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

David Dodge, the Pembina Institute

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.


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.

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

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

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate