Slash oil demand and
oil sands development goes away; keep oil demand on its current trajectory and we've got huge climate problems regardless of whether Keystone XL is approved.
Not exact matches
«There's a question of whether
going along with the approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline will make LNG
development in B.C. more challenging by angering First Nations so adamantly opposed to the
oil sands pipeline,» said George Hoberg, a professor at the University of British Columbia's school of forestry and founder of UBCC350, a group pressing for action on greenhouse gas emissions.
Regarding Keystone, I myself think it is clear that Obama should say no to Keystone, because it is something in his power to do, which would have some effect on retarding
development of the tar
sands (despite what the flawed State Department EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] said), and because we really wouldn't get any significant benefit from saying yes; no real
oil security, few permanent jobs, and most of the money
goes to Canada and to refiners in free - trade zones.
The protests are not
going to stop
oil sands development.
In fact, climate pollution from the
oil sands has doubled in the last decade and is predicted to double again in the next decade if all the new
development is allowed to
go ahead.
«When you have the
development of
oil sand deposits, there are vast landscapes that
go on for miles that are barren and a lot of big lakes of toxic water that have been used in the process of extracting the
oil,» said Jack Woodward, the lawyer representing them.
«We
go back to when the
oil sands development first started 40 years ago or so.