I was very impressed with this letter. It was a comment on an article I had read and it pretty much sumes up the way I feel. An article that I have posted talks about the other pipelines that are found in that same area. If so why do we need another pipeline, why not tap into one that exists. We have done so much harm to the earth, as it is, do we need to kill it and our chances for survival.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Dear President Obama:
During your election campaign in 2008, you spoke eloquently about the
need for a "new energy future," one unencumbered by addiction to
foreign oil and marked by investment in "alternative" sources of energy,
such as solar power, wind turbines, geothermal power and wave
generation. You vowed that, if elected President, you would push
strongly for investment in these areas. You reiterated this point again
in the powerful State of the Union address that you delivered in 2010.
Throughout
your Presidency, you have repeatedly claimed that, although fossil
fuels and nuclear power are, in your view, parts of the energy picture
for the foreseeable future, you are a strong believer in and advocate
for the development of energy alternatives, not only in order to
decrease America's dependence on foreign oil, and not just because of
the enormous potential for jobs and economic growth that investment in
the alternative energy sector could provide, but also because of the
necessity of reducing, immediately and drastically, the amount of CO2
being added to the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels. Global
warming is an urgent problem of global proportions, as you argued
during your election campaign, and as you have repeated at times during
your presidency. Your action requiring American car manufacturers to
raise fuel efficiency standards is an acknowledgement of the seriousness
of the problem and a significant move in the right direction.
That brings me to the Keystone XL pipeline for transporting bitumen from Alberta's oil sands to Texas to be refined.
Bitumen,
or "tar," is a viscous, sticky oil-like substance that has been used
for centuries as an adhesive and building material, but not as oil,
because it is not the same as crude oil. To be burned like oil it first
needs to be mixed with lighter hydrocarbons. It is nothing like "light
sweet crude," the oil in reserves in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq,
Venezuela, etc. The process of transforming bitumen into liquid fuel
requires energy for steam injection and refining, a process which
generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of
final product as the "production" of conventional oil.
Alberta's
"tar sands" contain something like 85% of the world's reserves of
bitumen, an amount that equals the world's total reserves of
conventional crude oil. This kind of resource has only recently become
thought of as profitable. It requires huge inputs of energy and water,
but as conventional crude becomes more scarce, it will undoubtedly only
become more profitable to extract unconventional oil and natural gas.
The
reason why we have come to this point is because we have passed the era
of peak oil. That is to say, global production of conventional oil has
peaked and is now on the decline. We have passed through the era of
easy oil - reserves that could be tapped simply by drilling into the
ground, and releasing the pressure holding the oil in place - and into
the era of difficult oil. This is why we are now drilling for oil 5
miles beneath the surface of the ocean, which is what led to the BP
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This is why the government of Canada is
now so actively pursuing the extraction of oil from the Alberta Tar
Sands.
But Canada has no refineries capable of transforming bitumen
from the tar sands into usable liquid oil anywhere near where the
resource lies, beneath Alberta's boreal forests. Hence, the Keystone XL
pipeline project, to bring the bitumen to the refineries of Texas to be
transformed into a product the oil companies can transport and sell.
For
months, thousands of Americans of every political persuasion bombarded
the White House with demands that you reject this pipeline, which would
carry the oil through the Ogalalla Aquifer, the groundwater resource
accessed by eight U.S. states, from South Dakota to Texas, for drinking
water. The project has been opposed by Republican governors, ranchers,
farmers and civilians of every kind, as well as many environmental
groups. Of course, you have also been lobbied intensely by the Canadian
government and by oil industry representatives, for this project to go
forward.
Many breathed a huge sigh of relief when, a month ago, you
declared no decision on the pipeline this year. Now, however, it seems
that, thanks to your political opponents in Congress, the issue has been
raised from the dead and you must, again, issue a decision on it in the
near future.
When considering what decision to make, keep in mind
that this project isn't just about job creation or the economy. Yes, it
would create a relatively small number of short-term jobs, and yes, it
would increase profits for the oil industry, which some feel convinced
somehow benefits everyone else as well. But it would also create, not
just temporarily, but in the long term and for the foreseeable future, a
drastic increase in greenhouse gas emissions just when we need to be
working hard to achieve the exact opposite.
More to the point,
approval of this pipeline represents a strong and enduring commitment to
the very sources of dirty energy that you so eloquently and forcefully
argued against as a presidential candidate.
This is a watershed moment.
If,
as many Americans have loudly and clearly demanded, you stand by your
promise to veto this project, you will reinforce your commitment to a
clean energy future and a definitive move away from reliance on foreign
oil.
If, on the other hand, you cave to the pressure of oil industry
lobbyists and political calculations, you risk not just losing the
support of Americans concerned about the environment that carried you
into office, but also the health of our natural resources and the
balance of the global climate. Make the right choice.
Sincerely,
Seth Needler
Professor of Environmental Science
Portland Community College
Portland, Oregon
No comments:
Post a Comment