susan casey, is that what the report says? does it make the heard? >> it does not make a slam dunk forrar against the pipeline. there are many scenarios on climate change. they show clearly that the president has the grounds to reject keystone xl. it shows that keystone xl will have a strong knooct on water. if there are spill froms it, basically it's a pipeline that will be exporting oil. security. >> is it as categorical about the number of jobs created as michael wattly suggested. >> it would create 35 permanent jobs and construction jobs. we can get those jobs through clean energy projects which are happening all across america in greater numbers than we can from a single pipeline project. >> charles, does this make the president's job any easier? isn't he really by the ambiguities. >> the president is caught by the ambiguities. the second review by the state department has a lot of snerns were there might be a still of significantly greater volume than the previous report, and reach the conclusions that on balance it was not exorbitantly more da

pipeline are inevitable but that's simply not the case on monday's episode of big picture i spoke with susan casey lefkowitz director of the international program with the natural resources defense council about the state department's report on the keystone x.l. pipeline that was released last week i asked her about the report and if a mention that extracting tar sands oil from canada was inevitable here's what she had to say. what's actually in the report is a number of scenarios so it says under some scenarios keystone x.l. might not be the main driver and under others it might be the main driver of tar sands expansion and less of climate emissions and when we look at reality of what we really know what we see is other pipelines aren't happening tar sands development is not inevitable there's a lot of opposition to it it's very expensive it's very dirty industry analysts anyway a slice of the use of tar sands oil is not inevitable we don't have to extract that toxic dirty dangerous stuff from under the ground. now what about the pro keystone talking point that our country is a fossil fuel depend

joining me now for more on that is casey lefkowitz director of the international program with the national resources defense council susan welcome thanks so much for having me on the show thanks for being here what specifically did the review of knowledge about the impact of the keystone x.l. and stood for extra large. it pretty much does when you think about a pipeline coming all the way from northern alberta down to texas. i mean to say about its effect on climate change we know this this review is really a market change over the earlier drafts that that we'd seen from the state department for the first time they presented one of their say in areas that showed that the keystone x.l. tar sands pipeline could indeed drive tar sands expansion and therefore also drive the climate emissions and they said that this was a scenario that might take place for example if there are pipeline constraints but we know that there are pipeline constraints people all across the united states and canada are saying no dick parsons pipelines wherever they're being proposed so i mean when the when this report was released on friday. stalled.