WASHINGTON — The Keystone XL pipeline would be a powerful weapon against countries like Russia that use their energy resources to intimidate countries such as Ukraine, according to retired Marine Corps general James Jones.
“If we want to make Mr. Putin’s day and strengthen his hand, we should reject Keystone,” Jones said Thursday, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin in testimony before the U.S. Senate’s foreign relations committee, which is studying Keystone XL and whether it is in the American national interest.
Jones, a former national security adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama, is now president of lobbying organization Jones Group International, paid advisers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and to the American Petroleum Institute, which represents the U.S. oil and gas industry.
He told senators that the combined energy resources of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico would nullify Putin’s ability to use the “threat of energy scarcity to intimidate and manipulate vulnerable populations.”
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline, he argued, would be significant in ensuring that North American fuels could easily be exported to Europe to counter Russian threats.
“With the proper resolve and strategy, North America can and in my view should become a global energy hub,” he said. “Energy supplied to Europe can serve as a linchpin in the revitalization of our transatlantic dialogue with NATO and as a consequence to Mr. Putin’s aggression in the Crimea.”
On the issue of climate change, Jones said Keystone XL would help create the prosperity needed “to advance our work on the spectrum of energy solutions that don’t rely on carbon.
“If we want to gain an important measure of national energy security, jobs, tax revenue and prosperity needed to advance our work on the spectrum of energy solutions that don’t rely on carbon, then it should be approved.”
James Jones Jr. testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during a hearing about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project on March 13, 2014 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Jones appeared with climate-change scientist Dr. James Hansen, Sierra Club president Michael Brune and Karen Alderman Harbert, president of the Institute for 21st Century Energy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The hearings were part of a week of debate on Capitol Hill about climate change. They will have little impact on lawmakers, however, because the Senate already voted in November to approve the pipeline.
The witnesses differed on how to balance energy-security issues against the threat the oilsands pose to global climate change and human health. The pipeline would transport oilsands bitumen from Alberta and Bakken oil from the Dakotas to Gulf Coast refineries in Texas.
During questioning, Harbert refused to say whether the chamber of commerce believes in man-made climate change, ignoring the international scientific consensus that calls it the greatest threat facing mankind. She called Keystone XL a “no brainer” that should have been approved long ago.
“Maybe in some brains it’s a no brainer, and I respect that, but in my brain it’s not a no brainer,” Sen. Barbara Boxer of California replied.
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) (C) speaks during a news conference about the health impact of tar sands oil production and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project on March, 13, 2014 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Citing Canadian doctors and cancer studies, she claimed the oilsands have increased cancer rates in northern Alberta. “Is it in our national interest to promote an industry that contributes these toxins,” she said. “I personally believe we have to weigh in on a national health-impact study” on the dangers of refining oilsands bitumen in the U.S., she said.
“I will tell you I have stood shoulder to shoulder with doctors in Canada who have seen 30-per-cent increases in rare cancers. I think that issue has been swept under the rug,” she said.
Brune said the oilsands’ high-carbon footprint should be enough to remove it from the pool of U.S. energy sources.
“Top scientists have said that in order to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius we have to keep two-thirds of our fossil fuel reserves around the world in the ground,” he said. “The best way to do that is to start with the most carbon-intensive fuel sources such as the tarsands up in Canada.”
TransCanada Corp said in a statement the oilsands produce less than one-fifth of one per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and only 0.5 per cent of GHG emissions in the U.S. “We need to move toward a less carbon intensive climate,” the company said, adding that it has invested $5 billion in emission-free energy, including wind farms in Canada and the U.S.
“We also know that wind and solar are only reliable 25 per cent of the time so we need fossil fuels,” the company said.
@marsdenw
[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]