To Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address S. 2280, which would approve construction of the Keystone Pipeline to transport tar sands heavy oil from Canada to the gulf coast.

The key consideration is whether this bill--by authorizing the pipeline--would contribute significantly to global warming, which is already damaging our rural resources and our future economic prospects with profound consequences for families in America and around the world.

Also, are there better ways to create jobs that would enhance rather than damage our world? In the words of President Theodore Roosevelt:

Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us.

Let's start by addressing the vision that President Roosevelt put forward and examine the impact of the Keystone Pipeline on atmospheric carbon dioxide pollution and global warming.

In this chart we see, going back 800,000 years, that the carbon dioxide has gone up and down. In recent years it has been quite steady until the start of the Industrial Revolution, and then it has soared--soared above levels it has been at for hundreds of thousands of years.

In this second chart, we see that there is absolutely no question that heat--put here in blue--correlates to the carbon dioxide in red. When the carbon dioxide level goes up and down, the heat of the planet goes up and down.

By many estimates, to contain global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, humans can burn only about an additional 500 gigatons of fossil carbon. That is the fossil budget we have to work with to avoid catastrophic global warming. But currently, the world's top 200 fossil fuel companies have identified 2,800 gigatons trapped in their fossil fuel, and that doesn't include the carbon from tar sands and oil shale.

Here is the problem: To protect the planet from catastrophic global warming, we need to leave four-fifths of the identified conventional fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Building the Keystone Pipeline, which would open the facet to rapid exploitation of a massive, new unconventional reserve--the tar sands--would make it much less likely for human civilization to succeed in meeting that carbon budget that is so important to our future economic and environmental world, and that is why building the Keystone Pipeline is a grave mistake.

Global warming is not some imaginary foe embedded in some computer model with effects 50 years from now. It is here and we can see it at this very moment. The warmest 10 years on record for global average surface temperature has occurred in the last 12 years. Moreover, the effects can be seen in Oregon--and actually across the Nation. The average forest fire season is getting longer. Across the Nation, since the 1980s, the national season has grown by 60 to 80 days, and the average acres consumed annually by wildfires has doubled to more than 7 million acres. This sight has become all too familiar in our home State of Oregon.

One study estimates that global warming, through the greater impact of greater pine beetle infestations and larger forest fires, will decimate the western forest of the United States by the end of this century.

In addition, the snowpack in our Oregon mountains is decreasing, which means smaller and warmer trout streams--that is not a good thing if you love to fish--and less water for irrigation. The Klamath Basin--a major agriculture basin in Oregon--has suffered through many dry years and three horrific droughts since 2001, in substantial part because of lower snowpacks.

The red circles on this chart represent a significant decrease in the snowpack. As we can see throughout the northwestern United States--Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and stretching into northern California--there is a huge decrease in the snowpack which is resulting in devastating consequences for agriculture.

As the high levels of carbon dioxide in the air are absorbed by the oceans, the carbon dioxide becomes carbonic acid. That acid, as one would expect, makes the oceans more acidic.

This chart, which presents the carbon dioxide and the pH time series from Hawaii, presents the challenge clearly. CO2 in the atmosphere went up from 320 parts per million to about 380 parts per million over a period of about 50 years--a steady increase in carbon dioxide. We then see, with this blue set of data, that there is a parallel trend of the carbon dioxide that is in our ocean, and then we see from the light blue data that the pH level is dropping, which means that the ocean is more acidic. That is a 30-percent increase in the acidity of the ocean over a very short period of time.

The greater acidity is having an impact on sea life. One impact is on coral reefs, which are the ocean's most diverse ecosystem and the base of the ocean's food chain. Fishing families around the world depend on coral reefs as a foundation for livelihood.

Another impact is on the reproduction of oysters. The Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery in Oregon, which I visited a few weeks ago, started having trouble growing baby oysters--known as oyster seed--in the year 2008. The hatchery almost went out of business, but a scientist from Oregon State University was able to help identify and address the problem. The problem, it turns out, stems from the increase in the acidity of the Pacific Ocean. If the oyster seed, or the canary in the coal mine, is having trouble forming shells, what else is going wrong in the ocean due to rising acidity?

In summary, carbon pollution is having a direct and substantial impact on the vitality of our forests, farming, and fishing. Our rural resources are being damaged now, and the problems will multiply with additional carbon pollution. So as members of the human family on this planet, with the moral responsibility to exercise wide stewardship of our resources for future generations, we must address this challenge of carbon pollution, and we must do so now. Wise stewardship means we must leave four-fifths of the conventional fossil fuels in the ground.

Would this bill before us, which would open the facet to this massive new reserve of fossil fuels, advance such stewardship? The answer is clear. Stewardship demands that we not build infrastructure to unlock tar sands--the dirtiest source of oil on the planet.

The proponents of the pipeline have come to the floor and made interesting arguments--arguments worth examining to see if they actually hold water. First, they argue that the pipeline would create a tremendous number of construction jobs. Here is a comparison of direct construction jobs created by the pipeline--the little tiny wedge down here represents the pipeline jobs versus the jobs that would be created by the Rebuild America Act, which would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. So just 4,000 or so jobs in construction of the pipeline versus hundreds of thousands jobs from the Rebuild America Act. If anyone on this floor is actually serious about jobs, we would pass the Rebuild America Act today.

The proponents have a second argument. They say that bringing this additional oil into America would increase America's oil independence. We heard that argument just a few moments ago by my colleague from South Dakota. The argument goes that this strengthens America's national security by decreasing America's dependence on the Middle East, but that argument overlooks a fact. This is not American oil, this is Canadian oil. This is not oil destined for the United States, it is destined to be refined in the gulf coast so that it can be exported around the world. These tar sands will do no more for America than if they were exported through Canada to the world market.

In fact, if you want the oil to be used in America, the best thing to do is to not build the pipeline, because that means the area around the tar sands will be the area getting that oil. Shipping Canadian oil to the world market via America adds nothing to America's security.

The next argument from proponents is that the pipeline has no environmental effect--indeed, we just heard this argument as well--because the oil from the tar sands, it is argued, will reach the market by rail if not by pipeline. This argument is demonstrably false. There is not enough rail capacity to substitute for the pipeline, and the cost of shipping oil by rail is much higher than pipeline, greatly reducing the economic incentive for rapid development of the sands. All the while proponents say if the Keystone Pipeline is not built, alternative pipelines will be built through Canada, but that is certainly not at all clear.

If it were easier and cheaper to build through Canada, TransCanada would not be trying to build through the United States of America. Moreover, there is tremendous opposition within Canada to building such pipelines, and that is part of the reason TransCanada wanted to build it through the United States. The opposition within Canada to additional pipelines is just as fierce as it is in America for the same set of reasons--fundamentally important moral reasons--about the stewardship of our environment and our future economy. It turns out the Keystone Pipeline represents a real risk to our rural resources, our farming, and our fishing. It represents a real risk to the future health of our economy needed to sustain middle-class jobs. The pipeline itself creates very few jobs compared to a serious investment in infrastructure, and it adds nothing to our national security.

There are several other serious problems with this pipeline that have often been glossed over. For one, TransCanada is exempted from contributing to the Oil Spill Liability Fund. That is outrageous. You could call this bill the TransCanada protection act. Why are we doing a special deal for a Canadian company? Oilspills like this happen with these pipelines all the time, and they will not contribute one slim dime to the Oil Spill Liability Fund that American companies have to contribute to. Why would anyone vote for that sort of special deal for a foreign company--that irresponsible failure to contribute a single dime to the Oil Spill Liability Fund?

In addition, we are giving a foreign corporation the ability to exercise eminent domain to seize the lands of American citizens. Since when do we give power to a foreign corporation to take land away from American citizens without their desire? It is fundamentally unfair to American landowners. The legal basis for eminent domain is that there has to be a compelling public good. What is the compelling public good in this situation? Is it the generation of private profits for a Canadian corporation? That doesn't meet the test. Is it the damage from the oilspills that will occur in communities across America? That doesn't meet the test. Is it the contributory damage----

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that his time has expired.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for a minute and a half more.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MERKLEY. Is it from the damage from carbon pollution to our farming, fishing, and forests? That doesn't meet the test.

Frankly, tackling carbon pollution is going to take an enormous amount of international cooperation. Just a few days ago the United States and China entered into an agreement to address the global climate change crisis. The Chinese President announced that China would invest heavily in renewable energy to generate 20 percent of China's energy from nonfossil fuel sources by 2030, seeking to decrease China's CO2 emissions thereafter. That is the type of leadership the world has been asking for.

We can't simply wish for nations to work together. We have to negotiate and do our part. That is why today we should not be talking about how to turn on the tap to the dirtiest oil on the planet, but how to meet the 2025 goals and how to create jobs by investing in energy conservation and renewable energy.

Let's remember the test that President Theodore Roosevelt gave us. There is no more important mission than "leaving this land even a better land for descendants than it is for us.'' This bill fails the test.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source