Monstrous loads are headed down the Snake and Columbia River right now!

Exxon is currently barging massive (as in, longer than a hockey rink and heavier than the statue of liberty) tar sands equipment up the Columbia and Snake rivers to the port of Lewiston, ID. The oil industry wants to drive these huge loads of Korean mining equipment up widened scenic northwest highways to Alberta’s tar sands, to trigger massive expansion of one of the most destructive industries on earth. (See this article for a fantastic overview of the heavy haul project and its awful destructiveness)

It doesn’t seem to matter to Exxon that a federal judge has halted other shipments in their tracks in Idaho, or that concerned citizens, a U.S. Representative, and First Nation communities have voiced serious concerns about the destructive impact of the heavy hauls and the corresponding expansion of the tar sands in Alberta. Exxon thinks they can do whatever they want to increase their bottom line, even if it means blatant disregard for the will of us little people. They want to open this scenic corridor for huge, destructive traffic, and keep it open for decades to come. Such arrogance should be shocking, but unfortunately seems to be business as usual for tar sands companies.

If you’re in the Northwest, spread the word about Exxon’s arrogant behavior. Let your members of congress and local elected officials know that Exxon’s actions are unacceptable. If you’re near the Snake or Columbia Rivers and see these massive shipments go by, document them!

TransCanada: their product's not the only thing that's filthy about them

Cross-posted at Climate Crossroads

Canada may be stereotypically associated with politeness and friendliness, but one of its major oil companies is bullying and intimidating American property owners. Canadian oil giant TransCanada has told landowners along the path of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline that if they don’t sign over their land by the end of the month, TransCanada will take it by force through eminent domain proceedings.

A letter sent to a Nebraska landowner by TransCanada executive Tim Irons and obtained by the National Wildlife Federation states that the company “is constructing and will operate a 1,833 mile crude oil pipeline, which […] will cross a portion of your property.” The letter continues, asserting, “In the event we cannot reach an agreement, Keystone will use eminent domain to acquire the easement.” (emphasis added)

Such threatening language is an attempt to intimidate and silence the many landowners who have voiced safety concerns about the Keystone XL pipeline. Nebraska landowners in particular fear that a spill would contaminate the shallow Ogallala Aquifer which provides a third of the water for the nation’s crops. TransCanada is trying to trick politicians into believing the pipeline is safe, and knows that these landowners can’t be fooled. Spills from pipelines are common and harm the land and the people who depend  on it. Last month’s Enbridge oil pipeline spill of more than 800,000 gallons into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan is the latest of more than 2,500 significant pipeline incidents that have occurred in United States over the last decade, which have resulted in 161 fatalities and 576 injuries.

Such behavior on the part of TransCanada is not just an atrocious example of a foreign company attempting to turn profits at the expense of the American people. It’s also stunning evidence of the contempt and disrespect the company is showing to the U.S. government. TransCanada’s letter declares that its risky pipeline will be built—but conveniently leaves out the fact that Keystone XL has not yet received a permit for the construction of the pipeline. In fact, growing concerns about the project from Congress, the EPA, and the American people are making this approval less likely by the day. Perhaps that’s why the company’s resorting to desperate, underhanded tactics.

TransCanada should stop trying to bully landowners. The State Department can protect Americans by denying TransCanada’s permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.

**** UPDATE: 9/3 Gap, Levi- Strauss and Timberland have not specifically committed to eliminating “tar sands oil” from their fuel sources, but each have committed in their own way to reducing the environmental and social impacts of their fuels. Any action to reduce environmental and social impacts of fuel choices must consider the significant impacts of tar sands, and give preference to suppliers who avoid it, but these companies are not specifically targeting tar sands fuel for a boycott. Walgreens, however, has made an explicit move away from tar sands oil, and has directed its suppliers to source non-tar sands fuels. ****

The pen is mightier than the sword, but the purse may sometimes be mightier than the pen. Major US corporations are adding market pressure to the growing wave of opposition against tar sands expansion, giving tar sands producers a fresh reason to consider the consequences of their poor environmental street cred.

Whole Foods Market and Bed Bath and Beyond joined a list of six major Fortune 500 companies, including Gap, Timberland and Levi Strauss, committed to reducing or eliminating tar sands oil from their businesses. Walgreens also recently announced it will avoid purchasing tar sands oil to fuel its distribution network.

Federal Express also voiced concerns over the ‘environmental and social impacts’ of the fuel it sources, and committed to address them. Being the dirtiest fuel on earth, tar sands oil certainly makes the short list for these categories.

These companies are throwing the weight of their purchasing power behind the criticism of tar sands and the Keystone XL expressed by many Americans, including written letters from thousands of citizens, fifty members of Congress, and critique from major federal agencies like the EPA.

Forest Ethics, who organized the boycott campaign (and other successful efforts like it), says this is only the beginning, with a total of 13 companies expected to announce tar sands boycotts by the end of the year.

For an industry aggressively pushing to secure a leading role in the US energy market, businesses labeling tar sands oil as a “brand risk” is a major blow to the tar sands industry and its destructive practices.

As the old business adage goes, the customer is always right- and as the number one consumer of tar sands crude, US corporations and consumers need to be taking a stronger stance against products like tar sands that carry unacceptably high social and environmental costs. If consumers continue to demand a cleaner energy future, those who hope to profit from the vast American economy will have no choice but to clean up or clear out.

At the same time as these pipelines are spewing toxic oil into bodies of water around the country and around the globe, the State Department has pushed back its decision on permitting the Keystone XL project, a huge pipeline carrying extraordinarily toxic tar sands oil from Canada down to the gulf coast. On its proposed 1700-mile path, this pipe crosses over numerous bodies of water and productive farmland, and, were a spill to occur, could contaminate the largest aquifer in the Great Plains.

This week, the EPA released comments on the project’s draft environmental impact statement, compiled by the State Department. In these comments, the EPA highlights the document’s inadequate consideration of pipeline safety and spill response issues.

Since tar sands oil by itself is too thick to be transported by pipeline, it must be diluted with a mixture of chemicals. The EPA notes that these chemicals “may negatively impact the efficacy of traditional floating oil spill response equipment or response strategies” and further criticizes the fact that the EIS “does not emphasize the primary effect of an oil spill, i.e., acute toxicity to the aquatic environment.” In addition, the EPA voices concern that the higher quantity of sulfur in all tar sands oil will result in increased corrosion of the pipeline walls, making a spill more likely to occur.

The EPA also faults the State Department’s report for failing to include an Emergency Response Plan. Given the oil industry’s recent track record of pipeline safety and their demonstrated lack of preparedness to deal with spills, it would be unconscionable to allow this pipeline, with all its additional environmental and safety concerns, to go forward without a comprehensive, publicly distributed Emergency Response Plan.

In making these comments, the EPA and Administrator Lisa Jackson stand as a model of government doing its job to respond to the risks of dirty fossil fuels to our environment and to our public health. The State Department, which has just announced that it will not make a final decision on the Keystone XL project until after a final Environmental Impact Statement is released, must address all of EPA’s concerns within the revised document. Any project that could cause yet another catastrophic, toxic spill is clearly not in our national interest.

Map of the proposed route of Keystone XL

The Keystone XL pipeline, if approved, would transport toxic, high carbon tar sands oil from strip mines in the Canadian province of Alberta to refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas. Community groups, impacted landowners, and environmental organizations from all points along the proposed route have forcefully voiced opposition to increased US reliance on a fuel that is incredibly toxic and carbon intensive at every stage of its life cycle.

The EPA today joins this growing chorus of concerned voices, and with this request for more information, has temporarily stopped the clock on any final decision about the pipeline. If the State Department complies with the EPA’s request, a revised Draft EIS would be open to another period of agency and public comment, and could even be elevated to the Council on Environmental Quality in the White House.For the full comments (seriously, read them, they’re fantastic!) go here. Here are some of the highlights of information requested by the EPA:

- A broader assessment of the need for this pipeline, including a     “robust analysis of options for meeting national energy and climate policy objectives”;

- A more thorough investigation into the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project, including a consideration of Canadian tar sands development (which EPA asserts is an action clearly connected to building the pipeline and must be considered: “There is a reasonably close causal relationship between issuing a cross-border permit for the Keystone XL project and increased extraction of oil sands crude in Canada intended to supply that pipeline.”)

- A lifecycle assessment of “well-to-wheel” GHG emissions generated from tar sands (“We estimate that GHG emissions from Canadian oil sands crude would be approximately 82% greater than the average crude refined in the U.S., on a well-to-tank basis”);

- A better understanding of mitigation measures that could be taken to decrease the emissions from tar sands developments;

- An assessment of the air quality impacts of refining tar sands, and a more in-depth look at the environmental justice ramifications of these air quality concerns (“We are concerned that the Draft EIS does not fully identify and address the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority, low-income and Tribal populations.”);

- A much more thorough emergency response plan, including a consideration of the specific impacts to water bodies or a leak or spill of the chemical diluents needed to transport heavy tar sands oil (“We believe that additional efforts to evaluate potential adverse impacts to surface and ground waters from pipeline leaks or spills, including potential adverse impacts to public water supplies and source water protection/wellhead protection areas, are necessary.”);

- A consideration of the safety waiver the Department of Transportation is considering granting to TransCanada, with special attention paid to the sulfur content of the fuel and how this would impact the thinner steel which would be used if the waiver were granted (“In addition, we recommend that the State Department more clearly outline the issues associated with a request for a special permit from OPS to operate portions of the pipeline at a greater pressure than allowed under current regulations. We recommend that the sulfur content of the oil sands crude be specifically considered in making the decisions on the pipeline wall thickness.”);

- A complete assessment of all the project’s impacts to wetlands;

- A consideration of the impacts of Canadian tar sands developments on migratory birds.

Lisa Jackson and the EPA really came through big time yesterday; let’s make sure the State Department includes every one of its requests in the final EIS, and takes the time to do it properly. If we do, we’re one step closer to convincing President Obama and the State Department that the toxic costs of investing in tar sands oil are simply not in our national interest.

After more than a year of letter writing, petition signing, legislative call-in days, public hearings, lobby days and a huge conference, all involving thousands of people around the state, today the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act (for the hardcore legislative fans out there, the text of the bill can be found here) by a vote of 154 to 0. This bill requires reductions of carbon emissions of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 and between 10% and 25% by 2020.

From here, the bill, which has already passed the senate, returns there for some final merging of the house and senate versions, and heads to Governor Deval Patrick’s desk for signature. This is a HUGE victory in the state of Massachusetts, and a huge victory for the our state network, Massachusetts Power Shift, which has been a major force in pushing this bill forward. In April, MAPS held a conference and lobby day in Boston, attracting hundreds of students and adults from around the state and including high profile speakers Sen John Kerry and Rep Ed Markey.

Congrats to everyone involved in this campaign! Here’s to starting a new school year with new, bigger, more inclusive and world-changing campaigns. In the words of my favorite tv president, The West Wing’s Jed Bartlet, “What’s next?”

For decades, Cleveland, Ohio, has been the perfect symbol of a greying US economy. Consistently ranking as one of the poorest cities in the country, Cleveland has been home to massive manufacturing shut downs, declining population, and a brain drain, not to mention one of the most infamous environmental disasters in US history, the burning of the Cuyahoga river.

Given its history, Cleveland would be the last place most people would look for the beginnings of a green revolution. In fact, even as a Cleveland native, I arrived home from the East Coast for a summer of environmental organizing expecting to find a disorganized and ineffectual movement, if one existed at all. I couldn’t have been more wrong. In the past couple of weeks, I’ve seen firsthand the quiet building of a green economy.

Here’s one example of what I’m talking about. I woke up this morning to a press release from Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C), announcing the $600,000 grant from the state of Ohio to fund the school’s Green Academy, a program aimed at training residential building contractors and builders in green building techniques. The program kicks off in the fall, and the curriculum will spread statewide by the spring of 2009. Over three years, Tri-C will train over 300 builders and contractors in green design and energy efficiency.

But that’s not the only program Tri-C is working on. They are currently working with Oakland, California, on developing basic green jobs training curriculum in four other fields: deconstruction, energy retrofit, solar installation, and wind technology manufacturing. Aimed at women and prisoner re-entry, the program is intensely hands on and intensely focused on developing basic skills. Tri-C aims at an introductory class size of 150. Check out this awesome article from the Plain Dealer for more info.

The amazing thing about both of these programs is that the infrastructure is already there. Tri-C has been training in construction trades for almost 45 years. Better yet, the manufacturing infrastructure is here, sitting idle, waiting for workers to build the wind turbines and solar panels that will power the future.

I could go on and on about different programs I’m learning about, but I’ll save them for other posts. And that’s thing that’s most amazed me about Cleveland, this concept of all the pieces already being in place carries over into every aspect of a green revolution. (did you know that the city won an award for the best public transportation system in North America for 2007?). On a larger level, Cleveland may be awesome, but I bet these same pieces exist in every city, in every region across the country. We don’t need to do all the innovating ourselves. For our movement to succeed in a big way, and quickly, we need to connect the dots.