Today marked the release of the the new Environmental Impact Statement from the State Department regarding the KXL pipeline. All I can say is: wow. Seriously, how can this EIS say the negative impacts of the pipeline and still give a neutral “recommendation”?
Of course: “The new review acknowledges the increased climate impacts of Canadian tar sands, but it remains woefully inadequate in its consideration of the effects the proposed pipeline would have on Americans’ climate, water, air and health.”
I live my life with the saying (maybe motto) “Intent vs. Impact”. It seems to me that the State Department needs to think more about the impact of their inaction rather than their intent to please all parties. Whose lives are being negatively impacted from cradle to grave in this project? For some reason, I don’t think it’s anyone who wrote or approved the supplemental EIS.
Good Reads: Mike Brune tells it like it is. The New York Times explains the basics of the 2,000 page document in a little under a page (and links you to the EIS!).
With the release of the last (extremely flawed) EIS came the comment period- so here we are again. “Publication of the document next week starts a 45-day public comment period and then a protracted review before a final impact statement is issued, meaning a presidential decision on the project is still months away.”
Who’s going to join me again in Austin to tell the State Department that we don’t approve of the EIS nor the pipeline?
In solidarity,
J
Climate Feminist 