I wasn't going to even deign Obama's speech with a mention, but this
headline from RT reveals the hypocrisy of Obama and his speech about
'tackling' climate change carried uncritically by the corporate
media.
Try
“we'd better tackle climate change – that's why I'll approve the
Keystone XL pipeline” (sic)
Obama's
environmental speech indicates Keystone XL pipeline to be approved
President
Barack Obama’s environmental speech outlined his second term plans
to reduce carbon emissions and boost renewable fuels, but the
controversial Keystone XL pipeline may soon be approved
RT,
25
June, 2013
The
president’s address at Georgetown University detailed his agenda to
tackle global warming, but environmental activists may be
disappointed to hear Obama's plan on the obscure pipeline project
that has triggered rallies and protests from environmentalists across
the US and Canada.
A
YouTube video preview of the president’s speech depicts an oil
refinery, not a coal-fired plant. Obama then announces his upcoming
“national plan to reduce carbon pollution.” Obama will put the
Environmental Protection Agency in charge of drafting a plan to set
carbon emission limits on US power plants by June 2014. The EPA would
also be in charge of finalizing plans for carbon limits on new power
plants..
“We
already set limits for arsenic, mercury and lead, but we let power
plants release as much carbon pollution as they want,” one official
told Reuters.
The
White House is expected to issue its final verdict regarding the
Keystone pipeline in September or October. Today Obama said that
building the pipeline will only serve US interests if it doesn't
significantly exacerbate problem of carbon pollution. Given the State
Department's recent conclusion that the Keystone XL would have small
impact on climate and tar sands, Obama's words seem to hint that the
project will be approved soon.
The
Keystone XL pipeline would transport oil sands bitumen from Canada to
the Gulf Coast, stretching through the entire United States. Critics
warn that constructing the pipeline would lead to drilling in
Canada’s oil sands, thereby releasing large quantities of carbon
dioxide that would further harm the atmosphere. Former NASA
researcher and climate scientist James Hansen told the New York Times
that the Keystone pipeline would be “game over for the climate.”
There
has been speculation that the president would sign off on the
project, despite the extensive opposition against it and his plans
for clean energy. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson allegedly told
anonymous sources that the president would sign off on it in the
spring, but he has not publicly made a decision on it. Some
Republicans and businesses argue that the pipeline would create jobs
and help the economy, and a recent Pew Research survey found that 66
percent of Americans who know about the pipeline support its
construction.
But
climate activists say it would make little sense for the president to
approve the pipeline, since it would counter his plans for clean
energy
“I
do think that if they’re serious about carbon, and then they let
Keystone go, it’s pretty hard to figure out what’s going on
because the two are so in conflict,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
(D-R.I.) told Politico.
Some
environmentalists remain hopeful that the president will disapprove
of the pipeline, despite his recent lack of discussion on it.
“The
president is a logical man, and hence it would seem so odd to take
two steps forward and then two back,” anti-Keystone activist Bill
McKibben told Politico. “And I’m certain he understands that KXL
is the environmental fight of our time, the place where he’ll be
finally judged.”
A
senior administration official told Reuters that a decision on
Keystone has not been made, but the president’s lack of comment on
it may indicate that his decision may go against the will of
environmentalists.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.