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. you know the sun sort of it seemed to be the way it was characterized in. right across the board from conservative media to the mainstream media to resit media was that basically it was. no big deal go ahead and do it is that you know on closer examination is that actually your sense of essentially what the state department saying you know it's interesting there was a lot of industry spin before the report came out and so what you saw is that the media that was characterizing the report as you know being for approval of the pipeline all came out before people actually had time to read the report real and once we read the report we could see that it pr

>> it was over one million gallons of tar sands. tar sand oil. merged with the bottom of the kalamazoo river. it is the first spill of its kind, so the company enbridge was completely unprepared with how to deal with a spill of this size and magnitude. >> finally, how does this pipeline fit into the transcanada pipeline from the tar sands down to the texas refinery? >> well, it fits because it is the same highly toxic oil, by the same companies that average one spill a week that have the deplorable safety records. there is the carbon argument, but even if you omit that argument, there is an issue of safety that is very, very blatantly not met by these companies. >> that three activists that were arrested who faced two years in prison, can you explain what they did and what will happen now that they have been convicted? >> well, for the same reasons i went into the pipeline, they locked onto equipment after spending time with homeowners that are getting their land condemned by this company for the pipeline. unlike myself, they were convicted and i

when it comes to tar sand rail is more expensive, more difficult, and it's unlikely to move tar sands in the quantities that a pipeline could. extracting the oil, in the first place is more expensive, complicated and energy intensive. >> it is, but when you look at where we are in terms of the world oil markets there's a demand. it will be developed and exported. in terms of opposition, you have the harper government and the provincial governments supporting the construction of the other pipe line projects that will move the project to the coast. the kevin is are you going to bring it overseas to asian markets, or are we going to bring it down through keystone xl and use it in the united states. the refinery complex will get oil. that's a conclusion that they made in the reports. they'll continue to get oil. the question is will they get it from overseas sources, such as venezuela or the middle east, or will they bring it down by train or keystone pipeline, in terms of cost, getting the oil from resource base to market, and the environmental impacts. they conclude that this is the saf

when it comes to tar sands rail is more expensive and more difficult and unlikely to move the tar sands in the quantities that the pipeline could. >> extracting the oil is more expensive and more complicated. yes, in terms of the world oil markets, there is a demand for the oil. it is going to be developed and exported and in terms of opposition you are seeing in canada, you have the government and the different governments strongly support the construction of the other pipelines that can move the product to the coast, the we is are you bringing it volunteers to the asian markets and using it here in the united states. the complex in the gulf coast is going to get the oil. they are going to continue to get the oil. the question is how they are going to get it from the overseas sources or bringing it down by train or bringing it done by the pipeline. in terms of cost for getting the oil from the resource base to market as well as the environmental impacts they have concluded this is the safest and most cost effective way to get the oil to the united states. >> if you just look at a map o

which will bring the tar sands from alberta into the united states he hasn't said how he's going to decide yet but as we've discussed he's laid out all the framework for a no when we're hoping he gets there and what else do you recommend people to do that maybe are concerned about this issue or want to stop the construction well there's a comment period now there's a thirty day public comment period and those comments will be taken into consideration as the administration considers the national interest guidelines so whether this project fits the national interest and so this is a great opportunity to comment publicly and to get involved in some of these rally is we would expect to see a lot of direct action and i think that that's going to be very important to counter the the big money lobbying of course and you know josh if he does approve the pipeline do you think that it will leave a lasting scar in his environmental legacy i think that if he approves the pipeline it's going to have a dramatic effect on the environment and i think everyone's going to have to reckon . with i think that'

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 dependent nation and that we're going to stay that way for a long time we should just accept well america is actually becoming less and less of a fossil fuel dependent nation literally every day the u.s. solar industry had its second largest quarter ever during the third quarter of twenty thirteen and residential solar power installations were up forty five percent in two thousand and thirteen over just the year before two thousand and twelve in texas alone covering half a roof with solar panels is enough to generate a

be a real problem what kind of oil are we talking about here it's called been in some very heavy tar sands oil and it's much more toxic it's much dirtier to refine and it's much harder to transport so when we move it to a pipeline we have to move it incredibly high volume of volume that's much higher higher pressure and it's much different than moving the lighter crude oil that we have. act here in the united states interesting point your news article outlines a conflict of interest in the findings of this report the state department's record general was allowed to finish investigating a potential conflict of interest that you talk about what is this intel and why that the rush to release the findings well this report has been on the works for several years now and there has been a previous conflict of interest investigation the second contractor that's worked on the project it now appears that there have been failures to disclose some financial relationships between this contractor environmental resources management and trans canada and other companies that stand to benefit from the devel

senator sheldon whitehouse and john o'connor, who studies the health effects of the tar sands oil. gentlemen, great to have you with us. senator, you first. are you happy with the state department inspector general's repo report? your thoughts. >> no i'm not. i think it has cleared the hurdle of being disqualified as a conflict of interest in violation of the department's own guidelines. but it's clear that as a report it is infected with the bias of the oil industry from which this consultant comes. and i think that there are flaws in the report that we're still looking into. but one of them was that i think the that the evidence we brought out in the environment of public works committee was new and hadn't been adequately considered. that was dr. o'connor's work showing the downstream harm from those near the mining of the tar sands and the testimony from a community organizer in texas about those who have health damage because of the refining of tar sands-type crude oil. and then those who are near the pepco, the waste product of it in detroit and chicago with really telling sto

this was no win for the tar sands industry. a lot of changes from earlier reports that make us more optimistic that shed light on how bad this would be for climate change and threats to our waterways and makes more confident that president obama and secretary kerry will ultimately that this pipeline has to be rejected. there's no other option. >> the canadian government sounds like they really want it. the ambassador to the united states says this is going to come out of the ground, and they want it for relations with the united states and they say it is a security issue. but they also say that it's going to be a lot cheaper to move it through a pipeline and less carbon emission because you're going to have to move this oil out of the ground and move it either by rail or by barge and truck. >> we couldn't disagree more. this pipeline is a lynch pin to canada to develop its tar sands. it's the dirtiest oil on the planet. it needs to stay in the ground. >> we'll leave it there and we'll have you back. thank you so much for joinin

and the all risk part you know that tar sands oil is more caustic it's piped under extreme pressure and leaks become enormous. much harder to clean right because it sinks rather than flooding that water right the leak in the kalamazoo river is now the most expensive per barrel oil spill in u.s. history but unconventional petroleum products like tar sands oil are exempt from a pipeline a liability trust fund that pays for spills that corporations can't so we pay its price taxes like the nuclear industry is like price anderson on steroids right the taxpayer is on the hook for cleanup for this for this sludge that is more expensive dirtier harder to clean up is it is it you know i saw a news story a while back that the koch brothers who are only worth seventy billion dollars could make one hundred billion dollars in profits just them from this is that accurate or is that an exam i don't know the exact numbers but they are very. in their various subsidies are very heavily invested in keystone x.l. the coke piles that you may have heard about in detroit and now in chicago some in ohio the pe

it will come from the tar sands.ape the entire surface off of the earth contaminating lakes and streaks of the indigenous people in alberta. this was game over for the planet if we unleash the amount of carbon from the tar sands. it means you're endorsing on your show a report from the oil and gas industry, people who are in business with the oil and gas industry and not some impartial state department report as you claim. >> i didn't bring you on this program tonight to question your resource on this story. if you want to call the state department report fraudulent, you can do that. i know what i'm doing on this show. this is a consumption issue. i also know that moving oil through a pipeline is not an addiction. it's a safety measure. that is the push here. i can show you an absolute. i can show you trains running into ehat e carrying oil. why aren't environmentalists saying we shouldn't be doing the rail the way we do? >> this is a false dichotomy. environmentalists are opposing the tar sands. >> no, they're not.

will from the athabaskan tar sands in alberta releases more hydrocarbon pollutants into the air than scientists had previously estimated study comes just days after the state department said in its final environmental impact statement the building the keystone x.l. pipeline which would transfer tar sands oil from alberta across the united states would have little impact on the environment and climate change so if here's the let me just throw this out to all of you guys if anybody wants to grab hold of this we're basically taking this really really dirty it's not even oil it's cold it gets ground up really fine bit of most oil or coal gets brought up really find is because with water millions millions of gallons of water and pump down this pipeline is a slurry basically and when we refine it we end up with these huge piles of pad coke there's this mountain of chicago right now for example is that is blowing over a minority community on its way to the lake to lake michigan is just it's just at the apparently the koch brothers own i mean maybe they're going to change its purpose but. it

two, to make sure that this oil isn't coming out of the tar sands. climate change worse by investing in a carbon intensive fuel source. and then finally we have to transition to the alternatives to dirty oil. well already have advanced batteries. well already have electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles that are growing dramatically. we're not going to get out of the oil business in 2014, but we can plan to get out of the oil business as quickly as we can by investing in clean energy rather than dirty fuels. >> but, as we all know, there will be sweet crude oil in this pipeline and transporting that in a pipeline is a lot safer than putting it on a rail. and that's the proponents' biggest issue is they want this for safety as much as anything else. now, the car sands, you're right about that. it is toxic. that's going get put on the market no matter what. your response to that. >> well, it won't. just look at the reality here. what we've already seen because of delays in this pipeline is that foreign investment in the tar sands has plummeted. t

michael bruin, where is this tar sand oil going to come through if not the pipeline? won't be out of the grounds. the tar sands is more toxic and more corrosive and carbon intensive, and landlocked. the only way out is if more pipelines are built. the pipeline to the u.s. has been delayed for five years. two proposed pipelines to the west coast of canada are being resisted. pipelines to the east are also facing some stiff resistant. if you don't believe the ciara club, listen to what the oil industry is saying. analysts have said time and time again they will not be able to grow or increase the production of tar sands oil if these pipelines are not built. you're very right to talk about safety, but our point is we shouldn't have to choose between two bad ideas. we're progressives. we should have a big vision that works for all americans and we should not have to choose between one risky option, which is shipping all this oil through pipeline and another bad option was to ship all this oil by rail, which also a long history of spills. >> that's a key point. you said it

steyer says the bigger climate issue is how tar sand oil is recovered from the canadian countryside. 20% is mixed in sandy soil lying just below the surface and is strip mined and spun in centrifuges to separate the oil from the dirt. the remaining 80% is trapped hundreds of feet below solid rock. steam is injected underground to loosen the oil and it is pumped out. the thick tarlike crude must be mixed with chemicals to make it flow through the pipeline. tar sands require 70% more energy to extract than traditional oil. >> this is a gigantic mining operation in the middle of nowhere. they want to take production by 2025, more than double it. >> and your job is to make sure that never comes out of the ground? >> well, look, from my point of view, i'm not a scientist, the scientists say it would be devastatingly terrible for the seven billion people if it does. >> when we return, tom steyer looks outside the box for answers. >> i actually believe that the solution for our energy problem is going to be corporate america. >> tom steyer claims money didn't motivate him, but he is incredi

that pipeline would carry vast amounts of tar sands oil, over 800,000 barrels every day, from canada down through the american heartland to refineries on the gulf coast, which opponents say would release dangerous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and accelerate the warming of the earth. last week, the state department released a review of the pipeline's impact that both opponents and supporters say helps their side. and that brought bill mckibben to new york city for yet another rally calling on the obama administration to say no to the pipeline once and for all. >> we need people like barack obama to start standing up finally. >> bill mckibben joins me now, welcome. >> good to be with you. >> so what does it mean that the state department said last week that there's no evidence that there'll be an environmental impact from the pipeline. and the white house has said indirectly that, well, the oil will get out one way or the other with or without this pipeline? >> the white house and the state department especially i think would like to approve it because big oil really wants it.

january, a long-awaited and viral impact statement from the state department found the keystone xl tar sandseline would do little to slow the sandsion of canada's tar it would not exacerbate the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. business week has reported a subsidiary of erm, the company behind the report, worked on the alaska pipeline project, which is owned in part by transcanada. climate news also reported the company's analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is based in part on estimates of the jacobs consultancy, which it describes as "a group that is owned by a big developer and hired by the governor government, which probably favors the project." with intellectual and systematic corruption in the state department of keystone, there's enough public scrutiny the report itself could not be completely bogus and if one reads it, it makes it very clear scenariohey say, in a where the world attempts to constrain carbon, keystone would make a huge difference. the place is that it makes no difference is if we are making offered to do anything about climate change and just flooding the atmosphe

these tar sands are going to destroy tribal lands.re already hurting children and families in canada, and people know that if they don't act, if they don't say all together, this is going to hurt all of us, that nothing's going to happen. >> are you surprised this issue, i first start to cover, "a," fix is in, it will get approved and built because the oil companies always win. "b," no one's ever going to be talks about it on primetime cable news, for instance. are you surprised by how inflated the issue has become, many it's now a central part of american political debate? >> you know, frankly, i'm not surprised. one of the reasons i'm not surprised is because people are actually smart. they're starting to see that the superstorms that are happening on the east coast, the drought that's happening on the west coast, all of those things are actually related. and if we don't talk about climate change, and if we don't talk about making sure that we reduce carbon emissions, that nothing is going to change. one of the striking things is as

right now there is only very little amount of canadian tar sands that goes by rail.aybe 1/20th of what would go through the pipeline. and activists have been able to make the case against the keystone pipeline. given the chance once we've stopped the pipeline to see what we can do about stopping the train loads of oil that supposedly would inevitablely come into this country. because i don't think it's inevitable. >> i heard senator heidi hidecamp go on the floor. >> that's an old style argument. the whole security notion came up during the 1973 oil embargo when opec actually withheld oil from us. but now there is a global market. it's not possible to withhold oil from us. so even if we were completely self-sufficient in oil, a world crisis would still jack the price of oil up, and it would still hit our economy. the way that you make us nor secure, more economically secure from oil is to be more efficient in the use of oil, which is the president's announcement today. if you reduce the oil consumed per gdp, then if there is a price shock, it has less impact on your

it will expand tar sand's development there and the president is going to make it a national interestdecision. we expect him to turn it down. i think there's more and more evidence that climate emissions are going up. these are the dirtiest fuels on the planet. we stro -- there has to be a strategic decision whether we're going go down a clean energy path or continually go ahead with fossil fuel development that is destructive to the climate. so it's definitely in his hands. we think that the information is there the analysis is complete. and the climate case it exacerbates the problem. it fails his test and should turn it down. >> let's go down the line on keystone. >> the project it is is in the national interest. we thought so for a number of years. when the permit was first submitted the world series champs were philly. it seems like ages ago. it's -- it's getting the point frankly for a lot of my members and lot of investors around the world it is a sign that the sunts necessarily open for business. this would be a strong signal particularly in light of the president and the stat

they've been concerned about tar sands posing risk to the water.hey've been concerned about the route going through nebraska. they're been raising the question of whether it is going through the major aquifer. they contested the law that set the route and right now it looks to be the route is unconstitutional. >> what is the role of the federal government as you know it now? could there be a higher court that could come in and side with the multinationals and get this pipeline constructed? >> i think the primary role for the federal government continues to be the comment period in place with the state department where your viewers can submit comments to tell secretary kerry this is not in our national interests. in the past, epa has expressed concerns about climate change and wildlife. we believe that those processes will continue. we're optimistic at this end of the day secretary kerry and president obama, who have done so much to protect the planet, to fight climate change, will find that this project isn't in the national interest. >> there's pr

well, the company that he's invested in, the pipeline they're proposing still uses tar sands, they justhan conventional crude. they have more stuff on their web site about it today where they adamantly oppose that because they say it is more dangerous to the environment than conventional crude oil because it potentially corrodes the pipe more likely, and if there's a spill, it's thicker and denser and more difficult to clean up than the conventional methods. so i think we rightfully can call into question why he was opposed to this from the beginning, particularly since he cited tar sands as the opposition. but he's clearly invested in a company that does stuff where it count stop tar sands, so it doesn't make sense. martha: tell me whether or not we think the keystone pipeline is getting any closer to some of these folks being on board. >> right. you have environmentalists calling into question the state department report saying there's a conflict of interest because one of the contractors had some ties to transcanada and worked with them previously. "the washington post," i believe, i

the oil in alberta, the tar sands oil is the same geology and chemistry as the oil we're bringing froma. god, i love the environmental community. i use less. i'm challenging everybody to use less hydrocarbons. we're going to leave it when we have a better, more efficient energy system. let's work on that. >> back to the pipeline for just a moment. i want to be very clear on this. it is getting the oil across the border that is the issue in the way they transport it and then getting it into the pipeline, which is going and already has been approved state by state. so this leaves the president almost powerless from stopping this because of the nafta agreement, which was made 20 years ago. so what's all the fuss about? >> there's a lot of emotion maskma ka raiding in d.c. on the right, they say the democrats are bad because they're not immediately proposing this pipeline and every other pipeline around the world. we're still using oil. when we passed nafta, we said you could bring those commodities freely across the border. if there's a bridge or a road or a rail or a pipeline or transmis

. >> he says the biggest issue is how tar sand oil is recovered from the canadian countryside. 20% of the oil is mixed in sandy soil lying just beneath the surface. it is spun in centrifuges to separate the oil from the dirt. 80% is trapped hundreds of feet below solid rock. steam is injected to loosen the oil. it must then be mixed with chemicals to make it flow to the pipeline. this requires 70% more to extract than traditional oil. >> this is a gigantic mining operation in the middle of nowhere. they want to take production by 2025 and more than double it. >> your goal is to make sure that never comes out of the ground? >> from my point of view, i am not a scientist. the scientists say it would be devastatingly terrible for the people of new york if it does. >> steyer looks outside the box for answers. >> i believe the solution to our energy problem is going to be corporate america. ♪ >> tom steyer claims money didn't motivate him, but he is incredibly good at making it. the company has a market value of $4 billion, and that has made him a very wealthy man. you didn't like using mo

last word. >> because this pipeline is a conduit for tar sands expansion, and that is -- that's whatpipeline is. it's not about the pipeline, it's about extreme energy extraction. they can't sell it anywhere. they can't get it out of the country. >> they can sell it to china. >> except for they can't get it out. >> we always like talking to you. >> thank you. i like talking to you. >>> the former head writer for johnny carson says late-night talk show hosts are helping president obama. that is true? a report moments away. [ male announcer ] behind every centrum multivitamin are over one million hours of research. inside are specific vitamins and minerals to help support your heart, brain and eyes. centrum silver. for the most amazing parts of you. centrum silver. it says here that a woman's sex drive. increases the age of 80. helps reduce the risk of heartisease. it seems that 80 is the new 18. grannies, bless your heart, you are bringing sexy back! eat up. keep heart-healthy. live long. for a healthy heart, eat the 100% natural whole grain goodness opost shredded wheat. doctors reco

last word. >> because this pipeline is a conduit for tar sands expansion, and that is -- that's whatthe problem with the pipeline is. it's not about the pipeline, it's about extreme energy extraction. they can't sell it anywhere. they can't get it out of the country. >> they can sell it to china. >> except for they can't get it out. >> we always like talking to you. >> thank you. i like talking to you. >>> the former head writer for johnny carson says late-night talk show hosts are helping president obama. that is true? a report moments away. fighting constipation by eating healthier, drinking plenty of water, but still not getting relief? try dulcolax laxative tablets. dulcolax is comfort-coated for gentle, over-night relief. dulcolax. predictable over-night relief you can count on. tony stewart: time teaches you things. you learn to look up to people with the courage to do what they love. like my friend, johnny morris. that it's more than just a living, it's life. and that's the difference between leaders and everyone else. ♪ ♪ where you think you're gonna go ♪ ♪ when your time's a

environmentalists disagree, saying plans to pipe 830,000 barrels of oil per day from alberta's tar sands to the u.s. gulf coast would accelerate global warming and threaten communities along the pipeline's route. here in new york city, scores of people rallied in union square. >> this issue has artie brought many into the streets within any other environmental issue in decades. it is out of the hands of the bought off bureaucrats who have been delaying it in the state department for years and doing the bidding in the fossil fuel industry. now we are going to find out whether john kerry and barack ofma are similarly captives the oil industry or whether they are willing to really stand up when it counts for the commitments they've made about climate change. >> the protest came as a new study revealed emissions of toxic blooms from the tar sands have been vastly underestimated. researchers at the university of toronto scarborough say actual levels of pollutants are far higher than estimates accepted by the canadian government. the pollutants have been tied to a higher risk of asthma as well

from the shale of north dakota and here at the alberta tar sands crude is being extracted. there is a problem. getting the oil to market can be dangerous. this fireball over north dakota last year was from derailed oil tangors, and in quÉbec 47 died when a fuel train exploded in the center of town. it calls for tighter safety rules and for those living beside the rail lines more transparency of what is being cared. >> it's a small town. if a similar incident were to happen in toronto, one doesn't want to imagine the casualties that would result. >> the government is tightening regulations and will continue to do so as it receives input from official inquiries. in late january both canada's transport regulators and the national transportation safety board in the u.s. released similar recommendations, moving hazardous goods only along the safest routes and planning for disasters. >> it is an integrated transportation economy. these cars and locomotives do cross the boarders. there has to be a solution that will work in both the u.s. and canada. >> under intense pressure not l

. >> reporter: the project begins in the canadian tar sands, running 1100 miles from montana to nebraskain south dakota it would skirt seven native american nations. >> the pipeline will be four miles to the west here. >> reporter: that's too close for 60-year-old steve vance. he worries if the pipeline ruptures it could pollute the cheyenne river and the ogallala aquifer. it's solvents to make it fluent, so when the pipe breaks, which i know it will, it is not going to just leak oil. >> reporter: this isn't just a battle over water. it is also a battle over land. the tribe says the pipeline violates 19th century treaties it negotiated for territory rights in the black hills. treaties the u.s. government abolished more than a century ago, but treaties the tribes say are still valid. the construction of the pipeline could also unearth sacred native american artifacts. trans-canada says it has protections in place to protect the environment and cultural sites. in a statement they sa . . . >> 830,000 barrels a day -- >> reporter: but at this meeting tribe members prepared for a fight, some

the project begins in the canadian tar sands, running 1100 miles from montana to if ebb neb. it would skirt seven native nations. >> it would be approximately four miles from the lake. >> that's too close for 60-year-old steve vance, who lives on the reservation. if the pipeline ruptures, it could pollute the river and the quack fir, which are in the of aquaphor. >> if the pipe breaks, which i know it will, it will leave chemicals. >> for the lakota. it's not just a battle over water, but over land. the tribe said that it violates 19 century treaties that it new negotiated with the u.s. government, treaties that they abolished but the tribes say that they're still valid. the pipeline through those territories could unearth sacred american artifacts. transcanada has met with the tribe and said that it has protections in place to preserve both the environment and cultural sites. transcanada has a deep level of cultural awareness, and it encourages the cultures, and strives to have respect with tribal groups. >> 830,000 barrels a day. >> but at this meeting, tribe members prepar

that arguably is just as bad as the oil coming out of the ground from the tar sands. fact. also oil from nigeria. it's not like we're bringing in crude oil that is absolutely dleen clean as the bakken shale. >> so why bring in more? >> because -- well, first of all, energy independence and security is a big deal. we didn't go into libya. we didn't go into egypt. >> that's not our oil. >> okay. all right. you asked me -- this is where i stand on it. i believe that this country has got to have energy independence. i believe that this country is headed in the right direction. i believe this is a safer mechanism. it's proven. you say the damn land, i say the damn 47 people that lost their lives in canada because you have got these trains going through major metropolitan areas, which is horribly dangerous, and there could be a massive loss of life. now if you want to contest the national transportation safety board who has said that we are on the verge of a major disaster if we continue down this road, i happen to take that seriously. let's go to eric. >> property rights o