Gina McCarthy’s comments on Monday came despite her agency’s position that low oil prices could mean that Keystone will have more of an impact on the climate than previously thought.
Politico’s Mike Allen asked McCarthy if Keystone would be a “disaster” for the climate.
“No,” McCarthy responded at an event Politico hosted, “I don’t think that any one issue is a disaster for the climate.”
Keystone’s climate impact was the focus of a letter the EPA sent in February to the State Department, which is evaluating whether to approve the Canada-to-Gulf Coast oil pipeline, which would carry oil sands from Alberta. (Read more from “EPA Chief: Keystone Wouldn’t Be a ‘Disaster’ for Climate” HERE)
Canada Pushes Ahead With Alternatives to Keystone XL
By Bobby Magill. A decision on whether to allow the Keystone XL Pipeline to be built in the U.S. could come at any time, but there are myriad other projects on the table designed to do exactly what Keystone XL was designed to do: transport Canadian tar sands oil to refineries.
Those pipelines, both in the U.S. and Canada, are being designed to move the oily bitumen produced from the tar sands to refineries in Texas and eastern Canada, and to ports on the Pacific Coast where the oil could be shipped to Asia.
Combined, the pipelines would be able to carry more than 3 million barrels of oil per day, far in excess of the 800,000 barrels per day that TransCanada’s Keystone XL is designed to carry. (Read more from this story HERE)