E' un tubo da LINCOLN,
Neb. — The nearly decade-long battle over Keystone XL has come to
symbolize much more than what the disputed pipeline would actually be: a
subterranean tube, 36 inches in diameter, carrying crude oil from
Canada to Nebraska.
So
when state regulators here said Monday that the project could proceed,
their decision was initially seen as a hard-won validation for President
Trump and the American laborer, and lamented as a grave threat to
pristine farmland and the groundwater below.
But
while Monday had been expected to provide a clear and final answer on
Keystone XL’s future, it may have only created more uncertainty. The
regulators in Nebraska rejected the pipeline company’s preferred route,
approving the project only on an alternate path. TransCanada, the
pipeline company, later issued a short statement that did not say
whether it would move forward with construction, leaving people on both
sides of the issue unsure of how to react.
“They
do not get their preferred route, the route that we have been fighting
in courts over for eight years,” Jane Kleeb, the longtime leader of
Nebraska’s anti-pipeline efforts, said of TransCanada. “What is wrong —
and what we will continue to fight — is that this pipeline is still on
the table.”
Over
the course of two presidencies, Democrats and environmentalists have
stood against the pipeline at every turn, making it a potent emblem of a
broader battle to stave off climate change and protect drinking water,
an effort that included the mobilization of thousands of protesters last
year to oppose a different pipeline in North Dakota.
Continue reading the main story
Just
as persistently, Republicans, business groups and labor unions have
long pressed the Keystone XL proposal as a proxy for wider goals of
creating jobs and expanding the energy sector. Some of them saw Monday’s
decision as a boost for those efforts.
Tim
Huelskamp, a former Republican congressman from Kansas now working for
the Heartland Institute, a conservative group, released a statement
calling the approval a sign that “no longer do fake environmental
concerns hold up projects such as these.”
Karen
Harbert, an official with the United States Chamber of Commerce, said
she was “pleased that the project has cleared this final hurdle” but
that TransCanada still needed to decide whether to move forward.
“This
industry is a very practical industry, and they have learned over time
that it’s not necessarily in your best interest to take a big victory
lap knowing that the path forward is still fraught with problems,” Ms.
Harbert said. If TransCanada is “going to give the greenlight to this,
they’ve got to make sure they’ve got a pathway there to actually build
it and operate it.”
The
newly approved route for the pipeline is slightly longer and brings
potential challenges for the company, which would need to negotiate new
easements with landowners not along the preferred route. TransCanada had
already paid many landowners along the preferred route for access to
their properties.
TransCanada
officials declined an interview request. The company’s president, Russ
Girling, said in a statement that it would “conduct a careful review”
and assess “how the decision would impact the cost and schedule of the
project.”
Monday’s
decision was hardly the first time that Nebraska, a conservative state
with an independent streak, has muddied the prospects of Keystone XL,
which would run more than 1,100 miles from Alberta, Canada, to southern
Nebraska and connect there with existing pipelines. Permits and land-use
easements had long been in place along the pipeline’s route through
Canada, Montana and South Dakota, leaving Nebraska as the last major
obstacle to construction.
In 2011, an uproar led TransCanada to reroute its proposed path around the state’s ecologically sensitive Sandhills. Later, President Barack Obama used a case pending before the Nebraska Supreme Court
as a reason to delay deciding on a federal permit. Mr. Obama later
rejected that permit, citing climate change, but Nebraska opponents
remobilized this year when Mr. Trump resurrected the project.
In
recent days, with the Nebraska decision looming, many of Keystone XL’s
opponents here pointed to a spill last week of 210,000 gallons of oil
from another TransCanada pipeline in South Dakota as a grim example of
what was at stake.
“They’re
going to rape and pillage our soil,” said Art Tanderup, whose farm near
Neligh, Neb., is along the approved route, and who once hosted an anti-pipeline concert on his land featuring Willie Nelson. “We will do everything in our power to make sure it doesn’t happen.”
But
supporters of the project have long touted its economic benefits, and
seemed to win over the majority of the Nebraska Public Service
Commission, the regulatory board that voted 3-2 to approve the alternate
route.
The
three commissioners who voted to approve the permit, all Republicans,
said in a written opinion that they were very cognizant of the “impacts
to the natural resources of the state,” but that there was “no utopian
option” and that building the pipeline would bring needed tax revenue to
rural governments.
The
approved route enters Nebraska at the same spot and leads to the same
end point as the company’s preferred option. But in between, the
alternate route veers east to follow the path of an existing pipeline, a
switch that regulators say could make emergency responses to either
pipeline more efficient.
Opponents
of the Keystone XL pipeline, including many farmers and ranchers, had
packed the small hearing room on Monday for the announcement. When the
vote was tallied, some landowners learned that their land would no
longer be on the pipeline route and voiced relief. Others discovered
that a path through their property had been approved.
Even
before the decision, some questioned whether there would still be
enough interest among oil shippers to support the pipeline. But
TransCanada reiterated its support of the project in early November. “We
anticipate commercial support for the project to be substantially
similar to that which existed when we first applied for a Keystone XL
pipeline permit,” a company statement said.
But now the company must consider the new route, the potential for new legal challenges and a different political landscape.
Last year, thousands of protesters gathered near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation to protest the Dakota Access oil pipeline’s path
through North Dakota, at times clashing with law enforcement. Since
then, smaller demonstrations have targeted pipeline projects in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Texas. Activists have vowed to assemble again if construction ever begins on Keystone XL.
“One
thing we’ve learned through this whole process is we take our victories
as we can get them, no matter how big or how small,” Randy Thompson, a
Nebraska rancher who has been among the most visible pipeline opponents,
said on Monday. “And this today is another victory for us because the
damn pipe is not in the ground, and they said 10 years ago they were
going to have it in the ground.”
**
Obama vieta l'oleodotto delle Tar Sands oggi 24 Febbraio 2015
Le proteste servono.
L'informazone serve.
**
Represent us, the people, not Big Oil.
Reject any attempt to revive the pipeline.
Per aggiungere la propria firma qui
ZIP=CAP
La camera USA e' in questo momento a controllo repubblicano. Come ben noto, il cosiddetto GOP (grand old party) e' in generale abbastanza conservatore su vari temi sociali, non crede ai cambiamenti climatici, ed e' a favore del creazionismo.
Spesso sono amici dei petrolieri e tendono a minimizzare sulle questioni ambientali, anche se ci sono delle eccezioni con i personaggi piu' moderati, come ad esempio Arnold Schwarzenegger a suo tempo.
E cosi, quando Obama decise di bocciare il famoso oleodotto delle Tar Sands, a dicembre, il Keystone XL che doveva partire dal Canada, tagliare in due l'America, e arrivare fino in Lousiana, i politici amici del petrolio non si sono dati per vinti.
Infatti hanno deciso di presentare una mozione per risuscitare l'oleodotto e se la sono votati oggi. Nella mozione anche la possibilita' di riaprire i mari USA e il cosiddetto "Artic National Wildlife Refuge " in Alaska alle trivelle.
Ci si aspettava che il voto finisse cosi, proprio perche' la Camera e' a controllo repubblicano.
Ma quel che succedera' in Senato, che invece e' a controllo democratico, sara' abbastanza interessante da seguire.
Innanzitutto si era deciso di discutere e di votare anche questa mozione risuscita-oleodotto al Senato oggi stesso, 16 Febbraio 2012.
Ma ecco che entrano in scena gli attivisti, che altro non sono se non una serie di persone normali che cercano di fare quel che possono.
Sono venuti a sapere di questo voto con 24 ore di preavviso. Ma si sono attivati e attivati per davvero, con tutta la furia possibile, Internet, proteste a Washington, bloggers, celebrita' e persone famose, si sono tutte date da fare chiedendo alla gente di firmare la petizione. Tutti assieme.
Hanno deciso un target di 500,000 firme. Nel giro di 24 ore ne hanno invece raccolte 800,000 di firme. C'e' anche la mia li dentro.
Il risultato di tutto questo e' che il presidente Obama ha deciso che mettera' il veto a qualsiasi proposta di legge in cui si ripresenta questo Keystone pipeline. Il voto in Senato e' stato spostato di circa 10 giorni.
Gli attivisti si stanno ora dando da fare per chiamare al telefono tutti i senatori nella propria area e bombardarli, chiedendo loro di votare no al progetto, quando ci sara' il voto.
Devono sentire che chi li vota non lo vuole questo oleodotto, non lo vuole proprio.
E perche' questo oleodotto sarebbe un disastro? Perche' non fara' altro che aumentare ancora lo sfruttamento selvaggio delle Tar Sands del Canada.
Perche' attraversera' bacini idrici in Nebraska, perche' il petrolio che trasporta e' corrosivo e ci saranno possibilita' di perdite, perche' il petrolio e' il passato e non il futuro. Perche' dopo il primo oleodotto ci sara' il secondo, e il decimo e ci ritroveremo in un ragnatela di petrolio e tubi.
Vediamo che succedera', intanto ecco qui.
2 comments:
Una bella iniziativa da cui dovremmo imparare qualcosa.
Un esempio di sana e coscienziosa democrazia...di attivismo pratico e focalizzato sul bene comune e non su secondi fini...un sogno che l'Italia vive grazie solo alla Prof.ssa D'Orsogna e che dovrebbe essere invece una regola ed un dovere da parte di tutti!
Post a Comment