Which Could Hurt Wildlife More: Keystone XL Pipeline Or Ethanol Fuel Additive?

The Department of the Interior has the task of managing and protecting America’s vast lands and resources.  According to their website:

“Our Mission: Protecting America’s Great Outdoors and Powering Our Future”

“The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future.”

Under the liberal dictatorship of President’s Clinton and Obama, the Interior Department went out of its way to prevent the access to America’s vital energy resources, using the environment as their excuse.  They would rather see America continue to rely on foreign oil than to utilize our own energy resources and become energy independent.

In their latest ploy to prevent America from gaining access to Canadian oil fields and the creation of over 10,000 jobs.  The Keystone XL Pipeline System would take crude oil from the oil sand and bitumen fields in western Canada and northern US and transport it through 2,151 miles of pipelines to the oil refineries in Texas.

Environmentalists are fighting the construction of the pipeline claiming that any spills or ruptures in the pipeline would harm the environment and be dangerous to wildlife.  The Department of the Interior has joined the side of radical environmentalists claiming that the Keystone XL pipeline ‘could’ be a danger to wildlife.  The important thing to notice in all of their arguments is the word ‘could’.

These same environmentalists and the Department of the Interior continue to push the use of ethanol as an additive to gasoline claiming it is more environmentally friendly.  The ethanol they use as a gasoline additive is a product of corn.  In order to produce enough ethanol to meet government requirements, millions of acres of land currently not being used by farmers, will need to be plowed up and planted with corn.

Myron Ebell, Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has been trying to get the House of Representatives to abolish the Renewable Fuel Standard that establishes the mandate for the use of the ethanol additives.  Ebell commented about the use of ethanol, saying:

“Well, because it’s official government policy to have the ethanol mandate, which requires consumers to buy gasoline that contains ethanol in it.  So we’re going to have more and more millions of acres plowed under and turned into corn fields, which will reduce wildlife habitat.”

Ebell also believes that the Keystone XL pipeline is less of an environmental concern than the loss of millions of acres of wildlife habitat that will be result of corn production to meet the ethanol requirements.

The thing that strikes me is that the ethanol fuel additive requirement will result in the loss of millions of acres of wildlife habitat.  The Keystone XL pipeline ‘might’ or ‘could’ result in the damage of dozens of acres of habitat in the event of a leak.  So why are the environmentalists and Obama administration against a ‘possible’ damage to dozens of acres’ while supporting the ‘actual’ destruction and loss of millions of acres of wildlife habitat.

It’s obvious that it has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with politics.  President Obama doesn’t want the pipeline built because it would be another step to America’s energy independence and he can’t have happen.  Obama needs the US to remain oil dependent on his Arab buddies in the Muslim controlled Middle East countries.  Additionally, the creation of 10,000 plus jobs would go against his objective of keeping as many Americans jobless as possible.  Obama doesn’t want to save America but destroy it.  Once it is destroyed, he can implement his socialist ways and rise as America’s savior and tyrant dictator, even more so than he is now.  Why else would he and his administration be pushing the destruction of millions of acres of habitat and opposing the ‘possible’ harm to only dozens of acres?