>>> welcome back to the ed show. for weeks, bringing you both sides of the story, keith stone xl pipeline. land owners and farm owners expressed serious concerns about the pipeline. they dont want the pipeline running through their land. on the other side, are the oil companies and of course, some politics want this project to happen. now the canadian government has been very clear, they think the xl pipeline will be good for both the united states and canadian economy. last week, canadian prime minister steven harper made this very clear. >> president obama and i had an exchange on this, my views in favor of the project are very well known. his views on the process are also equally well known and we had that discussion on the issue of climate change, which is a shared concern, account united states have similar targets at the several -- in several sectors in terms of the emissions reduction bus in terms of climate change, i think the state department word already was pretty definitive on that issue. >> joining me tonight is the ambassador to the united states, gary doer. >> thanks for having me on. >> you bet. i have heard a lot, a both sides on this issue. lets talk about the can need dap perspective. does canada want this pipeline to come through the united states to go down to be retyped in the enough? >> yes, we do we think it makes a lot of sense for both countries, as you say. it was proposed about five years ago to displace venezuelan oil. we have a great trading relationship with the united states, including in energy. and we think it makes a lot of sense to have this pipeline proceed, but not only proceed with can needian oil but balkan oil from canada. the oil is coming down to the united states now, as the state department has properly documented, its coming down on rail and you and i both know highway 2 in north dakota, 500 tanker trucks a day with oil and we think it makes more sense to be an to pipeline. >> so, tar sands oil, to be very clear is already being refined in the gulf? >> yes, it is. >> okay. and this would just bring more of it to market? >> well, not -- well, yes it would bring more, but it would bring it with a pipeline and the state department, you have people, as you say, on either side of this issue. >> sure h. >> but if we look at the independent dent meritorious review of the state department and the 2,000 pages, they say its safer, its less cost and it has less greenhouse gases to have it on a pipeline rather than rail and trucks. and as i say, you and i both know highway 2 in north dakota. >> sure. >> 7500 -- 500 trucks a day you have a democratic senator and republican senator saying put it on a mainline. >> rail is obviously being loaded one oil right now and the safety issue is what the proponents are really saying about this pipeline. but the quality of the oil, we keep hearing that this is the worst oil to ever come out of the ground th, that its far more toxic than any other oil is that true? >> the state department again says the oil is comparable to the oil its displacing in venezuela. secondly, if you look at the department of energy report, ironically, the highest greenhouse gas emission oil in north america is actually thermal oil from california. of course, we dont mean to say that we can and must continue improve the stewardship of that oil. we used to use ten barrels of water for one bar.of oil. now we are 1:1. continue to have land reclamation, it ton reduce greenhouse gases through innovation and we will do that and we are doing that. >> okay. why not refine it in canada? >> some of the oil is retyped in canada, but its displacing the purpose of this pipeline is to displace venezuelan oil to make the united states less reliable or less reliant, rather, on middle eastern oil. so, that was the purpose of the pipeline to begin with and when you look at those goal posts, theyve been -- the balls gop through those goal posts, then the issue of the sand hill portion in nebraska. that pipeline has now been rerouted to deal with that concern that has been raised in the state of nebraska and now, the presidents saying it has to be -- it cant increase greenhouse gases in any significant way while the state department also anticipates that question, it says that it would be higher green house gas it is you were to say no to the pipeline. >> mm-hmm. now, theres been some questions by environmentalists about the integrity of the state department. >> yeah,thy thank yous really unfair. im not the secretary of state. >> yeah. >> but this is the second time they questioned the integrity of the scientists and the experts in the state department that are not political appointments and i respect their integrity. we may not have liked the state department report, but we would never -- we do think its a good report, by the way, we think its very accurate, but never attack the integrity of those scientists. >> they say -- the environmentalists are saying theres been a conflict of interest. the inspector general says. no >> it fell like a house of cards by an end pep dent review by the inspector general. i think at soil point, you make these al gailses, when are you accountable for when youre wrong? >> you really want this pipeline? >> no. but i also think its been very unfair to people that cant speak up. >> okay. >> again, im not the secretary of state. >> sure. sure. okay. now, secretary kerry gave a speech that was very poignant about climate change and global warm willing, called it the weapon of mass destruction. is he, your sense, not going to recommend that this pipen built? >> well, why would you say no to a pipeline and have higher green house gases with rail? i agree that i dont agree with some of -- everything necessarily the flair in which he said it i think the prime minister and president both talked about it last week, we have the ability to have energy security in our neighborhood, of canada, united states and mexico. look at all the -- you heard brian switzer talk about before, governor switzer talked about how many went from his national guard to the middle east, we have the chance to have that. but realso are -- have the chance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in north america and we are going to continue to do that. we dont -- we dont see and i didnt see when i was premier of manitoba a pipeline of climate change. i saw closing a coal plant potentially helpful or light vehicle emission standards, which the president and the prime minister have agreed to. we both have the same energy efficiency for cars. that is climate change. >> tell us what happens if the pipeline is not built. what happens to that oil? i keep -- im always hearing that this oils coming out of the ground. the canadians are getting this out of the ground, already coming out but come out at a faster pace. why not put it to the west coast? there is a pipeline to the west coast, proposal for two more. so yes, it can -- >> with this pipeline, the keystone? >> no, no, not with this. there are two proposed pipe lanes to the united states. theres two to the west coast proposed and the two east coast. and -- >> are the canadian people fighting the with unto the west coast? >> there is always -- if you have a transmission line-- >> yeah. >> if you have a pipeline, if off pipeline with carbon dioxide from north dakota to be sequestered in saskatchewan, i guarantee you will have people that disagree. we cant sometimes get clean energy on a transmission line. >> will it be refined better in the gulf than it would be in china? >> well, theres higher standards in the united states than china. >> if the president says no, what does that do to diplomatic relations? >> if the president says no, he is saying yes to higher greenhouse gases because the oil is coming down, whether anybody likes it not, on rail, does not require his presidential permit. so the choice for john kerry and the president is do you want the oil coming through the united states and through canada on rail or do you want it on pipe lines? >> i have to ask you -- >> lower cost, lower risk, and lower ghgs on pipelines. other than that, its not that complicated. all right, mr. baerkd i got to ask you about the situation in ukraine. your thoughts on that and the, aggressive move bay the russians, the russian federation holding military operations inside ukraine. >> well, our minister of foreign affairs is there, as youre asking me the question. we feel that we have to demonstrate solidarity with the democratic aspirations of the ukrainian people, its disappointments that they have had over the last number of weeks and months and thats why our foreign minister has been deployed and is there as we speak. >> the president says he is deeply concerned. >> we are, too. yes, we share his concern. >> are you concerned about possible military action by the russians? >> the president didnt use that term and we are trying to work very carefully with the united states. all weekend long, we were working in concert with the united states. we -- we are working together with the administration in washington. >> all right. gary doer, great to have you with us tonight, canadian ambassador to the
Posted on: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 01:04:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015