Keystone XL activists can’t get their story straight

Just days after the NRDC released a “report” proclaiming that there will be a “a flood” of oil sands into the United States and a “dramatic increase in the use of tar sands – derived gasoline in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states,” – flip flopping completely on their fundamental anti-Keystone XL talking points by the way – billionaire anti-Keystone XL activist Tom Steyer has just released a television ad which says exactly the opposite.

Steyer’s ad, which he claims will air nationally on MSNBC before and after President Obama’s State of the Union speech Tuesday, rehashes one of his oldest and already debunked talking points: that the oil sands transported by the Keystone XL pipeline would bypass the United States and be exported to China.  In making this argument, the ad states that while TransCanada says “the oil will help make America energy independent […] Keystone means more profit for investors like China, more power for their economy, and more carbon pollution for the world.”

Now this is very telling language: Steyer is essentially saying that under his delusional idea, China will benefit from energy independence, “more profit for their investors” and “more power for their economy.”   So in order to make his argument work, he has to admit that Keystone XL has numerous benefits – economic growth and energy security – and that America would be missing out on those benefits if the oil is shipped to China.  And we all know that his ultimate goal is to keep oil sands out of America at all costs, yet his entire argument hinges on China, instead of the United States, getting the benefits of Keystone XL.  Is your head spinning yet?

Now about his bogus claim that oil sands would go to China via Keystone XL: first, as we’ve said many times, the State Department has already thoroughly debunked that argument.  Second, it’s if we don’t build Keystone XL that Canadian oils sands could likely be shipped to China.  Just last month, the Globe and Mail published an article explaining that “Asia will be the prized customer for crude oil in Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.’s plans to nearly triple its Trans Mountain pipeline capacity from Edmonton to the West Coast.”  In other words, if Keystone XL isn’t built, Canada will have greater incentive to ship its oil sands via other pipelines and then export the oil to China and other Asian markets.  And China doesn’t have the stringent environmental standards of Canada or the United States so sending it to China would actually mean, as Steyer puts it, “more carbon pollution for the world.”

Anti-Keystone XL activists can’t get their story straight. They want to tell us that there will be a “flood” of oil sands in the United States while at the same time telling us that all the oil sands will be shipped to China via Keystone XL.  They want to tell us that Keystone XL won’t bring benefits to the United States but in order to make their China argument work, they have to tell us that Keystone XL brings economic growth and energy security to whomever is the recipient.

Sorry folks, but you’re clearly trying to have your cake and eat it too – and you just got caught.

Speak Your Mind