http://www.eenews.net/gw/2013/03/04
Jason Plautz and Nick Juliano, E&E reporters
Published: Monday, March 4, 2013

Saying that fighting climate change and promoting clean energy will be second-term priorities, President Obama today officially nominated U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy to lead the agency and MIT physicist Ernest Moniz to head the Department of Energy.

“They’re going to be making sure that we’re investing in American energy, that we’re doing everything that we can to combat the threat of climate change, that we’re going to be creating jobs and economic opportunity in the first place,” Obama said at the White House this morning.

McCarthy currently heads EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, where she oversaw some of the agency’s most high-profile regulations during Obama’s first term. McCarthy steps in for Lisa Jackson, who departed the agency last month.

Moniz, who previously served as DOE undersecretary in the Clinton administration, replaces outgoing Energy Secretary Steven Chu. He has drawn some criticism from green groups for his views on hydraulic fracturing and nuclear power.

Obama also tapped Wal-Mart Foundation President and former OMB Deputy Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell to lead the Office of Management and Budget (see related story).
Environmentalists welcomed the long-expected Energy and EPA picks and Obama’s promise to have them fight the threat of climate change through clean air regulations and clean energy. Announcing the picks today, Obama said the two would build on “the work that we’ve done to control our own energy future, while reducing pollution that contributes to climate change.”

But some Republican senators have expressed concerns over EPA operations and said they will be scrutinizing McCarthy’s record at the agency and her vision for its future. GOP senators also are taking a wait-and-see approach to Moniz as they probe his experience.

Both picks must be confirmed by the Senate, but no hearings have been scheduled.
EPA
Green groups said McCarthy’s nomination signals that the White House will not let up on its regulatory push. In the air office, McCarthy oversaw first-of-their-kind greenhouse gas and toxics rules for power plants, new restrictions on sulfur in gasoline, and tougher fuel economy standards for cars and trucks.

McCarthy also has a reputation for working well with the industries she is regulating and for doing the heavy lifting on complicated rules.

She previously served as commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, helping lay the groundwork for the multistate Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and held several positions as a Massachusetts regulator under then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R).

Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke praised McCarthy as a “good listener, a straight shooter and someone who has what it takes to build consensus and find solutions.”

“We can count on her to protect our environment and our health,” Beinecke said in a statement. “And she can count on our support as she works to get the job done on behalf of Americans everywhere.”
EPA has a lengthy list of regulations on deck, including finalizing rules on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants and Tier 3 rules limiting sulfur in gasoline. The agency is also expected to craft new greenhouse gas regulations for existing power plants, following through on a long-delayed promise.

“Every American is — or will soon be — breathing cleaner air because of McCarthy,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

“Breathers need McCarthy now more than ever as EPA prepares to tackle critical air quality challenges, including the need for smog-fighting lower-sulfur gasoline, updated national ozone air standards, and greenhouse gas standards for both new and existing power plants,” he added. “Dealing effectively with climate change is the challenge of a lifetime.”

Although there are sure to be questions about her role in overseeing new regulations, McCarthy has won praise from industry and utility officials for her willingness to listen to their concerns and work with them while crafting the rules (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
“Given that the recent rules arising under the Clean Air Act are some of the most expensive in EPA history, McCarthy has significant experience with wide-sweeping stakeholder contact,” said Scott Segal of Bracewell & Giuliani’s Policy Resolution Group.

“What many in industry appreciate about her style is her directness and openness to engagement with the regulated community,” he added. “Almost every large EPA rule has errors — both in policy and methodology. McCarthy listens and allows for the possibility of midcourse corrections.”

But in a statement, Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson called for the Senate to reject McCarthy because of her involvement in regulatory work and several agency “scandals.” Wilson said McCarthy was “unfit to run a Burger King, let alone a Cabinet-level agency that threatens our nation’s economy through its series of strange and bizarre regulatory rulings.”

McCarthy will likely face some uphill battles in being confirmed by the Senate. Environment and Public Works ranking member David Vitter (R-La.) has signaled that he is concerned about EPA’s transparency, citing several recent requests for more information on everything from ozone regulations to agenda publishing that have gone unanswered.

“The EPA is in desperate need of a leader who will stop ignoring congressional information requests, hiding emails and more from the public, and relying on flawed science,” Vitter said in a statement. “McCarthy has been directly involved in much of that, but I hope she can reverse those practices with Lisa Jackson’s departure. I look forward to hearing answers from her on a number of key issues.”

McCarthy’s nomination to the air post in 2009 was held up by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) over broader concerns about the administration’s climate policy. She was confirmed by voice vote after Barrasso lifted his hold.

Sources off the Hill said they would not be surprised to see Vitter or other Republicans on the EPW committee use McCarthy’s hearing to weigh in on upcoming regulations or the administration’s commitment to fight climate change.

Barrasso said in a statement this morning that he had “serious concerns about how the current EPA operates” and that he would “take a very close look at Ms. McCarthy’s experience at the EPA and her vision for the agency.”

Still, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a staunch EPA opponent, had praise for McCarthy, saying in 2009 that she “possesses the knowledge, experience and temperament to oversee a very important office at EPA” (Greenwire, June 2, 2009).
In a statement today, Inhofe said he is looking forward to “sitting down and talking with her to find common ground as I did with Lisa Jackson.”

EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) had nothing but praise for McCarthy, saying that Obama “could not have picked a more qualified person to lead EPA at this critical time.”

Boxer promised to move forward with McCarthy’s nomination as soon as possible, although no plans for a hearing have been set.
DOE
Moniz, 69, shares Chu’s scientific background but will come to the job more familiar with Washington than his predecessor. During the Clinton administration, Moniz served in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and as an undersecretary at DOE. While at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Moniz acted as an adviser on several Obama administration policies on nuclear waste, shale natural gas, and research and development.

“I think the most important thing he brings to the job by far is that he understands the interplay between science and politics,” said Elgie Holstein, who worked with Moniz in the Clinton administration and now is senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund. “He understands that science in Washington is not a given, and you have to make your case through the political process no matter what the issue is.”

Obama praised Moniz’s familiarity with Washington in announcing the nomination this morning.

“The good news is that Ernie already knows his way around the Department of Energy. … Most importantly, Ernie knows that we can produce more energy and grow our economy, while still taking care of our air, our water and our climate,” the president said.
Obama called for the Senate to quickly confirm the nomination. Few red flags were immediately apparent, although Republicans on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee said they were taking a wait-and-see approach to Moniz.

“I’m willing to work with both DOE and the EPA to address the shared challenges we face, but it truly must be done in a way that recognizes the benefits of an energy supply that is not only clean, but also abundant, affordable, diverse and secure,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the ranking member on energy, said in a statement this morning. “My support will depend on both nominees demonstrating that they can lead DOE and the EPA in a way that restores balance to these objectives.”

Republican senators are glad to see Moniz’s support for natural gas and nuclear but will be pressing for more information on his views toward oil and coal, said a GOP aide who requested anonymity. Moniz’s previous statements in favor of a carbon tax also likely will be a topic of discussion in committee hearings.

Aides to other Republicans on the committee, including Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio), James Risch (Idaho) and Barrasso, said they were still reviewing Moniz’s credentials and withholding judgment until after the confirmation hearings but did not indicate any immediate problems.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, welcomed Moniz’s nomination and said he looks forward to discussing several pressing issues.

“That includes: re-engaging Dr. Moniz over the problems with cleaning up nuclear waste at the Hanford Site; finding creative ways to promote new technologies and harness the ingenuity of America’s energy innovators; and examining the diverse opportunities to attack climate change and transition to a low-carbon economy,” Wyden said in a statement.

Moniz’s support for natural gas and nuclear energy has raised concerns among some environmental groups (Greenwire, Feb. 22).

Several green groups welcomed his nomination today but made clear they would be looking for additional emphasis on promoting renewable energy over conventional sources.

Environment America Clean Energy Advocate Courtney Abrams said the group was “concerned” about where Moniz would lead DOE given his previous support for shale gas and nuclear power. She said she wants to hear Moniz commit to endorsing Obama’s calls for doubling renewable energy and boosting energy efficiency in the coming decades rather than tout gas and nuclear as tools to address global warming.

“We would like for the administration to move in the direction of solely focusing on renewable energy,” Abrams said in an interview this morning, pointing to DOE work like its Better Buildings and SunShot initiatives as programs that should be emphasized. “Environment America has made very clear our opposition to fracking and to nuclear power, so we would like to not move in that direction, absolutely.”

Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune made a similar observation.

“In his role as Secretary of Energy, we urge Mr. Moniz to prioritize clean, renewable energy as climate solutions over destructive fossil fuels and boondoggles like liquefied natural gas exports,” Brune said in a statement. “We would stress to Mr. Moniz that an ‘all of the above’ energy policy only means ‘more of the same,’ and we urge him to leave dangerous nuclear energy and toxic fracking behind while focusing on safe, clean energy sources like wind and solar.”

The Environmental Defense Fund, which has been more supportive than other environmental groups of deploying natural gas as a bridge fuel, noted Moniz’s efforts to ensure that gas extraction does not harm the environment.

“Dr. Moniz has repeatedly observed that just because the environmental challenges of shale gas are manageable — that does not mean that they are yet managed,” EDF President Fred Krupp said in a statement. “As there is work that remains to be done to ensure the safety of communities living around oil and gas development, and to address the air pollution issues that go beyond the local neighbors, his perspective will be important in the national conversation.”

The industry-backed think tank Institute for Energy Research greeted Moniz’s nomination with a call for DOE to split from its previous practice of backing clean technologies with loan guarantees and other supports.

“Dr. Moniz will inherit an agency with a tarnished record for picking losers and not winners in the energy market,” IER President Thomas Pyle said in a statement. “It is our hope that Dr. Moniz will avoid opportunities to repeat the well-documented mistakes of his predecessor and refuse the temptation to let political pressure trump sound science and economics at the department.”

The Washington-based research firm ClearView Energy Partners predicted Moniz would tread a middle path on questions related to fossil fuel development and exports.

“We interpret the Moniz nomination as another administration acceptance of domestic natural gas (and oil) development,” ClearView said in a note to clients this morning, “but not a wholesale endorsement of expanded production or exports.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03/01-7

Published on Friday, March 1, 2013 by Common Dreams

Sierra Club expresses “outrage” over “deeply flawed analysis” that ignores “greatest threat to our children’s future: climate disruption”
– Jon Queally, staff writer

Tens of thousands gathered in Washington, DC on February 17th with one simple call to the Obama Administration: “Move forward on climate, Mr. President, and reject the Keystone XL pipeline.” (Photo: Reuters)

The US State Department on Friday afternoon released a newly updated draft of its Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which, if approved, would dramatically increase the extraction and transfer of Canadian tar sands oil to the Gulf coast.

And as Sierra Club’s Michael Brune said in a late afternoon press call, “”You know the news is bad when it comes out at 4pm on Friday.”

The draft itself can be accessed here.

In response to the SEIS’ release, Brune released the following statement:

“The Sierra Club is outraged by the State Department’s deeply flawed analysis today and what can only be interpreted as lip service to one of the greatest threats to our children’s future: climate disruption.

“We’re mystified as to how the State Department can acknowledge the negative effects of the Earth’s dirtiest oil on our climate, but at the same time claim that the proposed pipeline will ‘not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects.’ Whether this failure was willful or accidental, this report is nothing short of malpractice.

“President Obama said that he’s committed to fighting the climate crisis. If that is true, he should throw the State Department’s report away and reject the dirty and dangerous Keystone XL pipeline.”

Jane Kleeb of the group Bold Nebraska joined other environmental leaders in rejecting the report’s conclusion that tar sands development would not be impacted by rejection of the pipeline.

“Tarsands does not expand unless Keystone XL is built,” Kleeb said. “The State Department’s assumption that tarsands development does not change with or without this pipeline is wrong and laughable. Why would TransCanada spend billions on building the pipeline and millions on lobbying unless this piece of infrastructure is the–not a–but the lynchpin for the expansion of tarsands. Without this pipeline Canada stays at 2 million barrels a day, with it they get 3 million barrels a day. The President has the ability to keep a million barrels of tarsands in the ground a day. With a stroke of a pen he can protect property rights, water and make a dent in climate change.”

“This report is laughable using the wrong assumption and therefore the wrong science,” she said.

350.org co-founder Bill McKibben agreed, saying that “everyone in Canada knows they cannot expand the Alberta tar sands the way they’d like to without the Keystone XL being built.”

McKibben added: “This is not the State Department’s finest hour.”

Acknowledging worries that the SEIS signals that the State Dept. would recommend and that Obama would ultimately approve the project, environmentalists said they would be ramping up their efforts in the coming days, weeks, and months.

“We’re going to help them [reject the pipeline] by mounting as much public protest as we can in the weeks ahead,” said McKibben.

Some quick key takeaways from the “Cumulative Impact” section include:

THREAT TO WATER SOURCES: GROUNDWATER:
Potential impacts due to releases of crude oil. Releases could potentially impact groundwater where the overlying soils are permeable and the depth to groundwater is shallow. Analyses in Section 4.13 suggest that large crude oil releases that do reach groundwater systems (including the Ogallala Aquifer) could result in oil spreading on the water table as far as 1,214 feet, and dissolved components of the oil, such as benzene, could spread as much as an additional 1,050 feet.

JOBS CREATED:
35 to 50 permanent jobs and negligible earnings and other revenues.

POTENTIAL SPILLS:
Spills associated with the proposed Project that enter the environment are expected to be rare and relatively small. Industry standards and practices (including the 57 Project-specific Special Conditions developed by PHMSA) provide a level of protection above that of other pipeline systems in existence. Modeling shows that, exclusive of topography and groundwater flow, large spills (20,000 barrels) could spread up to 1,214 feet on the ground surface or on the water table, and up to 1,050 feet dissolved in groundwater. Spills reaching surface water could be transported greater distances.

Response was swift on twitter:

According to the introductory letter accompanying the draft (emphasis added):

Once the Draft SEIS is noticed in the Federal Register, a 45-day comment period will begin. As part of the Department’s process, members of the public, public agencies, and other interested parties are encouraged to submit comments, questions, and concerns about the project via e-mail to keystonecomments@state.gov, at http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov, or mailed to:

U.S. Department of State
Attn: Genevieve Walker, NEPA Coordinator
2201 C Street NW, Room 2726
Washington, D.C. 20520

After the end of the public comment period, the Department will prepare a Final SEIS.

Ultimately, a determination will be made on whether this project serves the national interest. The national interest determination will involve consideration of many factors, including: energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts; foreign policy; and compliance with relevant federal regulations. As directed by Executive Order 13337, before making such a decision, the Department will also request the views of several agencies and officials, including: the Departments of Defense, Justice, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Though the EIS does not necessarily dictate whether or not President Obama will approve the project, its content will be a vital piece of information in signaling the direction the administration is heading. If favorable to the pipeline, fossil fuel industry lobbyists will call mark it as a victory.

But, in anticipation of the release, the environmental group 350.org, which just two weeks ago led tens of thousands of people in a march against the pipeline in Washington, tweeted:

As details of the report’s content become clear, the DeSmogBlog will be liveblogging the release here.

The timing of the draft assessment’s release, however, speaks volumes. As DeSmog’s Kevin Grandia notes:

[Releasing the EIS] late on a Friday – very typical when someone wants to put out bad news. This White House has used the tactic a lot. Another thing to note is that this isn’t just any Friday afternoon, it is also the day final day to reach a sequester deal in Congress. All eyes in the media are focused on that!

Ahead of the release, the Canadian Press, citing a source at 350.org, reported that the EIS “acknowledges that Alberta’s oilsands are carbon-intensive” it also “apparently makes clear that all modes of transportation are risky and the pipeline itself isn’t any more of a threat to the environment.”

If true, such an “analysis would mean that Calgary-based TransCanada has cleared a significant hurdle in its marathon bid to win approval for Keystone XL from the Obama administration.”

Earlier today, Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s climate commissioner made headlines by urging President Obama to take a leadership role in the fight against climate change by rejecting the pipeline project.

“If you had a U.S. administration that would avoid doing something that they could do, with the argument that in the time we are living in and with climate change we are faced with, we should not do everything we can do, then it would be a very, very interesting global signal,” Hedegaard told reporters.

“We can bail out banks, we can bail out member states, but you cannot bail out climate,” she said. “If we just say we must extract all the fossil fuels that we can find in the world, then it’s clear that it will not be possible to stay below the 2 degrees.”

“Nobody is doing enough,” she added. “Europe is not doing enough, the U.S. is not doing enough, China is not doing enough—all of us will have to do more.”

_________________________________________

Published on Thursday, February 21, 2013 by Common Dreams

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/21-0

by Brendan Smith

The American labor movement is once again facing a most controversial issue — the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. While the KXL debate has largely centered around the environmental risks, from labor’s perspective opening up the Canadian Tar Sands is often seen as an economic, not an environmental, issue. And it’s no wonder: Construction unemployment is double the national average and, from a worker’s perspective, Keystone jobs will be good-paying union jobs in an economy that increasingly offers up only minimum-wage service work.

As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka explained last year, “mass unemployment makes everything harder and feeds fear. . . opponents of the pipeline [need to] recognize that construction jobs are real jobs, good jobs.” KXL advocates have worked hard to capitalize on this fear by arguing that labor must choose between creating jobs and protecting the planet.

While labor leaders weigh the pros and cons of building KXL, they should keep in mind that the pipeline is as much a threat to our economy as it is to our planet. After a year of extreme weather — at an extreme cost to the economy — this age old jobs vs. environment debate is emerging as a false choice. Hurricanes, floods, and droughts are already having a devastating effect on American jobs, and that is nothing compared to what will happen if we throw open the spigot to the tar sands from Canada, considered the dirtiest oil in the world.

Here are 5 reasons why building the Keystone pipeline is bad for the economy — and workers.

1. Building the Keystone pipeline and opening up the Tar Sands will negatively impact national and local economies: Burning the recoverable tar sands oil will increase the earth’s temperature by a minimum of 2 degree Celsius, which NYU Law School’s Environmental Law Center estimates could permanently cut the US GDP by 2.5%. At the same time state and local economies are already buckling under the real-time economic effects of our nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. In the past two years, the vast majority of U.S. counties – 67 percent – were affected by at least one of the eleven $1 billion dollar extreme weather events. Superstorm Sandy alone caused an estimated $80 billion in damage. The drought that affected 80% of US farmland last summer destroyed a quarter of the US corn crop and did at least $20 billion damage to the economy.

2. The same fossil fuel interests pushing the Keystone pipeline have been cutting, not creating, jobs: Despite generating $546 billion in profits between 2005 and 2010, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP reduced their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees over that period. In 2010 alone, the top five oil companies slashed their global workforce by 4,400 employees — the same year executives paid themselves nearly $220 million. But at least those working in the industry as a whole get paid high wages, right? Turns out that 40 percent of U.S oil-industry jobs consist of minimum-wage work at gas stations. Instead of bankrolling an industry that is laying off workers and threatening our economic future, isn’t it time to take the billions in subsidies going to oil companies and invest instead in a sector that both creates jobs and protects the planet?

3. Unemployment will rise: According to Mark Zandi, the Chief Economist of Moody’s Analytics: “Superstorm Sandy wreaked havoc on the job market in November, slicing an estimated 86,000 jobs from payrolls.” In the wake of Hurricane Irene, the number of workers filing unemployment claims in Vermont went from 731 before Irene to 1,331 two weeks afterwards. Hurricane Katrina wiped out 129,000 jobs in the New Orleans region — nearly 20 percent. For the U.S. economy as a whole, 2011 cost US taxpayers $52 billion.

4. Poor and working people will be disproportionately affected: KXL and projects like it result in disproportionately negative impact on already struggling working families. According to a recent report by the Center for American Progress called “Heavy Weather: How Climate Destruction Harms Middle- and Lower-Income Americans, lower-and middle income households are disproportionately affected by the most expensive extreme weather events. Sixteen states were afflicted by five or more extreme weather events in 2011-12. Households in disaster-declared counties in these states earn $48,137, or seven percent below the U.S. median income.

5. Building the sustainable economy, not the Keystone pipeline, will create far more jobs: Our nation is in desperate need of jobs. Approving the Keystone pipeline locks our nation into a trajectory of guaranteed job loss and threatens the stability of the US economy. Why keep the “job-killing” course, when the alternative-energy path is already out-performing other sectors of the economy. For example, the solar industry continues to be an engine of job growth — creating jobs six times faster than the overall job market. Research by the Solar Foundation shows a 13 percent growth in high-skilled solar jobs spanning installations, sales, marketing, manufacturing and software development — bringing total direct jobs to 119,000 in the sector. And according to the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts–Amherst, investment in a green infrastructure program would create nearly four times as many jobs as an equal investment in oil and gas.

A study by Synapse Energy Economics developed a Transition Scenario for the electric power industry based on reducing energy consumption, phasing out high-emission power plants, and building new, lower-emission energy facilities. The study estimated the number of “job years” — one new worker employed for one year — that would be created by the Transition Scenario over a decade:

444,000 job-years for construction workers, equivalent to 44,400 construction workers working full time for the entire decade.
90,000 job-years for operations and maintenance workers, equivalent to about 9,000 full time workers employed over the decade.
3.1 million indirect jobs for people designing, manufacturing, and delivering materials and jobs in local economies around the country induced by spending by workers hired in the Transition Scenario.

Organized labor is right to demand that public policy pay attention to our desperate need for jobs. But the Keystone XL pipeline will only make our jobs crisis worse by making our climate crisis worse. Plus, there are lots of pipelines that need fixing. Construction workers can be put to work rebuilding our crumbling natural gas transmission pipeline system — this will create good union jobs and cut carbon emissions. And these same workers can rebuild our crumbling water infrastructure. If labor is going to fight for jobs, let’s fight for jobs that build the future we want for ourselves and our children, not ones that will destroy that future.
Brendan Smith

Brendan Smith is an oysterman and green labor activist. He is co-founder of the Labor Network for Sustainability and Global Labor Strategies, and a consulting partner with the Progressive Technology Project. He has worked previously for Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — both as campaign director and staff on the U.S. House Banking Committee — as well as a broad range of trade unions, grassroots groups and progressive politicians. He is a graduate of Cornell law school.

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Thousands-protest-Keystone-XL-pipeline-4286432.php#ixzz2LkN8g4y3
Stephanie M. Lee
Updated 8:28 am, Monday, February 18, 2013

Representatives from the Center for Biological Diversity join the protest in San Francisco.
Photo: Jessica Olthof, The Chronicle

Protesters rally in Justin Herman Plaza to protest the Keystone pipeline as part of a climate change issue.
Photo: Jessica Olthof, The Chronicle

Thousands of people rallied in downtown San Francisco on Sunday to urge President Obama to reject construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, an action they said would prove he is committed to fighting global warming.

The demonstration across from the Ferry Building was held at the same time as similar events in cities including Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles. The main event in Washington, D.C., drew tens of thousands of supporters in what was billed as the largest climate change rally in U.S. history.

Organizers of the San Francisco protest estimated that more than 4,000 people gathered to condemn the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline, which would run nearly 2,000 miles to connect Canada’s oil sands to refineries around the Gulf of Mexico. Because it would cross an international border, it requires Obama’s approval.

“We’re asking him to reject Keystone XL as one way to move forward on climate change,” said Jess Dervin-Ackerman, a conservation organizer with the San Francisco Bay chapter of the Sierra Club, which planned the event along with 350.org, the Natural Resources Defense Council and several other groups.

Opponents of the pipeline, including Democrats and environmentalists, argue the project could contaminate land and water along its route, particularly in Nebraska, and release high concentrations of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by increasing oil production from tar sands.

But proponents say the company behind the pipeline, TransCanada, has agreed to obey 57 special conditions designed to keep the pipeline secure from leaks. The line would create thousands of jobs and strengthen the country’s energy independence, they contend.

Canada views Keystone as a crucial step in furthering oil production and growing its economy. It would be the longest oil pipeline outside Russia and China, able to transport more than half a million barrels of crude oil daily.
Have Obama’s back

But activists who rallied in San Francisco said Obama would be hypocritical to give Keystone the green light after promising in his inaugural address and State of the Union that he would work to combat climate change.

“I think he has his heart in the right place on climate change, but I think he’s going to have to show tremendous backbone to make any progress on this issue,” said Karen Kramer, 54, a lawyer and an artist in Oakland. “I hope for everyone’s sake he can find the backbone. We’re here to show him we have his back on this.”

Kramer and her mother, Joan Allen, 78, a retired adoption worker in Berkeley, were part of a crowd that marched around One Market Plaza. The block contains an office of the U.S. State Department, which is responsible for permitting infrastructure projects that cross a border.

They chanted and held signs with slogans such as “Stop Tar Sands,” “Tar Sands = Game Over For Us All,” “Stop Keystone XL” and “Climate Action: It’s Our Obligation.”
Preservation fight

They gathered in Justin Herman Plaza to listen to speakers who included San Francisco District 11 Supervisor John Avalos, who touted CleanPowerSF, the city’s proposed clean-energy program, and his call for the city’s retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies.

The speakers said that battling Keystone, along with pushing to reduce coal burning and hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, was critical in preserving the environment for future generations.

That message resonated with Woody Little, 18, a UC Berkeley freshman who held a sign that read “Love Each Other, Love the Earth.” Born one day too late to vote for Obama in the last election, he said he wanted climate change to be one of the president’s achievements.

“It just doesn’t make sense,” he said. “Why would we be accessing this deposit, these tar sands’ dirty oil, when there’s so much out there to be used already?”

Stephanie M. Lee is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: slee@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @stephaniemlee

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Thousands-protest-Keystone-XL-pipeline-4286432.php#ixzz2LkMfzUIB

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130211/ARTICLES/130219934/1350?Title=Feds-open-to-expanding-oil-drilling-protection-for-North-Coast

Rachel and Richard have it right; go all the way to Oregon with the sanctuary boundaries. DV

Santa Rosa, California

By GUY KOVNER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Monday, February 11, 2013 at 6:02 p.m.
Last Modified: Monday, February 11, 2013 at 6:02 p.m.

Federal officials say they are open to suggestions from the public that more of the North Coast should be protected from offshore oil drilling under a proposed expansion of two marine sanctuaries.

“We want to know the scope of the area we should be looking at,” said Maria Brown, superintendent of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

Brown and other sanctuary officials will attend the second of three public meetings on the sanctuary plan at 6 p.m. Tuesday in Point Arena, followed by the third meeting Wednesday in Gualala.

Officials are interested in the “boundary options” people might propose, as well as any “additional regulations” in the protected areas, Brown said.

Rachel Binah of Little River in Mendocino County, a longtime foe of offshore oil development, said the sanctuaries should extend to the Oregon border or beyond.

“I think the whole West Coast should be protected,” said Binah, who plans to attend both meetings.

Mendocino County Supervisor Dan Gjerde, who plans to attend the Gualala meeting, wants the sanctuaries to cover the entire Mendocino coast, an area he described as “pristine.”

Oil drilling is not “imminent this year” on the North Coast, but experience indicates the “only way to resolve it is to create permanent protection,” he said.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced in December plans to more than double the size of the Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones sanctuaries, extending their northern border from Bodega Bay more than 60 miles north to Point Arena in southern Mendocino County.

The expansion, which does not need legislative approval, affords coastal waters permanent protection from energy development, officials say.

The proposal got a warm reception last month at the first public meeting in Bodega Bay.

Officials said the “scientific justification” for the proposed expansion is that it would protect a biologically rich upwelling system that starts at Point Arena and sustains an abundance of fish, birds and mammals along the Sonoma Coast and down to the Farallon Islands outside San Francisco Bay.

Former Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, who retired this year, embraced the sanctuary expansion plan backed by the Obama administration, acknowledging she could not get it through the House and Senate.

“It’s been a long time coming,” said Binah, a Democratic National Committee member. But Binah said it was “kind of a slap in the face” that the proposal only goes to Point Arena.

Binah’s opposition to oil drilling dates back to a 1988 public hearing in Fort Bragg where more than 2,000 people protested an Interior Department plan to open 1.1 million acres of the North Coast to oil and natural gas development.

Binah said it became known as “the day California said no” and made the state’s offshore oil fight a national issue.

Four years later, then-Rep. Leon Panetta, R-Carmel Valley, got the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary authorized, covering 276 miles of the coast south of the Gulf of the Farallones sanctuary.

“We got nothing,” Binah said.

Gjerde, whose supervisorial district covers the coast from Caspar to Humboldt County, said he was a Fort Bragg High School student in 1988 and covered the anti-oil protest for the school newspaper.

He said he will offer a resolution calling for the entire coast to be included in the sanctuaries at the Mendocino County Board of Supervisor’s Feb. 26 meeting.

Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, said his group’s members have expressed no interest in tapping North Coast oil deposits.

“I don’t think there is much oil there,” he said.

But Richard Charter, a veteran oil drilling opponent, said the industry has eyed oil deposits offshore from Bodega Bay, Sea Ranch, Point Arena, Fort Bragg and the Lost Coast in Humboldt County.

Those deposits are in a geologic formation called Monterey shale and would be tapped by the controversial process of hydraulic fracturing known as fracking, Charter said.

_________________________

You can reach Staff Writer Guy Kovner at 521-5457 or guy.kovner@pressdemocrat.com.

Special thanks to Richard Charter