Forgive me. I'm aware of the timeframe, hence my fast speaking.
As we move closer to a decision by the U.S. State Department on the Keystone XL pipeline, a few overlooked aspects of the debate emerge. The Keystone XL pipeline is not needed. There is an overcapacity of pipelines for tar sands oil. The Keystone XL will raise gas prices at the pump in the United States, and consumers will pay for the waste caused by the overcapacity. It will raise the price of heavy crude in the Midwest in the U.S. by spreading supply to the gulf. It could facilitate the exports of Canadian tar sands to Europe and other markets as well, thus undermining the argument for an American energy security supply, which has been a very close conversation with the Canadian discourse on energy security within the North American context.
Against this lack of benefit to energy security, let's weigh the clear negatives. These pipelines and the tar sands in general will increase greenhouse gas emissions and oil dependence; encourage the reckless expansion of a dirty industry; put clean water and public safety at risk in six states; lead to further degradation of the Athabasca watershed and air quality and the rights of first nations peoples via the massive expansion of current operations in the Athabasca region that this and other infrastructure projects like the Enbridge gateway will lead to.
So what do first nations people want? Well, they want a moratorium on any new or any expansion of existing applications until the environmental, cultural, social, human health, ecological health, and treaty rights impacts have been assessed and mitigated. They want a separate, non-industry, comprehensive, long-term, robust monitoring program for fish and water in the lower Athabasca River and the Peace-Athabasca Delta established to replace existing industry-funded bodies like RAMP. This program must incorporate both western experts and first nations traditional knowledge experts. First nations people also want a peer-reviewed epidemiological and toxicological study of cancer rates and levels of exposure to environmental toxins in communities of the lower Athabasca River.
Canada must take the ecological debt that is owed by the state to communities that have suffered disproportionately as a result of the current economic paradigm governed by the fossil fuel regime, while developing a just transition model that allocates revenues generated by public sector climate policy mechanisms--such as penalties against emitters that violate laws on emissions caps--as well as financing programs set up by other programs that would include, for example, the re-diversion of military spending and oil and coal subsidies to zero-carbon energy investments.
Canada and Alberta should adhere to and respect--