The news coming out of Nebraska

Uncategorized — the tar sands action team November 14, 2011 at 7:41 pm
We’re watching the news coming out of Nebraska closely this evening. It looks like TransCanada is agreeing to a re-route around the Sand Hills and a new Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the state of Nebraska. We’re going to be waiting on clarification from the White House on what this means for the federal process, but our understanding at the moment is that this decision does nothing to replace the need for the State Department to conduct a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the re-route, as well as a new national interest determination process that takes into account climate change and a variety of other concerns. Here’s a reaction from Bill McKibben: “We’re awfully happy that the Ogalalla Aquifer is going to be safe, and the Sand Hills, and that only leaves the entire atmosphere¬†of the planet to worry about. We’re expecting White House clarification tomorrow on the process, and what we expect to hear from them is: whatever happens with the State Department Environmental Impact Statement, there is going to be a full consideration of climate and public health issues surrounding tar sands oil before any presidential permit is granted.”  
  1. Pinkyd says:

    Nebraska citizens have the wool pulled over their eyes and are being distracted by a slide of hand by our legislators. Keep a very close eye on Nebraska! To me it looks like our legislators really want to see the pipeline built and they are going to only appease the Sand Hill lovers while still bending over backwards to kiss Trans Canada’s feet. It looks they figured out a way to use our Nebraska tax dollars to pay for a rewrite on the ESI for Trans Canada’s route thew Nebraska and a way to tack on our DEQ’s blessing so Obama will have to accept the permit.

  2. Gianangelogallace says:

    There is absolutely no way that TransCanada is going to give up. They stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars if the Keystone XL is permitted. They are now trying to ‘divide and conquer’ by attempting to appease Republicans in Nebraska who opposed the Keystone mostly because it threatened water that farmers and ranchers need. As long as there is oil in the soil in Alberta, TransCanada will do whatever it can to get the Keystone XL built. This is simply what pipeline companies do.

  3. Diane Lehnen says:

    I feel sick.

  4. Karen says:

    I hope we really watch this EIS process like many, many hawks. I think at the same time we must do all we can to disable the Tar Sands itself. I am still flabbergasted that I didn’t even know that the TS existed until a few months ago and I try to keep up with environmental issues! I thought it had yet to be started! Our society still doesn’t realize the incredible severity of climate change. How can we change this?

  5. Chad798 says:

    I am from Nebraska and I consider the reroute a win

  6. Keith B says:

    You people should do your research a bit better. The Oil Sands ( That’s right, oil, not tar) is a massive environmental disaster created by Mother Nature that has precipitated the biggest environmental clean-up in history. Oil has been leaking into the Athabasca river and surrounding areas for thousands of years, just as it does in the Mackenzie river in the Northwest Territories. Oil companies are extracting the oil from the sand, and leaving behind clean sand. Surface mining is rapidly being replaced with in situ extraction, and the carbon footprint is far less per barrel than California heavy crude. I read quotes from know-nothing enviro activists about how fracking is used in the oil sands (false), to how the Oil Sands will alter the climate (also false). If all you sheep out there can’t inform yourselves better than that and employ some sort of logic, instead of extremism and scare-mongering, then you’re lost. Keep buying your Saudi oil, keep supporting theocracies and kleptocracies. At least here in Alberta the people who extract the oil can be straight, gay, male, female, indigenous,or immigrant. You can’t say that about Arab or African producers, who use their oil revenues to brutalize and subjugate their people. Get your collective heads out of the sand.

    • Heather Garvey says:

      Whether or not we can prove that our actions are having a negative impact on the planet is not the only issue, WE SHOULD NOT RISK IT. So your claim that the oil sands just won’t alter climate, is not only ill educated, but it is also not worth the risk if you are false. Are you really 100% sure that it won’t alter the climate? Can you see into the future? I am not 100% sure of anything

      • Keith B says:

        The energy the world needs does not increase because of more available supply. So it comes down to an ethical decision; do you want energy from totalitarian, mysogynistic theocracies, or from a democratic, egalitarian supplier? Seems like a no-brainer.
        As for your climate fears, the oil sands represent 0.1% of total global carbon dioxide emissions. Where are the protesters at the coal-fired power plants in the U.S., U.K. or China? Why not agitate in support of nuclear energy? Do you people actually support anything, or do you just want us to return to the stone age?

You must be logged in to post a comment.


(c) 2014 Tar Sands Action | powered by WordPress