Hillary Clinton Could Make or Break U.S. Dependence on the Tar Sands

David Dodge, the Pembina Institute

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


An obscure executive order issued by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 has given Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the power to approve or deny a massive oil pipeline between Canada’s controversial tar sands and U.S. oil refineries.

In the coming weeks, the State Department will decide whether to grant a permit for the  1,000-mile Alberta Clipper pipeline, which would be capable of carrying up to 800,000 barels per day of crude oil–or about 8 percent of net U.S. oil imports–from the tar sands in eastern Alberta to refineries on Lake Superior in Wisconsin.

Under current law–rarely invoked, given that oil imports typically arrive in the U.S. by tanker–the Secretary of State must receive all applications for the construction of “pipelines, conveyor belts, and similar facilities for the exportation and importation of petroleum.” If the Secretary finds that granting a permit “would not serve the national interest,” she can deny it.

This week, the Sierra Club will launch a campaign to pressure Clinton to oppose the project as a climate boondoggle that would lock the United States into purchasing dirty oil for decades. Mining and refining oil from the tar sands emits roughly twice as much greenhouse gas as producing traditional oil. Canada is already the U.S.’ top foreign oil supplier and is expected to provide an even larger share as the U.S. looks for a stable energy source closer to home.

The Sierra Club’s director of environmental law, Pat Gallagher, notes that the executive order provides “absolutely no guidelines or any kind of process to decide what is in the ‘national interest.'” So how to weigh energy security against climate security–and of course, personal political security–will be up to Clinton.

What’s independent journalism worth to you?

Our news will always be free to read, watch, and listen to online. But what is its value?

Unbiased reporting on the issues that billionaire-owned newsrooms won’t touch. Fearless research into the dark corners of government and corporations. Ferociously fact-checked news that focuses on the facts, and the facts alone.

It IS free for you and every reader, viewer, and listener to utilize. But it’s not free for our team to make. So, what’s it worth to you? Let us know by making a donation: Make a one-time donation today to support this work. Or make a monthly sustaining donation to help us plan for the future.

Whatever you choose, know that you’re supporting more independent, investigative journalism in a time when we need it most.

What’s independent journalism worth to you?

Our news will always be free to read, watch, and listen to online. But what is its value?

Unbiased reporting on the issues that billionaire-owned newsrooms won’t touch. Fearless research into the dark corners of government and corporations. Ferociously fact-checked news that focuses on the facts, and the facts alone.

It IS free for you and every reader, viewer, and listener to utilize. But it’s not free for our team to make. So, what’s it worth to you? Let us know by making a donation: Make a one-time donation today to support this work. Or make a monthly sustaining donation to help us plan for the future.

Whatever you choose, know that you’re supporting more independent, investigative journalism in a time when we need it most.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate