator for the Surfrider Foundation. According to Geever, “It raises all kinds of red flags.” Further, the two countries are already disagreeing on how the water would be allotted, and negotiations are not going well. Desalination is expensive, so there are other plant proposals that are on the drawing table.

One suggestion has been to set up a plant in Southern California, in Camp Pendleton. Another water company wants to build a plant in Huntington Beach. However, California laws and regulations are very strict. Regulations are not as strict in Mexico, and it is hoped that by 2020 the desalination plants would be built, which would lessen the dependence on the Colorado River.

Mark Watton is the general manager of the Otay Water District, which might purchase 20 million gallons of water per day from Consolidated’s Mexico plant. According to Watton, “The Mexicans will ask all of the same questions that we ask here, but it’s not endless lawsuits. … You get a quicker answer.”

What are your thoughts on the proposed desalination plants? Is there an easier or more environmentally friendly solution?

Join in the discussion in the comments below and/or share the piece.

Australia is a leading country for annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution, coal exports and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Thus “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge exported CO2 pollution is included). Indeed the data for 2010 indicate that Australia’s annual domestic plus exported GHG pollution is 64 tonnes per person per year, 71 times greater than the per capita GHG pollution of Pakistan.

In 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) has already used up its share of this terminal GHG pollution budget and is now stealing the entitlement of other countries including acutely global warming-threatened countries such as Somalia and Bangladesh.

Australia’s disproportionately huge annual per capita GHG pollution weans that Australia is disproportionately contributing to a avoidable deraths in the Developing World due to a worsening climate genocide. Thus both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that only about 0.5 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming. Noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050 (UN Population Division) , these estimates translate to a climate genocide involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including roughly twice the present population of particular mainly non-European groups, specifically 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis (see “Climate Genocide”).

However in look-the-other-way Australia it is business as usual (BAU). The 2 major political groupings, Liberal-National Party Coalition Opposition (the Libs) and the Labor Government (the Labs) have essentially the same climate change inaction policies of “5% off 2000 greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 2020″ coupled with unlimited expansion of coal and gas exports that will mean that Australia’s domestic plus exported GHG pollution will, relative to 2000, roughly double by 2020 and quadruple by 2050 (see this). The Greens are pro-environment but only have about 14% of the vote and are detested by the major parties and the mainstream media, particularly the climate change denialist Murdoch newspapers that have 70% of newspaper readership in Australia.

On 4 October 2011 The Age On-line National Times (owned by the Fairfax media organization) published a critique of the Greens by John Matthews (strategist at “Loop Branding” and writer for “ArtKritique”) entitled “”Greens should come out of the forest” (see: Greens should come out of the forest ; see also this).

Key quotes from this nonsensical article: “You know there’s a problem with a brand when your competitors use it as shorthand for all that’s bad. So when Liberal frontbenchers spit out the phrase “Green-Labor government” as an expletive you can bet they’re pretty sure the “G” word carries negative connotations that will have their supporters grinding their teeth in rage. Right now the Green brand is a problem… If we look across the spectrum of politics and consider what makes the Greens different today we see it’s not their environmental politics. Belief in climate change is mainstream to all bar a few shock jocks, the odd snarling, cynical, right-wing bully and Tony Abbott. You can believe in the need to take action on global warming and not vote Green. Which sparks the question — so why would we?”

The Age kindly published my rebuttal of this absurd article:

“Green” is universally identified with a pro-environment stance, and the defence of our common, vital, natural environment and its irreplaceable ecosystems against destructive greed and private profit. However a related generality is Green defence of human social environments (human ecosystems) against amoral greed.

Accordingly, apart from the marginalized but ethically very sound Socialists, the Greens are the only significant political group realistically and honestly defending the sustainability and richness of both non-human ecosystems (the environment) and human ecosystems (human societies).

John Matthews’ assertion that “You can believe in the need to take action on global warming and not vote Green” is manifestly incorrect. Both the Liberal-National Party Coalition Opposition (the Libs) and the Labor Government (the Labs) have essentially the same climate change inaction policies of “5% off 2000 greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 2020″ coupled with unlimited expansion of coal and gas exports that will mean that Australia’s domestic plus exported GHG pollution will, relative to 2000, roughly double by 2020 and quadruple by 2050.

The Greens pragmatically support, as a carbon-pricing “first step”, Labor’s dishonest and counterproductive Carbon Tax (Treasury modelling says it will actually INCREASE Australia’s domestic GHG pollution) – ergo vote 1 Green and put Labor last.”

I could have added that before the 2010 elections the middle-of-the-road National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) conducted a survey of the policies of the major political parties on 40 issues in 7 major areas. Overall the Greens scored 100%, the ALP 53% and the LNP 23% in the NTEU survey. All anti-war, pro-environment, anti-racism, pro-Planet and pro-Humanity folk will vote 1 Green (indeed if you Google the phrase “vote 1 Green” you will get 543,000 results with articles containing this opinion of Dr Gideon Polya ranking items 1-5 on page 1).

The environmental policies of the Greens are a quantum jump above those of the do-nothing, BAU Lib-Labs and the social policies of the Greens are in agreement with the views of about half the Australian population. The Socialists have similar pro-environment and pro-Humanity polices but are more rigorous and less pragmatic than the typically middle class Greens. Sensible, pro-environment, pro-Humanity Australians – and indeed like people worldwide – have little choice but to vote 1 Green or to vote 1 Socialist.

Some members of Congress have reported that the Republican party continues to undermine environmental protection. The Congress members stated that the GOP is trying to allow for more toxic pollution, increased waste, and fast consumption of resources.

The Energy and Commerce Committee in Congress is where a large part of all these decisions occur. The House Republicans argue that having environmental controls will affect the nation’s economy and jobs, even though the evidence of this is absent.

While we are on the threshold of the fiscal year 2012, there are a few developments to be aware of. The U.S. EPA and the Interior Department are both subjects of a bill that will create deep cuts. The bill (H.R. 2584) involves getting rid numerous restrictions on environmental regulation. Measures to protect human and environmental health with the Clean Air Act and others are in danger of being phased out.

The Republican majority-run House has voted 20 times against regulating emissions linked to climate change. It includes 10 votes taken about House Bill 910 that would permanently strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The bill passed the House in April but has since stalled in the Senate, which means that it is in danger of the mercy of the Republican leaders who were involved with other similar measures.

The house has also voted against measure to protect the public from the effects of air and water pollution as well as mountain top removal for at least 28 times. The evidence of public health being affected by these things is overwhelming, but the Tea Party in the House continues to push recklessly for a compromised environment and future; effectively trying to close the garage door on the conversation.

The two Democrats who reported the EPA and Interior Department cuts had other matters discussed that followed the same pattern. 27 votes were taken “to undermine protection for public lands and coastal areas,” including passage in May of a bill (H.R. 1231) to allow leasing on the East and West coasts of the United States.

This allows for the public beaches and other treasured areas on the coasts to be owned by anyone to do as they please. This means that when one entity chooses to pollute over property that they bought, then it can leak into public areas such as beaches and the owners would not be held accountable. The horrors of the BP oil spill in 2010 are still fresh in our minds, and this bill would allow for similar environmental issues that may be even closer to the coastal areas where people live.

The American public has no benefit from the Tea Party. The Tea Party chooses to pick and choose what they want to believe in about how major corporations will affect everyone else even though this has been shown to be detrimental in the long term. If the American public wants to do something for the future of the nation, the citizens of the USA need to be informed better and the GOP needs to be held accountable for their decisions.

It can make all the difference for everyone’s well-being if they understand the real facts behind the pieces of legislation instead of the rhetoric and propaganda constantly pushed by the GOP. Legislators should represent the people and the future of our nation’s environment. The environment and public health depend on the public choosing their legislators wisely.

The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system that will transport oil from Canada to refineries in the United States and then expand to the U.S Gulf Coast. The U.S Department of State has extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest. The Obama administration has the final say in approving the pipeline. A final environmental review of the prospective project is expected from the State Department in August.

The Partnership to Fuel America campaign is the first time the U.S Chamber has overtly aligned with the Canadian company’s project. According to the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, it will be “comprised of American businesses and industries that understand the need for more energy in the United States and believe that Canada’s significant resources can help achieve that goal.” When visiting The Partnership to Fuel America’s website, the only source of energy listed at Canada’s tar sands, and most listed are directly related to the Keystone XL project.

This particular pipeline is controversial because it is a tar sands pipeline, it’s different than those that carry conventional crude oil. These lines are much more prone to leaks and spills, and spills are bad for the environment. Because this is a tar sands pipeline, the oil that is extracted is different. Tar sands can be mined and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. The bitumen in tar sands cannot be pumped from the ground in its natural state; instead tar sand deposits are mined, usually using strip mining or open pit techniques, or the oil is extracted by underground heating with additional upgrading.

This type of oil is more acidic, thick and sulfuric than conventional crude oil. It is up to sevety times more viscous than conventional crude oil. It also contains fifteen to twenty times higher acid concentration, and five to ten times as much sulfur as conventional crude oil. The additional sulfur can lead to the weakening of pipelines. Imagine having to transport a glass of water in a paper cup by driving out of your garage door to the other side of the country without even a spill. The chemical composition also makes it much more difficult for monitors to detect a crack in the pipeline.

The Keystone I pipeline has infamously spilled twelve times in under a year of operation. The company had initially claimed that the pipeline would leak only once every seven years. Finally, after the tar sands oil does spill, cleanup is harder than normal crude spills. A year after a spill in Western Michigan, one reporter stated that surface skimmers and vacuums were no help, and a full year later, EPA officials and scientists were still working on a plan to remove submerged oil from about 200 acres of river and lake bottom. They now believe a full clean up could take years.