The Keystone XL Pipeline

Protestors have taken to the streets to oppose the construction of a new oil pipeline.  The pipeline carrying cheap oil would run over one of the largest aquifers and biggest sources of clean water in our continent, Environmentalist Bill McKibben explained on KPBS NewsHour.


On July 26, 2011, a bill passed in the House of Representatives to construct the 2,000 mile-long pipeline to run from Alberta, Canada, through the US Gulf Coast, to Texas.  The pipeline would deliver 900,000 barrels of raw Tar Sands crude oil per day.  Most Democrats voted no on the bill. 

Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson spoke in opposition to the bill and referred to the pipeline as the "Koch brothers Keystone XL pipeline."  He offered an Amendment to the bill - which did not pass though most Democrats voted for it.  The Amendment was endorsed by the National Resource Defense Council and would have required that a study be conducted on the potential new health risks associated with the new pipeline.  The type of oil to be transfered, Tar Sands crude oil, is more toxic and acidic than other crude oils.  This oil-type goes through a complex process before it becomes the gasoline running through your vehicle - payed for by you at the pump.  The complex process that the oil goes through would produce more emissions than other types of crude and would be worse for air quality.  If you live in a construction area, air quality will be even worse.  


US gas prices will also increase, says Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and especially for those whose air quality will be the most affected.  He cites TransCanada and the consultants TransCanada hired on this.  TransCanada is the company in favor of building the pipeline.  If Kucinich's Amendment had passed with Republicans (most Democrats voted for it), it would have required an investigation into the pipeline's effects on gas prices for Americans, along with an investigation to determine whether the pipline is an attempt to manipulate the oil markets.    


While Republicans claim that the XL pipeline will help decrease oil prices, documentation in TransCanada's application to the Canadian government stated that America's fuel bill would be able to rise 4 billion dollars per year by limiting crude from one place and moving it to another.  The pipeline would move the crude from the Midwest to Gulf Coast refineries.  Though the information on the increase was provided to the Canadian government it was excluded in the application for a US permit.  


Economist Philip Verleger says that there is an oversupply in the Midwest, which results in lower prices for Canadian crude oil and moving it would raise prices across the US by 10 to 20 cents per gallon.  With double the increase in 15 states (OH, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OK, SD, TN, and WI).  


The company Canada hired to evaluate the Keystone XL pipeline has stated that Midwest crude oil prices will increase by $6.55 per barrel and $3.00 per barrel across the US,  costing Americans 3.9 billion dollars every year.  The prices of other products would also rise.


Republican Rep. Less Terry says that two American companies are expanding to be able to expect the crude oil and that we'll have a reliable .7 to 1.3 million barrels per day, which will eliminate uncertainty and lower prices at the pump.  He explains that a price increase would be due to a new reliability, which would raise the value.  

Time: 2:35:15 

Foreign Lobbying for the Grand Canyon's Uranium and the Effects on Clean Water

On July 25, 2011 Democrat Rep. Louise Slaughter rose in the House of Representatives to speak against a Republican bill that would enable two foreign entities to mine for uranium around the Grand Canyon: Russia (for its state atomic energy corporation) and South Korea (for its state-owned utility).  Mining for uranium in the area would have harmful effects to the water quality of 26 million people.  Slaughter explains, their bill is specifically designed to benefit lobbyists and special interests.  The lobbyists' beneficiaries need not be forgotten.  If passed, it would be an "auctioning off" of a national treasury - plus collateral damage.


The same Republican bill cuts programs for clean air and water by 40% and it would prohibit the addition of new animals to the endangered species list, yet allow species' to be removed from the list.


In the past private companies have contaminated the Great Lakes.  The Great Lakes are 20% of the worlds fresh drinking water.  The bill would not allow the use of any funding to restore the lakes.  As with the landfill dumping in San Diego, many private companies are reckless and the bill to clean up a mess is usually left for the state to pay, an additional cost to the tax-payer - additional to the tax-payers' money appropriated to the private contract.  


Slaughter points out that the bill also affects the arts; the National Endowment for the Arts would lose 20% of its funding and the measure would likely put people out of work since money will be limited for workers' pay. The previous funding of 167.5 million dollars for non-profit art organizations has generated 166.2 billion dollars, supported 5.7 million jobs, and has put back more money into the treasury than taken out, 16.6 billion has been put back in tax revenue, Slaughter explains.   

Grand Canyon

Republican Rep. Rob Bishop says that the land in AZ was intended for mining purposes and that the mined goods will be shipped and processed somewhere else so not to worry about pollutants.  It's just fine to ship away jobs as long as it makes others sick ladies and gentlemen.  Slaughter says, the Colorado River is already endangered by uranium mines. "Adding more uranium to the water does not make sense."  Slaughter sites a NY Times article on Obama's moratorium extension, which prohibits any new uranium mining claims on one million acres around the Grand Canyon.  The article states, this extension will "protect...the drinking water for millions of people."

Democrat Rep. Edward Markey rose to say that if the bill were to pass "our air will be smoggier, our climate will be hotter, our water will be more polluted, our public lands will become more dispoiled, simply put this legislation is so toxic, so toxic that you'd better handle it wearing a hazmat suit."  Further, it would increase the infant mortality rate, add more cases of asthma, and add more harm to children and adults from toxins like mercury.  It would involve the future of many environmental crimes.

The bill cuts to a total of 78%.  The bill also prohibits the EPA in all 50 states from improving environmental standards on vehicles, which would in effect delay or stop the development and manufacturing of electric vehicles.  Markey states it's, "Good for the auto and oil industry" bad for everyone. 


The mining would expose people in the area to radiation along with anyone visiting the Grand Canyon National Park. Republican Rep. Rob Bishop claims that if some of the uranium were to get into the water used for drinking and cooking it would not be higher than the limit. A number lower than the amount considered dangerous in AZ.  


A uranium report on what unhealthy amounts of uranium in drinking water can do to the health explains that there is an increased risk of cancer over time, and that small amounts of uranium are automatically ingested and are absorbed and carried through the bloodstream.  This increases a person's risk of kidney damage.  


It's tough when mainstream media outlets obtain so much of their environmental information from a group called the George C. Marshall Institute, which is funded by large companies in oil and tobacco.  The institute fosters the ideas of the uncertainty of climate change, uncertainty of health problems associated with second-hand smoke, acid rain, and many other strange delusions based in profit pseudoscience.   

Economic Summit, San Diego, August 2011

One of the worst sewage offenders is a company called Veolia. Veolia has water contracts all around the state of California.  The company has been working on getting a water contract in the city of San Diego.  "You don't want them cutting corners with your water," said a rep. with Food & Water Watch at the Economic Summit held in San Diego, by A Better San Diego on Aug. 27, 2011.  Workers for these private companies make decent wages, but the real profit lands in the pockets of those at the top, and that's tax-money.  The all-around private contract costs more to the tax-payer than if it were to remain pubic and without the tax-payer, there would be no private contract nor public water company.  In addition, if pipes break in the city with a private entity - among other additional costs - more tax-dollars would be spent to purchase more contracts to hire people to fix the pipes; the privatization of water would cost much more to the public than if water were to remain a public entity.