Why we don’t know the truth about the pipeline controversy

BOSTON — It’s not as if the Obama administration hasn’t been trying to convince Americans that the United States is a safe place to be when it comes to oil, gas and coal.

As President Donald Trump’s administration has continued to push for Keystone XL and other energy projects, the Obama Administration has been using its influence to convince the public that Keystone XL is a bad idea, and that we shouldn’t be building pipelines to carry tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast.

The Obama administration has been making this case repeatedly to lawmakers and the public at large, claiming that Keystone is not a good thing and is detrimental to the climate and the environment.

Now, after the recent announcement by the U.S. Energy Department that it will build the TransCanada’s Northern Gateway pipeline, which would run from the oil sands of Alberta to tidewater ports in New Brunswick, Quebec and New England, and carry the oil from Canada to the U:nited Ports of Edmonton and B.C., the administration is trying to make the same case again, saying that this pipeline is not “unprecedented” and is not necessary to ensure a stable and sustainable economy.

Keystone XL, the president said in his State of the Union address, is necessary to help meet America’s energy needs while “protecting our environment and our people from the harmful effects of climate change.”

The Obama Administration claims that Keystone will provide “the most affordable and environmentally sound” pipeline route available, while “providing certainty to our communities” as it “will create thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of thousands of additional jobs in the U of A, B.N., Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.”

This is the same administration that has repeatedly been accused of “greenwashing” its policies in the face of global climate change.

While the Obama White House and Keystone XL are claiming that they will create thousands or even millions of construction and other jobs, they are not telling the truth.

The pipeline would create a massive amount of greenhouse gas emissions, which are projected to add $2 trillion to the national debt by 2030, according to a new study by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

Keystone XL’s supporters, like the Obama administrations “greenwash” and “green jobs,” claim that the pipeline will not increase carbon emissions or increase dependence on fossil fuels, while in fact, it will increase dependence and increase carbon pollution in the United State.

“There are hundreds of billions of dollars in federal green money that is going to Keystone that will go to green jobs, green infrastructure and green infrastructure projects,” said Tom Donilon, former national security adviser for the Obama campaign.

“They’re making this promise, and they’re saying that it’s going to help the economy grow, but in reality it’s just going to drive up prices for people’s homes, their cars, their appliances, their clothes, and ultimately it’s not going to create jobs.

It’s just not going, and it’s really going to have a very devastating impact on the economy.”

In fact, the U.:nited Pipeline Study estimated that if Keystone XL was built today, it would create 1.2 million new jobs by 2040, increase the U.;s economy by $2.8 trillion by 2026, and generate $2,500 per household, and an additional $2 billion in annual economic activity.

In addition, the study found that “there is significant potential for the economic benefits of Keystone XL to be offset by carbon pollution, including the negative impact on greenhouse gas emission.

If the Keystone XL project were built today and operated at full capacity, it is expected to generate $10 billion in greenhouse gas reduction benefits over a 50-year period, and create an additional 12,000 jobs in New York City alone.”

In reality, there are serious questions about the impact of the pipeline, and about the amount of carbon pollution it will create.

The study found, “the average annual carbon pollution from Keystone XL would be about 1,600 metric tons.

The actual carbon pollution could be even higher, depending on the timing and intensity of the construction.

It is unlikely that the projected greenhouse gas benefits would outweigh the economic costs, as a number of factors are likely to prevent the project from generating significant economic benefits.”

This new study, conducted by the EDF and the Climate Action Tracker, concludes that the Keystone Pipeline would have no significant positive economic impact on U.:s climate, and would have a negative impact.

“The study indicates that there is little or no scientific consensus about the potential economic benefits and risks associated with Keystone XL.

Even with these uncertainties, the findings suggest that the environmental impact assessment process and the proposed route could have serious environmental and economic impacts,” the study states.

In other words, the pipeline could have the potential to create a devastating climate-altering effect on our climate and our economy.

“This pipeline has been one of the top-ten biggest climate impacts