I think President Obama just said that Keystone XL WILL be approved.... [View all]

[Junkdrawer]

But Junk, you say, the President just said that Keystone XL should not be approved if it will increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions. How can you facilitate the most carbon intensive fuel on the planet and NOT increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

Let's look at what the President said exactly:

...

Here’s what he said:

I know there’s been … a lot of controversy surrounding the proposed Keystone pipeline that would carry oil from Canadian tar sands down to refineries in the Gulf. And the State Department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal. That’s how it’s always been done. But I do want to be clear: Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.

It seems obvious that Keystone XL would significantly increase carbon emissions by encouraging development and facilitating transport of the dirtiest fossil fuel on earth — tar-sands oil. But in its draft environmental impact statement on the pipeline, the State Department asserted otherwise.

The U.S. EPA says State is wrong and argues that Keystone would notably boost greenhouse gas emissions. Even Canadian tar-sands boosters say Keystone is needed in order to increase oil production: “Long-term, we do need Keystone to be able to grow the volumes in Canada,” Steve Laut, president of big oil company Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., said last month.

....

http://grist.org/news/obama-will-ok-keystone-only-if-it-wont-increase-carbon-emissions/

So I believe he's signaling that he's going to go with the State Department on this. And the DOS has been saying that the pipeline may actually reduce greenhouse gasses. How? Well....

...

How would the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline affect production
of Canadian oil sands?

Some suggest that the Keystone XL pipeline would not
substantially influence either the rate or magnitude of oil extraction activities in
Canada or the overall volume of crude oil transported to and refined in the United
States. This finding is supported by DOS in both the August 2011 Final EIS and
the March 2013 Draft SEIS, which states, “construction of the proposed Project
is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the development rate of the [Canadian]
oil sands, and that even when considering the incremental cost of non-pipeline
transport options, should the proposed Project be denied, a 0.4 to 0.6 percent
reduction in [Canadian] production could occur by 2030.”37 This view is based
on the assumption that Canadian oil sands crudes would find other ways to
market, including the construction of new pipelines, the switching of existing
pipelines, or the use of tankers, rail cars, or trucks. The choice of transport could
also affect the levels of GHG emissions in the sector (e.g., some suggest that the
life-cycle GHG emissions from the sector would increase if rail cars and trucks
were substituted for pipelines). Others contend that the lack of transport
infrastructure and the price discount it occasions has already affected production
of the oil sands crudes and, if continued, would further depress investment and
development in the region, significantly curtailing the sector’s GHG emissions.38

...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42537.pdf

IF you assume that the oil will make it to market one way or another, then a pipeline beats, say, trucking it or shipping it.

Clever, no?