Senators Protest Proposed Pipeline

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said recently that a controversial pipeline that TransCanada hopes to build from Alberta to Texas is likely to be approved, even though a full analysis of its impacts has yet to be completed. Her remarks didn’t sit well with ten senators, who on Friday blasted the proposal and urged Clinton in a letter to reject “dirty oil” from Canada’s tar sands.

“Approval of this pipeline will significantly increase our dependence on this oil for decades,” the senators wrote. “We believe the Department of State (DOS) should not pre-judge the outcome of what should be a thorough, transparent analysis of the need for this oil and its impacts on our climate and clean energy goals.”

The signatories to the letter were: Sens. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Ben Cardin (D-Md.). Because the pipeline would cross international boundaries, the State Department has the final say on whether it will be built.

The proposed TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline expansion would run 1,661 miles from Alberta to Nederland, Texas. A decision about the project isn’t expected until early 2011, but Clinton said in an October 15 speech that, while the State Department has “not yet signed off on it…we are inclined to do so.” Yet the pipeline remains highly controversial; oil from the tar sands has a carbon footprint two to three times higher than conventional fuels. The XL expansion pipeline would have the capacity to bring 510,000 barrels of oil from the tar sands to the US each day.

The pipeline has also been criticized in the states it would cross, particularly Nebraska, where it would bisect a major aquifer. Given the recent history of oil spills and pipeline accidents in the US, folks in the path of the pipeline are growing increasingly concerned about the possibility of a spill in their area. Clinton’s remarks also drew ire from both of Nebraska’s senators, Mike Johanns (R) and Ben Nelson (D), who have raised concerns about the proposed path of the pipeline.

In the letter, senators outline a long list of questions about the proposal, including inquiries about how much it would increase greenhouse gas emissions in the US, whether it would increase output from Canada’s tar sands, and whether there is adequate response capability should an accident occur. The full letter is posted here.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest