Obama: Keystone pipeline must not add to global warming

Jun 25, 2013
US President Barack Obama speaks on climate change on June 25, 2013 at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. President Barack Obama signaled Tuesday that the Canada-US Keystone XL oil pipeline will be approved only if it does not increase emissions of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

President Barack Obama signaled Tuesday that the Canada-US Keystone XL oil pipeline will be approved only if it does not increase emissions of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

"I do want to be clear, allowing the Keystone Pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest," Obama said in a speech laying out a new strategy to fight climate change.

"Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of ," Obama said at Georgetown University.

The US State Department is currently preparing its recommendation on whether to approve the project.

It concluded in a draft report in March that the project would have no major impact on the environment. A final decision rests with Obama.

Obama had been widely expected to approve the project, and it was not immediately clear how his remarks on Tuesday would affect that perception.

Supporters of the pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada's tar sands to coastal Texas, insist that it would have a negligible impact on the environment.

Opponents say that Alberta's tar sands are the 'dirtiest' oil on the planet because it must be essentially melted with steaming hot water before it can be refined into useable .

The process means more fossil fuels need to be burned as part of the extraction process, which further contributes to climate change.

Explore further: Air quality in San Joaquin Valley improving according to study

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US House sends message on Keystone pipeline

May 23, 2013

US lawmakers agreed to a bill that would speed construction of a Canada-US oil pipeline and circumvent the need for President Barack Obama's approval for the $5 billion project.

Stage set for battle over Canada-US pipeline

Apr 18, 2013

A lengthy battle over the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which aims to funnel oil from Canada's tar sands to coastal Texas, heads to the most hotly contested area along the route Thursday.

Arkansas opens probe into ExxonMobil spill

Apr 02, 2013

Arkansas opened an investigation into an ExxonMobil pipeline that spilled thousands of gallons of crude and forced the evacuation of two dozen homes, the state's attorney general said Tuesday.

US to hold Keystone pipeline hearing in Nebraska

Mar 27, 2013

The US State Department said Wednesday it will hold a public meeting in Nebraska in April on a controversial $5.3 billion Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline, just days before a key consultation period ends.

Recommended for you

Water in the Netherlands–past, present, and future

1 hour ago

The storm in the Netherlands began on a Saturday afternoon in February 1953. Ria Geluk, who was 6 years old, told me that it peaked during the night when nationwide communications were on their nightly pause. ...

NASA image: Signs of deforestation in Brazil

21 hours ago

Multiple fires are visible in in this image of the Para and Mato Grosso states of Brazil. Many of these were most likely intentionally set in order to deforest the land. Deforestation is the removal of a ...

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Stephen_Crowley
1.7 / 5 (15) Jun 25, 2013
I thought the major issue is toxins and spills... not carbon emissions...
mrmortgage
2.2 / 5 (12) Jun 25, 2013
I agree with you Stephen Crowley. President Obama is a disappointment as a world leader and just playing with words as usual or maybe his teleprompter was out of sync.
The carbon dioxide resulting from the Canadian oil sands is INSIGNIFICANT on a global scale if one truly and honestly wants to talk about carbon dioxide emissions. The coal burning plants in the USA are the real bogey man that President Obama should be concerned about. Its a wonder President Obama did not trot out his old remarks about him pledging to slow down the rising ocean levels.


geokstr
1 / 5 (18) Jun 25, 2013
The carbon dioxide resulting from the Canadian oil sands is INSIGNIFICANT on a global scale if one truly and honestly wants to talk about carbon dioxide emissions. The coal burning plants in the USA are the real bogey man that President Obama should be concerned about. Its a wonder President Obama did not trot out his old remarks about him pledging to slow down the rising ocean levels.

But...but...but, wait, it's the Rethuglicans that hate science, not Obama.

Truth is, he's looking for any excuse whatsoever to stop the pipeline, and further trash the economy. His EPA started trying to bankrupt coal companies almost two years ago, as he famously said he wanted long ago. Coal provides 40% of the US electricity, and sunbeams and breeze are not ready to replace fossil fuels.

It's classic Cloward and Piven; overwhelm the system until it crashes, then seize power in the ensuing chaos. Never let a crisis go to waste, especially when you worked so hard to cause it yourself.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 25, 2013
Another excuse to destroy the economy.
Canadian companies will sell the oil to someone else, in the world, that will transport it across oceans, risky spills, and will be BURNED.
Ayn Rand was prophetic in Atlas..
Where is Galt's Gulch?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 25, 2013
Another excuse to destroy the economy.
Canadian companies will sell the oil to someone else, in the world, that will transport it across oceans, risky spills, and will be BURNED.
Ayn Rand was prophetic in Atlas..
Where is Galt's Gulch?

And the oil will be transported by rail, owned by Buffet, to the tankers.
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 25, 2013
Will the people who voted for this [insert pejorative] please stand so that you might be roundly ridiculed?
Porgie
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 26, 2013
And now the attack on coal. This will cost the country hundreds of thousands of jobs because of a geological warming trend starting in the fifties. BO has to go. Rein him in during the mid terms, vote Republican and if you can't do that, with hold your vote for the Democrat. No oil, no coal, no jobs this is a national security issue. Vote to save America.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (16) Jun 28, 2013
And now the attack on coal. This will cost the country hundreds of thousands of jobs because of a geological warming trend starting in the fifties. BO has to go. Rein him in during the mid terms, vote Republican and if you can't do that, with hold your vote for the Democrat. No oil, no coal, no jobs this is a national security issue. Vote to save America.

The Pentagon says that global warming is a national security issue.

Do you claim to know better than our best military minds?