Compass

An Open Letter to Energy Secretary Moniz on Natural Gas Exports

By Deb Nardone, Beyond Natural Gas Campaign Director

Dear Secretary Moniz,

Congratulations on being confirmed as Secretary of Energy. You will play a vitally important role leading our country toward a clean-energy future.

As you begin to consider how natural gas will fit into our energy policy, the Sierra Club's 2.1 million members and supporters urge you and the Department of Energy (DOE) to seriously consider whether fracking for gas is really going to benefit Americans.

There are currently 25 proposals the DOE is considering to build terminals that could export up to 45 percent of total U.S. gas production as liquefied natural gas (LNG). We ask you to think through how exports will affect our public health, environment, climate, and economy, which we have detailed in
our report, Look Before the LNG Leap.

In December, NERA Consulting (which is known to have close ties with the fossil fuel industry) published an economic study on LNG exports that included a number of major flaws, such as using old data for its projections. Even more concerning is that NERA's report provides no economic assessment associated with risks to public health and the environment. If exporting natural gas has such potential to change the U.S. economic landscape, why would we think it would not also drastically change our environmental landscape?

The reality is that exporting natural gas will mean more fracking in our communities, which will affect not only our air, water, and land, but the health and safety of the public. Fracking is a dangerous and largely unregulated drilling process, which lacks adequate federal and state protections. Even the Environmental Protection Agency's Inspector General warned in its latest report that poor data on air emissions of toxic pollutants from oil and natural gas production make it difficult to predict the potential health effects fracking will have on the public.

Continued drilling and fracking is also going to wreak havoc on our climate by increasing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Natural gas is made up mostly of methane, an extremely powerful climate-disrupting gas in its own right, which is actually seventy times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of trapping heat. According to studies by the International Energy Agency, using more natural gas will put the planet on track toward a 3.5°C global temperature increase, driving us closer to climate disaster.

As the new head of DOE, it is your public responsibility to complete a full environmental impact assessment for LNG export before our nation commits to any exports. The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly advised DOE that a comprehensive environmental impact statement is essential to understanding the public health and environmental implications of increased domestic fracking.

In addition to public health and our climate, LNG exports will have significant negative effects on the U.S. economy, especially the middle class. Purdue University conducted an assessment of NERA's study and found, disturbingly, that exports would actually decrease GDP and transfer wealth from the middle class to the already-rich oil and natural gas investors. As stated in the NERA report, "impacts [from LNG exports] will not be positive for all groups in the economy. Households with income solely from wages or government transfers, in particular, might not participate in these benefits." And major job loss, especially in the manufacturing sector, is also expected to be an outcome of LNG exports. A recent report commissioned by Dow Chemical showed that exports could affect hundreds of thousands of planned new jobs in U.S. manufacturing.

In order to fully determine whether sending natural gas overseas is in the public's best interest, DOE must redo the flawed economic study and ensure that it includes costs associated with health and environmental risks. It must also be based on current climate science.

But the real game-changer for exporting LNG will be if the U.S. completes the free trade agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is currently under negotiation with 10 countries across the Pacific Rim. And Japan, the world's biggest LNG importer, is likely to join the talks in July. The TPP and another pact the U.S. is initiating with the European Union (EU) are likely to require DOE to approve all gas exports, of any amount and without delay, to nations in the agreement. The TPP could be finalized as early as October of this year, and the U.S.-EU trade pact in 2015.

To keep domestic control of our natural gas resources, the DOE must insist that the trade negotiations do not remove DOE's authority to examine the environmental and economic impacts of LNG exports, even to free-trade countries.

Gas exports will transform the U.S. energy landscape and affect communities across the country. They are already altering our climate. We urge the DOE to conduct a thorough scrutiny of the nation's energy policy and take a hard look at the economic and environmental consequences of gas exports. Until these steps have been taken, we must not move forward on extracting any more natural gas. Let's keep it in the ground and fully understand what's at stake before making any decisions that cannot be easily undone. The American public and our future generations deserve no less.

Tar Sands and Soda? Launching the Future Fleet Campaign

By Michael Marx, Beyond Oil Campaign Director

The Sierra Club has a long and successful history mobilizing our two million-plus members and supporters to push government leaders to protect our health, air, water, land, animals, and climate. Corporations have a tremendous impact on all of these. 

With the launch of the Future Fleet campaign we intend to hold corporate leaders to the same high level of scrutiny and responsibility as government. We will push them to get off the fence on climate, stop being part of the problem, and start being part of the solution. Today, the Sierra Club, ForestEthics, and our millions of supporters, kick off our campaign to persuade the first three companies -- Coke, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper -- to make the leap and join us as leaders in the effort to solve the climate crisis.

Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group own and operate some of the biggest vehicle fleets in the U.S. -- between them more than 100,000 vehicles moving soft drinks and snacks around the nation.

Oil use accounts for more than 40 percent of U.S. carbon pollution, and the biggest customers for oil are large companies. By getting these three corporate fleets to start a corporate race to the top by prioritizing fuel efficiency and eliminating tar sands, we can significantly reduce the nation's demand for oil, curb emissions, increase transportation choices, and slow the development of extreme oil sources, like tar sands.

We are quickly running out of time to head off the climate crisis, so we're starting with some of the biggest oil consumers. As well-known worldwide brands, the decisions these beverage giants make about what they drive and what fuel they use will influence what vehicle and parts manufacturers build and the market for high-carbon extreme fuels like tar sands. Efficiency gains in those 100,000 vehicles will have a real and immediate effect on the amount of carbon pollution we produce as a nation.

These are companies that care deeply about consumer feedback, so when consumers ask them to be leaders on climate solutions, we know they will listen. Washington, D.C., remains gridlocked, and oil companies continue their multimillion dollar climate denial PR campaign, but these companies have three great reasons to act without delay. First, to protect and strengthen their brand by being climate leaders. Second, to reduce fuel usage and save money. And third, to do the right thing for their next generation of customers.

We are asking these companies to accelerate the switch to electric and more efficient vehicles, improve driving behavior, and change shipping practices to save fuel.

We are also asking them to reject the most dangerous and extreme sources of oil, starting with the worst of the worst: tar sands. While companies need eventually to move off oil altogether, they urgently need to start with the most egregious source. We know which oil refineries process tar sands, and ForestEthics has already convinced 19 companies to stop buying from them. The Sierra Club is joining and expanding this successful effort to convince even more companies to get on board and go even further to reduce their oil consumption altogether.

To date, the climate movement has largely given large corporate oil consumers a free pass. Those days are over. With the Future Fleet Campaign, we along with ForestEthics intend to shine a bright spotlight on the need for corporate leadership to head off a climate crisis, starting with their oil consumption. This has been a critical missing link in the climate movement, but no more. The future fleet will use no oil!

Detroit Residents Demand Action in Wake of Marathon Explosion

 

Detroit resident and Sierra Club volunteer Dr. Delores Leonard speaks at a community press conference last week about the April 27 Marathon oil refinery explosion.

More than 60 Southwest Detroit residents and community leaders gathered last week to call on local, state and federal officials to design an evacuation plan in wake of the April 27 explosion at the Marathon Petroleum refinery in the 48217 neighborhood.

State Representative Rashida Talib, Detroit City Council Member Brenda Jones and members of the Community Advisory Panel (CAP): Theresa Landrum, Dr. Delores Leonard, Jackie Smith and Tyrone Carter held a press conference last Friday at the Kemeny Recreation Center to announce the community's demands.

"If Melvindale residents understood that they needed to be evacuated, why didn't a predominantly African-American community in the city of Detroit need to be evacuated?" Rep. Talib said. "You have to be honest. For the local residents to be completely ignored by their local officials downtown is unacceptable."

The multi-billion dollar refinery, which processes tar sands imported from Alberta, Canada, into crude oil, is located in Southwest Detroit bordering the neighboring communities of River Rouge, and Melvindale. City and Homeland Security officials deemed the response to the fire and resulting explosion to be adequate while defending the decision not to evacuate Detroit residents because the wind was blowing in the direction of Melvindale.

"They said that they didn't come out because the wind wasn't blowing in our direction, but that wind can shift at any moment just like your mind and your opinion," CAP member Theresa Landrum said. "That smoke went up and it mushroomed all around. It went up and it's got to come down."

Indian Court Strikes Down Another Coal Plant

In justifying its decision to revoke the environmental clearance for a huge 1,050-megawatt coal plant, the Indian National Green Tribunal (NGT) described its original approval as 'smacking of non-application of mind.' I couldn't agree more. In fact, if the world moves forward with the massive coal pipeline it has planned, future generations will have much stronger words than these. Hell, with climate-change effects today roasting Australia and disastrous air pollution killing hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens, we should have stronger words now. But of course actions speak much louder than words and the NGT is letting its rulings do all the talking.

It turns out that this is just the latest in a string of rulings by the NGT that strike at the heart of India's proposal to dramatically expand its reliance on coal. Back in February of 2012 the NGT made its first ruling when it ordered a halt to construction of a coal plant in Kutch, home the country's first "ultra-mega power project," Tata Mundra, as well as a slew of new coal proposals. After the Kutch ruling, the NGT struck again, revoking the environmental clearance for a coal mine in Chattisgarh. With the latest ruling, the NGT is demonstrating that these rulings are anything but unique.

U.S. Export-Import Bank's Shady Coal Scheme in Mongolia

Once again, U.S. Export-Import Bank (Exim) Chairman Fred Hochberg is using our taxpayer dollars to finance a dangerous fossil fuel project. This time it’s Rio Tinto’s Oyu Tolgoi gold and copper mine and the associated coal-fired power plant in Mongolia. What’s even more galling is that Hochberg and the Exim board of directors approved the project in April despite what amounted to a vote of no confidence in the very same project by the U.S. Treasury, which abstained from a decision on funding from World Bank Group’s International Financial Corporation (IFC).

When explaining their abstention, Treasury officials stated, "The ESIA does not provide a sufficiently detailed analysis of associated facilities and cumulative impacts, notably concerning a coal-fired power plant that will likely be needed to provide reliable power for the project." Clearly these were trivial matters for Mr. Hochberg and Exim that should not come between them and a new destructive coal plant.

Exxon Conceals Results of 2013 Pegasus Pipeline Inspection

The following is an open letter to Rex Tillerson, Exxon Mobil CEO.

Dear Mr. Tillerson:  

It's now been more than a month since the ExxonMobil Pegasus pipeline ruptured and spewed more than 200,000 gallons of tar sands crude into the neighborhoods and waterways of Mayflower, Arkansas.  More than 20 families were evacuated and remain out of their homes.  Federal documents show that less than half of the crude has been recovered, and there are conflicting reports about whether the crude has made it into Lake Conway and beyond. Mayflower residents in the immediate spill area and beyond are intensely and justifiably concerned about both the short and long-term health effects of the spill on their families.  Their concerns are elevated even higher by yesterday's news of another Pegasus pipeline spill in our neighboring state of Missouri.

Today, a group of federal, state, and local officials gathered in Little Rock to discuss the risks of the Pegasus pipeline to Arkansas's capital city.  The aging Pegasus pipeline runs through 13.6 miles of the Lake Maumelle watershed, which is the drinking water source for 400,000 people in central Arkansas.  The discussion centered largely around options for either removing the Pegasus pipeline from the watershed or, failing that, how to dramatically improve the safety of the pipeline.  ExxonMobil was invited to the meeting but did not send a representative. Further, officials at the meeting repeatedly noted that ExxonMobil has yet to provide information and answers to questions that have been asked of the corporation.  

Arkansans deserve answers from ExxonMobil.  Families have been out of their homes for more than a month.  Mayflower's land and waterways are fouled, children and others have become sick from exposure, and hundreds of animals and birds have been killed or sickened after coming in contact with the spilled crude.  Our health, safety, and environment are at risk in Mayflower and beyond.  

Small or Large, Communities Nationwide Face Fallout of Dirty Fuel Production

This past weekend, the oil and gas industry proved again that it cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting the people who live near their dirty fuel production facilities and pipelines. Two incidents -- one in Detroit, Michigan, and another in Bradford, Pennsylvania -- disrupted the lives of families in both areas, showing that communities large and small can face the dangerous consequences of fossil-fuel production.

In southwest Detroit, an explosion at the Marathon refinery caused plumes of smoke to fill the city air. In the small town of Bradford, an Atlas Energy pipeline leaked oil and gas onto a busy road in northwestern Pennsylvania.

The Sierra Club and allied environmental justice advocates have voiced their opposition to the expansion of the Marathon refinery for years -- and the latest incident there is further evidence that their warnings should have been heeded. According to the Detroit Free Press, residents had to be evacuated from their homes after the fire on Saturday evening, and the blast exposed residents to toxic chemicals and carcinogens that public health advocates had feared could contaminate the city's air and water.

In the small college town of Bradford, the setting for a dirty fuel disaster was different, but the dangers were the same. A dangerous mix of crude oil and natural gas shot out of a fossil fuel pipeline 60 feet into the air. The Bradford Era reported that a traveler along Route 219 spotted the gushing pipeline and reported it to authorities.  Emergency responders closed the slippery, oil- and natural gas-covered road while workers fought to contain the spill. The road was closed for five hours, and cleanup continues today.

Environmental studies professor Stephen Robar of the University of Pittsburgh–Bradford referred to the spill as not an accident, but an inevitability.  

"It will happen again, and again, as the record already indicates," said Professor Robar. "The state of Pennsylvania has a responsibility to do as much as it can to minimize such inevitabilities through rigorous oversight."

The two incidents are just the latest in a string of similar fossil fuel disasters across the country this year, including the tar sands pipeline rupture that dumped thousands of gallons of toxic crude in the suburban community of Mayflower, Arkansas. Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies continue to push for more dangerous drilling in places like our pristine Arctic and for more dirty fuel infrastructure across the country -- including the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

However, as more communities suffer from increasingly common incidents like those in Detroit, Bradford, and Arkansas, more voices are speaking out to say that enough is enough and urging their lawmakers to pursue clean energy solutions. After all, the worst consequence of a solar energy spill is a sunny day.

--Kristen Elmore, Sierra Club Media Team Intern

Holding Big Coal Accountable in Illinois

The Edwards coal plant in Peoria, Illinois, will have a lot to explain thanks to a lawsuit that highlights more than 1,000 Clean Air Act violations. At a press conference last week, nearly 20 volunteer leaders and clean-air advocates gathered to spell out the violations, which have happened over the past five years. One of the speakers was a relatively new supporter, Robin Garlish (pictured), whose three children have respiratory problems.

"We're wondering if it will even be safe for our family to go outdoors and enjoy bicycle riding," Garlish said. "We have a ski boat, we have a lot of friends and do our water sports. I'm afraid to take us out to do these things at this point."

The Beyond Coal Campaign was joined by the group Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste and the League of Women Voters in demanding pollution controls that will prevent the coal plant from sickening more people. Sierra Club Organizer Kady McFadden said if controls aren't put in place, the plant should retire.

"If it can't be done, then the plant should be shut down," she said, as reported by Peoria Public Radio. "Either of these is an acceptable option, but what's not acceptable is to continue to push the costs of operating dirty plants onto the community in the form of sickness. Or to transfer the plant to someone else that they can do the same thing."

The same day, the local NAACP chapter had voted unanimously to join the coalition.

"This is a big milestone for central Illinois, and for our movement. We are looking forward to this partnership, and to begin talking about the concept of environmental justice for the first time ever in Peoria," McFadden said.

Activists later in the day organized the area’s first town hall focused on the coal plant. A presentation on the health effects of the plant was followed a 30-minute question-and-answer session.

"We heard stories of sickness exacerbated by the plant," said McFadden, "as well as coal dust and ash build-up on windows, homes and cars." She said the Beyond Coal campaign hopes to host more town halls in the near future. On Wednesday, the American Lung Association released its annual "State of the Air"report. The report found that in Peoria County, more than 11,000 adults and 3,000 children cope with asthma and nearly 50,000 people have cardiovascular disease. 

-- Brian Foley

EPA Issues Blow to State Department's Review of Keystone XL

By Lena Moffitt, Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign Representative

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a sharp blow to the State Department's review of the Keystone XL pipeline, undermining State's claim that the pipeline would have little environmental impact.[1] Of particular note was the EPA's critique of State's assumption that the tar sands will be developed regardless of Keystone XL, and shirking the responsibility to consider the significant greenhouse gas emissions generated by tar sands mining. The EPA challenged State Department's assertion that an alternative mode of transporting tar sands to market would materialize if Keystone XL were to go away. They note that State's analysis was "not based on an updated energy-economic modeling effort" and that a "more careful review is needed."[2]

EPA specifically instructs the State Department to consider the fact that rail transport is significantly more expensive than pipelines -- a fact that undermines the viability for rail to serve as an easy alternative to pipelines.[3] EPA also points out the uncertainty of the other major pipeline proposals in Canada, which have been consistently, vehemently, and successfully opposed by First Nations groups and environmental organizations in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. The State Department's job now is to listen to the EPA and include a more "careful" analysis of just how important Keystone is to expanding this polluting industry, and include a full accounting of the pollution that would come with this growing industry.

In addition to the pipeline's role in expanded tar sands mining, the EPA identified several other areas where State needs to take a second look. In fact, they said they have identified "significant environmental impacts that must be avoided… to provide adequate protection for the environment," and that the draft SEIS "does not contain sufficient information to fully assess environmental impacts."  To craft a more robust picture of what this pipeline would mean for our planet, the EPA issued a series of recommendations, in several categories:

Greenhouse gas emissions

1. Include an economic assessment of the impacts of the 935 million metric tons of carbon pollution Keystone XL would add to our atmosphere. Note - while this is a big number, it's likely an underestimate, and only captures the incremental carbon pollution that would be generated by replacing 830,000 barrels a day of conventional crude with tar sands, using State Department's own assessment that tar sands are 17% more carbon-intensive on a lifecycle basis. Studies have shown that tar sands may be 37% more carbon-intensive, on a lifecycle basis, than conventional crude,[4] and potentially even more, if you count the burning of the pet-coke produced as a by-product of the refining process.[5]

2. Include a "more careful review" of the market analysis and rail transport options. State should "recognize the potential for much higher per barrel rail shipment costs than presented in the DSEIS."

3.Explore specific ways the US can work with Canada to reduce GHG emissions associated with the production of tar sands crude, including a join focus on carbon capture and storage and energy efficiency.

4. Explore specific commitments TransCanada could make to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the construction and operation of the pipeline, particularly from the electricity needed to power the pumping stations.

5. EPA recommends focusing on pumping station energy efficiency and use of renewable energy, as well investment in other carbon mitigation options.

Pipeline safety

6. More fully address the differences between conventional oil and diluted bitumen, especially as they relate to spills and cleanup.

7. More clearly acknowledge that bitumen sinks, and in the event of a spill into water, unique cleanup technologies and resources will likely be needed.

8. Include means to address the additional risks posed by spills of diluted bitumen, which may be greater than risks posed by conventional oil spills. These risks include public health threats from high levels of airborne carcinogens.

9. Publish the 3rd party review (by an independent engineer) of TransCanada's risk assessment on the potential impacts of a tar sands spills into water, as well as the the 3rd party review of TransCanada's proposal for leak detection equipment installations.  This should include an opportunity for the public to comment on both the scope of the analysis and the draft of the analysis.

10. Consider requiring TransCanada to establish a network monitoring wells along the length of the pipeline, to provide a practical means for early detection of leaks.

Including the following permit conditions:
    - Require the emergency response plan to addressed submerged oil, including in cold weather;
    - Require pre-position clean-up technology that can address sunken oil;
   -  Require spill drills and exercises;
    - Require the emergency response and oil spill response plans be reviewed by EPA.

More clearly recognize that dissolved components of dilbit, including carcinogens like benzene and heavy metals, could be slowly released back into the water column for years following a spill into water, causing long-term chronic toxicological impacts to organisms in the area, an impact that is different from a spill of conventional crude or refined product.

13. Require TransCanada, as a permit condition, to develop a plan for long term monitoring/sampling in the event of a spill, to asses and monitor these impacts in the water column.

14. Require TransCanada, as a permit condition, to provide detailed information on the content of the diluent (the material they mix the heavy bitumen with) and the source of each batch of crude sent through the line, to support response preparations.

Alternative Pipeline Routes

15. Provide more detailed information as to why alternative routes were not considered reasonable, particularly the I-90 corridor route that would avoid the Ogalalla aquifer, or analyze these routes in more detail as viable options.

Community and Environmental Justice Impacts

16.Include as permit conditions TransCanada's commitment to conduct cleanup and restoration and to provide alternative water supplies to affected communities in the event of an oil spill (affecting surface or ground water).

EPA gave the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) a negative rating of "Environmental Objections - Insufficient Information." This means that the State Department is now on the hook to provide EPA with the additional information they have requested. But complicated federal procedure aside, Secretary Kerry must know that the EPA wouldn't raise these concerns, wouldn't challenge a sister agency, and wouldn't issue a failing grade if it didn't see major flaws in the environmental review.  Secretary Kerry and his staff at the State Department need to take this failing grade to heart and finally conduct a thorough, unbiased assessment of this proposed pipeline. And once they do, we know it will have to be rejected. Greenlighting the expansion of the most carbon-intensive fuel on earth, via a pipeline that will threaten our most important aquifer and drinking water or millions of Americans, all so that Big Oil can export their extreme oil? That simply isn't in our national interest. Thank you, EPA, for once again standing on the side of public health and the environment. And this time, thank you in advance, Secretary John Kerry and US State Department, for heeding EPA's wisdom and experience.

Footnotes:

[1] US EPA comments to Keystone XL draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
http://epa.gov/compliance/nepa/keystone-xl-project-epa-comment-letter-20130056.pdf

[2] Ibid., p.3
http://epa.gov/compliance/nepa/keystone-xl-project-epa-comment-letter-20130056.pdf

[3] On the Wrong Track: Rail is not an alternative to the Keystone XL pipeline, Natural Resources Defense Council
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/on_the_wrong_track_rail_is_not.html

[4] Setting the Record Straight: Lifestyle Emissions of Tar Sands, Natural Resources Defense Council
http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/files/ene_10110501a.pdf

[5] Petroleum Coke: the coal hiding in the tar sands, Oil Change International
http://priceofoil.org/2013/01/17/petroleum-coke-the-coal-hiding-in-the-tar-sands/

To Thine Own Self Be True: The President, the Pipeline, and the Principle

Citizens at the State Department's April 18 hearing on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline in Grand Island, Nebraska

By Courtenay Lewis, Beyond Oil Campaign Representative

When the State Department released its supplemental review of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline in March, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune mused, "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."

Unfortunately, State's behavior regarding the contractors it hired to prepare the Keystone XL review suggests that someone at the Department is obscuring close connections between its hired contactors and Big Oil, resulting in a report that appears to be a far cry from the impartial, objective analysis that the country deserves.

On Monday, April 22 -- Earth Day -- a group of organizations including the Sierra Club wrote to the Department of State's Inspector General, asking him to investigate the agency's selection of contractors with strong ties to Big Oil to evaluate Transcanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline project. The State Department hired Environmental Resources Management Inc. (ERM) to assess the environmental impacts of the project, even though some of these same contractors had in the past worked for TransCanada and other energy companies that would benefit from the pipeline. ERM is also a dues-paying member of the American Petroleum Institute, which is one of the most vocal supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline.

While hiring ERM contractors with existing industry relations might at first glance seem like a simple act of oversight by the State Department, State's subsequent behavior suggests that they felt compelled to hide something. At the last minute before publication of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the State Department redacted the resumes of several ERM team members who had previously worked for TransCanada and other companies that could gain financially from the pipeline.

State already has a history of hiring Keystone XL contactors with strong ties to the industry. Its Inspector General slapped them on the wrist in 2011 for failing to follow rigorous conflict-of-interest procedures in hiring Cardno-Endrix, a third-party contractor that prepared the Environmental Impact Statements for the Keystone XL Presidential Permit in 2011. After the Inspector General called State out, the agency promised to clean up its contracting vetting processes.

Has State just made the same careless mistakes regarding crucial conflict-of-interest considerations in hiring consultants for the Keystone XL project? Or, as the bio redactions imply, was this a case of State knowing that it was hiring Keystone proponents who were far from objective? Either way, this is a grave cause for concern, and we expect better from Secretary of State John Kerry. Landowners who will have a pipeline forced on their properties, communities that will experience rivers of oil gushing down their streets, and future generations who'll suffer the impacts of climate change if Keystone XL is approved deserve more than a slipshod or biased environmental report.

Fortunately, at least one federal agency is wary of giving Keystone the thumbs-up without any proper environmental analyses. On the same day as the Conflict of Interest letter was released, the Environmental Protection Agency expressed its own skepticism about the report, stating that it included "insufficient information" regarding the pipeline's impacts, and specifically highlighting that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement did not adequately outline the project's greenhouse gas emissions, pipeline safety, alternative pipeline routes, and community and environmental justice impacts. These critical considerations are a huge blow to any State Department assertion that the Keystone XL pipeline benefits the national interest (outside of the handful of Canadian and American energy companies that would pocket the pipeline's proceeds without owning any of the risks).

The EPA report adds even more weight to voices coming from around the country calling for the Obama administration to reject the Keystone XL pipeline project due to the havoc that tar sands emissions and oil spills would inevitably wreak on our climate and communities. The number of comments sent to the State Department asking the Obama administration to reject the Keystone XL pipeline has climbed well past the one million mark, with comments collected by 20 organizations including the Sierra Club. Last week over 200 pipeline opponents testified at the State Department's final public hearing in Grand Island, Nebraska.

"The science is screaming at all of us and demands action," Secretary Kerry said about climate change in Monday's Earth Day Remarks.  To mark the same occasion, President Obama proclaimed, "Nothing is more powerful than millions of voices calling for change." Never has it been more pressing that the Obama administration heed its own advice, by honoring anti-Keystone XL cries nationwide, and rejecting a pipeline whose advocates grow less credible each day.