Pressure for President Barack Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline increased after a State Department report played down the impact it would have on climate change, irking environmentalists and delighting the project's proponents. Obama is under pressure from several vulnerable Democratic senators who favor the pipeline and face re-election at a time when Democrats are scrambling to hang on to control of the U.S. Senate. The project looms over the president's economic and environmental legacy. --Roberta Rampton and Jeff Mason,
Reuters 1 February 2014
The Keystone XL, a mundane pipeline project that escalated into a bitter proxy war over climate change and North America's energy future, moved one important step closer to reality on Friday. The State Department, in its final environmental review of the project, concluded that the pipeline, which would carry crude from the Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries on the Texas Gulf coast, would not – on its own – have a “significant” effect on carbon pollution. The finding came as a bitter disappointment to environmental groups and some Democratic members of Congress, who had urged Obama to reject the pipeline. The climate scientist James Hansen said building Keystone XL would be “game over” for the planet. --Suzanne Goldenberg,
The Guardian, 31 January 2014
President Barack Obama is sticking to a fossil-fuel dependent energy policy, delivering a blow to a months-long, behind-the-scenes effort by nearly every major environmental group to convince the White House that the policy is at odds with his goals on global warming. The division between Obama and some of his staunchest supporters has been simmering for months, a surprising schism that shows the fine line the environmental community has walked with a Democratic president who has taken significant steps on climate change, and the recalcitrance of Obama’s White House when it is criticized, even by its allies. --Dina Cappiello and Matthew Daly,
Associated Press, 30 January 2014
The State Department has just released a final environmental impact report on Keystone XL which appears to downplay the threat and greatly increases the odds that the Obama administration will approve the project. If approved and built, it looks like the United State is failing to take climate change seriously by virtually guaranteeing the massive Canadian oil sands reserved are exploited. That, I'm afraid, is the real threat of Keystone XL – the loss of US status as a global leader. If the president won't protect us, who is he protecting? --Michael Mann,
The Guardian 31 January 2014
A coalition of industry heavyweights on Thursday launched what its calling a do-or-die campaign to influence the regulation of U.S. energy production. Seventy-six business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Gas Association, have agreed to dedicate necessary resources to “vigorously participate” in every facet of President Obama’s effort to tackle climate change through regulation, said Karen Harbert, president of the Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. American Gas Association President Dave McCurdy, a former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, said the coalition would need to protect a single-minded push toward renewable energy production. --Ben Goad,
The Hill, 30 January 2014
Stephen Harper will take his campaign for the Keystone XL pipeline to the presidential level during mid-February meetings with Barack Obama now that a key hurdle has been removed for White House approval of the project. The development ushers in a new phase of Canadian diplomacy for a $5.3-billion project that has become the defining issue for Canada-U.S. relations today. A new U.S. State Department environmental report released on Friday appeared to give a green light to Keystone XL when it predicted the pipeline would have little impact on greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian oil sands. Mr. Obama had previously said he wouldn’t approve the project if it contributed to global warming. --Steven Chase, The
Globe and Mail, 1 February 2014
Climate change deniers are headless chickens, Prince Charles has claimed. In an inflammatory speech, the heir to the throne spoke out against ‘the barrage of sheer intimidation’ from what he described as powerful interest groups. He said: ‘It is baffling that in our modern world we have such blind trust in science and technology that we all accept what science tells us about everything – until, that is, it comes to climate science. All of a sudden, and with a barrage of sheer intimidation, we are told by powerful groups of deniers that the scientists are wrong and we must abandon all our faith in so much overwhelming scientific evidence.” --Rebecca English,
Daily Mail, 1 February 2014
Benny Peiser, of the climate-sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the attack as aggressive and contentious. ‘This is not unusual or surprising as he has made these claims many times over the years. But the irony is that in doing so he, Charles, is the mirror image of the very climate change deniers he attacks,’ he said. ‘It is not about being a climate change denier, as he says. ‘It’s just that people are becoming more sceptical about the extent of climate change. One of the reasons the Queen and the Royal Family are so loved is that they steer clear of such issues. His aggressive words indicate a certain insecurity and intransigence that will not go down well with the public.’ --Rebecca English,
Daily Mail, 1 February 2014
Climate change deniers are nothing more than a "headless chicken brigade", Prince Charles claimed today. His comments were met with scorn by climate change sceptic Dr Benny Peiser, of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, who argued "alarmist" predictions from people such as the Prince were more in keeping with headless chickens. Dr Peiser accused the Prince of confusing people who are against the policies being put forward to counter climate-change with those who do not believe it is happening. He said: "A headless chicken is normally someone who is running around panicking, who doesn't really understand what's happening. I think he really confuses people like us who are critical of the policies being advanced. We are sceptical about the alarmist predictions of what is going to happen." --Owen Bennett,
Daily Express, 1 February 2014
A year ago I wrote to the FT challenging an article by Edward Luce in which he claimed that “the reality of global warming is starker than four years ago – in most respects alarmingly so.” This drew a sharp response from Professor Chris Rapley of the Department of Earth Sciences, at University College London. He ended his letter by saying that “the UK has many climate experts” to whom I can turn. I would prefer to be able to turn to those who are more modest about their claims and who do not express themselves as “confident” about things which are still subject to doubt. --Lord Turnbull, Financial Times, 31 January 2014
