Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
Please explain how this is only within the context of Keystone. She is actually trying to draw the entire oilsands industry into the context. She is saying that they need to be look at "where this oil is coming from..."
|
Let me show you:
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has been to Washington a couple of times to argue that the pipeline
presents no real environmental risk. He has also travelled to Europe to protest the EU decision to label Canadian oil as dirty.
The U.S. State department has concluded that the Keystone project should be studied for its environmental and social impacts, delaying the decision to approve the pipeline – which could have been politically problematic for Barack Obama – until after next year’s presidential election.
The main complaint from the American critics of the pipeline is that it was to have been constructed through environmentally sensitive lands. TransCanada said Monday that is was prepared to reroute it.
But Ms. Leslie says the potential contamination of soil and water was not the only consideration.
“Some folks have pushed back (on the pipeline), rightly so maybe, that this decision (about the pipeline) wasn’t about greenhouse gases,” she said. “But, if you look at the State Department statement (about the pipeline), it says that they are going to do a review that includes environmental impacts and it says specifically, ‘including climate change.’ So it is about where this oil (from the pipeline) is coming from, what it can do, what states it’s (the pipeline) going to go through. It is about the whole big picture.”
Big picture meaning
all impact points of the pipeline project.
Clear enough?