Reposted from ENERGY BULLETIN (http://www NULL.energybulletin NULL.net/stories/2011-06-04/silence-deadly-i%E2%80%99m-speaking-out-against-canada-us-tar-sands-pipeline)
The U.S. Department of State seems likely to approve a huge pipeline, known as Keystone XL (http://www NULL.foe NULL.org/keystone-xl-pipeline) to carry tar sands oil (about 830,000 barrels per day) to Texas refineries unless sufficient objections are raised.
The scientific community needs to get involved in this fray now. If this project gains approval, it will become exceedingly difficult to control the tar sands monster. The environmental impacts of tar sands development include: irreversible effects on biodiversity and the natural environment, reduced water quality, destruction of fragile pristine Boreal Forest and associated wetlands, aquatic and watershed mismanagement, habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, disruption to life cycles of endemic wildlife particularly bird and Caribou migration, fish deformities and negative impacts on the human health in downstream communities.
Although there are multiple objections to tar sands development and the pipeline, including destruction of the environment in Canada, and the likelihood of spills along the pipeline’s pathway, such objections, by themselves, are very unlikely to stop the project.
An overwhelming objection is that exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts. The tar sands are estimated (e.g., see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (http://www NULL.ipcc NULL.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg3_report_mitigation_of_climate_change NULL.htm)) to contain at least 400 GtC (equivalent to about 200 ppm CO2). Easily available reserves of conventional oil and gas are enough to take atmospheric CO2 well above 400 ppm, which is unsafe for life on earth. However, if emissions from coal are phased out over the next few decades and if unconventional fossil fuels including tar sands are left in the ground, it is conceivable to stabilize (http://pubs NULL.giss NULL.nasa NULL.gov/cgi-bin/abstract NULL.cgi?id=ha00410c) earth’s climate.
Phase out of emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix, it is essentially game over. There is no practical way to capture the CO2 emitted while burning oil, which is used principally in vehicles.
Governments are acting as if they are oblivious to the fact that there is a limit on how much fossil fuel carbon we can put into the air. Fossil fuel carbon injected into the atmosphere will stay in surface reservoirs for millennia. We can extract a fraction of the excess CO2 via improved agricultural and forestry practices, but we cannot get back to a safe CO2 level if all coal is used without carbon capture or if unconventional fossil fuels, like tar sands are exploited.
A document describing the pipeline project is available here (http://www NULL.keystonepipeline-xl NULL.state NULL.gov/clientsite/keystonexl NULL.nsf?Open). Comments, due by 6 June, can be submitted here (http://www NULL.keystonepipeline-xl NULL.state NULL.gov/clientsite/keystonexl NULL.nsf/CommentFset?OpenFrameSet), or by e–mail to [email protected] (keystonexl null@null cardno NULL.com) or mail to Keystone XL EIS Project, P.O. Box 96503–98500, Washington, DC 20090–6503 or fax to 202–269–0098.
I am submitting a comment that the analysis is flawed and insufficient, failing to account for important information regarding human–made climate change that is now available. I note that prior government targets for limiting human–made global warming are now known to be inadequate. Specifically, the target to limit global warming to 2oC, rather than being a safe “guardrail,” is actually a recipe for global climate disasters. I will include drafts of the following papers that I recently co–authored:
- Paleoclimate Implications for Human–Made Climate Change that can be found here (http://arxiv NULL.org/abs/1105 NULL.0968),
- Earth’s Energy Imbalance that can be found here (http://arxiv NULL.org/abs/1105 NULL.1140), and
- The Case for Young People and Nature that can be found here (http://www NULL.columbia NULL.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople NULL.pdf).
I will also comment that the tar sands pipeline project does not serve the national interest, because it will result in large adverse impacts, on the public and wildlife, by contributing substantially to climate change. These impacts must be evaluated before the project is considered further.
It is my impression and understanding that a large number of objections could have an effect and help achieve a more careful evaluation, possibly averting a huge mistake.
James E. Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology. In 1988, Hansen’s testimony before the US Senate was featured on the front page of the New York Times and helped raise broad awareness of global warming. Hansen’s work has inspired scientists and activists around the world to fight for climate change solutions. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on several occasions has led to his arrest. In 2009 his book, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity (http://www NULL.amazon NULL.com/Storms-My-Grandchildren-Catastrophe-Humanity/dp/B004A14W0E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301427631&sr=1-1) was published.
Copyright 2011 James E. Hansen
Content on this site is subject to our fair use notice (http://www NULL.energybulletin NULL.net/fair-use-notice).
Energy Bulletin is a program of Post Carbon Institute (http://postcarbon NULL.org/), a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping the world transition away from fossil fuels and build sustainable, resilient communities.
 mailto:[email protected]