Pipeline opponents: Trade-offs fall short
WASHINGTON — Foes of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada to Texas, said on Thursday that an expected White House package of proposals to combat climate change was not an adequate trade-off for approval of the controversial project.
Tom Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund investor and environmental activist, said news that President Obama would reveal a climate-change strategy in the coming weeks, including curbs on power plant emissions, would be meaningless if the pipeline goes ahead.
“The idea of a trade here is very confusing and not logical,” Steyer said at the introduction of a social media campaign to engage Obama's grassroots supporters to ratchet up pressure to reject the pipeline.
Steyer's campaign is ramping up weeks after supporters of the pipeline began their own media blitz urging the White House to approve the TransCanada Corp project.
Heather Zichal, Obama's energy and climate policy adviser, said on Wednesday that the president would use the federal Clean Air Act to clean up the country's power plants, which account for nearly 40 percent of domestic emissions.
The pipeline would link Alberta's oil-sands production with refineries and ports along the Gulf Coast. The pipeline would transport about 830,000 barrels per day and cost some $5.3 billion to construct.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.