Oil Change International

Exposing the true costs of fossil fuels

Kerry’s State Department Ignored Obama’s Climate Action Plan

us-state-kxl-co2-scenarios-In 2009, President Obama made a commitment to reduce U.S. greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020.  The Obama administration put this forward as the U.S. share of a global effort to limit climate change to no more than two degrees Celsius – the target scientists tell us may be safe.  Achieving this target, which has been unanimously agreed on a global level, is central to the success of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, announced in June of last year.

It is therefore shocking to realize that the State Department completely failed to take this target into account when evaluating the climate impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The State Department’s Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (FSEIS) of the Keystone XL pipeline used three future U.S. energy scenarios developed by the Department of Energy.  None of these scenarios modeled a world in which the United States meets its stated goal of limiting climate change to less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 F), despite the fact that even these flawed models revealed that the carbon impact of the pipeline could equal as much as 5.7 million cars each year.

In fact, all of the scenarios used by the State Department result in emissions that put us on a path to 6 degrees C (11 F) of global warming according to the International Energy Agency  (IEA). IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol described 6 degrees as nothing short of “a catastrophe for all of us.”

This failure to integrate the nation’s climate goals into environmental reviews seems to run deeper than the State Department.  The flaw, it seems, extends at least to the way that the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) models its future energy scenarios, which hasn’t changed at all to take the President’s Climate Action Plan into account.

The EIA does a remarkable job of monitoring and forecasting the vast energy supply and demand of the United States. But beyond simply measuring greenhouse gas emissions from America’s energy sector, the EIA does not provide a scenario of what America’s energy demand and supply should look like in an economy in which the United States achieves its climate goals.

By avoiding any consideration of climate safety, the State Department report is blindingly clear on one point, if only by implication: the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not compatible with a climate safe world.

President Obama was absolutely right to decide to evaluate the Keystone XL pipeline on its climate impact.  In order to make that decision, and evaluate future infrastructure projects in an informed way, the President needs his Administration to evaluate projects on the basis of the nation’s climate goals.

At the very least, modeling what U.S. energy flows look like in a climate safe world should be one of the options presented to the Secretary of State and the President. Currently it is not.

While the State Department should have asked: “Will our efforts to meet climate objectives be hampered if we build Keystone XL?” the State Department’s report only manages: “In a future of inevitable catastrophic climate changes will Keystone XL make things significantly worse”?  That’s like asking on an already sinking Titanic if it would sink even faster with yet another hole in the hull.

The good news is that although we can all see the iceberg ahead, there is in fact enough time to turn with hopefully only a few scrapes. Just. Apparently the crew needs to start believing that turning the rudder hard will make a difference.

 

-Barry Saxifrage, Christopher Hatch, Lorne Stockman and Stephen Kretzmann all contributed to this piece.  For full details on the original analysis, go here.

 

Comments (9)

  1. Alec Johnson says:

    This article proves yet again, what an invaluable tool your website and organization is supporting activists, like myself, in the field. I’m very grateful!

    Alec Johnson,
    Tar Sands Blockade

  2. Doug Grandt says:

    THIS is exactly the chart that I have been searching for … Thank you. This is THE issue I have been focused on, along with a lack of transparency and non-disclosure of the basic assumptions in the WORLD model.

    My letters are archived at http://bit.ly/StateNoKXL

    Good work! ;-D

  3. Harriette Jensen says:

    Does the State Department not know that we will all be toast at 6 degrees of climate warming or are they content to assign us all to the 6th degree of hell?

  4. Ruth Morton says:

    6 degrees of global warming is a horrible future for our children and not necessary if we act now to do what we know is right!

  5. A Siegel says:

    It really is mind-blowing that the State Department analysis simply didn’t even provide one scenario in its examination that aligned with the President’s (e.g., the Department of State’s boss?) climate goals.

    As put a little while ago, “What if the State Department assumed that the United States ought to continue?” (http://getenergysmartnow.com/2014/02/02/suppose-the-state-department-assumed-that-the-united-states-ought-to-continue-nokxl/)

    EIA’s problems are long-standing. They operate according to a rule set that assumes business-as-usual, including that technology somehow doesn’t advance. Their numbers, for example, re renewables have consistently been far below what is actually achieved.

  6. Carole Jones says:

    This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. We need air to breath and land to grow. We don’t need a Pipeline nor more oil . We {Americans} won’t survive long enough to use the all important oil you feel we should have.
    Concentrate on the all important and essential
    items first. Change our World !

  7. Laura portillo says:

    Please don’t

  8. Patty Aulik says:

    So grateful for this exposure and for the intelligent comments here.

  9. Michael says:

    President Obama said in his first presidential campaign that he supported wind and solar and went on to point out wind turbines manufactured in Indiana and harnessing the prairie winds which blow ceaselessly over our heartlands create jobs which can not be shipped over seas!! And solar would be high on his list when elected!! Now is the time to turn away from chasing every last drop of oil and turn to wind and solar!! Tar sands imported from Canada support the endless folly of fossil fuels. THIS IS A MAJOR TURNING POINT Please turn to clean energy!! Put all the materials need to build this pipeline into wind turbines instead !! They use no water use no fuel and have no emissions!!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>