Cross posted from Scaling Green. Also, for Virginia political junkies, note that Steyer is going “big” in Virginia’s governor’s race this year to help defeat climate science denier and clean energy opponent Ken Cuccinelli.
Here are a few key points by Tom Steyer made in this interview by the CBC:
- On the TV ad rejected by WRC-TV 4 in Washington, DC, Steyer says it’s a “parody and a humorous point about a very serious subject, because we felt very strongly about the idea that this pipeline is a very bad idea, but it’s been argued about for so long, we thought we could make some lighthearted points about the inconsistencies being made by TransCanada.”
- Those inconsistencies include claims about the pipeline being a “big jobs program,” enhancing “American energy independence,” lowering gas prices in the United States, etc. that are not borne out by the facts. Instead, Steyer says, this has been a “one-sided debate about the Keystone XL pipeline, and we’ve just tried to bring in the other side.”
- Responding to TransCanada CEO Russ Girling’s claims that the pipeline has met all the criteria laid down by the U.S. government, including supposedly having “minimal impact on the environment” and being inevitable, Steyer said the State Department report has been challenged by the EPA and is most certainly not a done deal.
- Steyer would like to debate Girling, arguing that this would be “very helpful, because we have two extremely different views of the future.”
- According to Steyer, he’s not spending anything near what TransCanada has spent promoting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
- In response to an assertion that he’s playing an “inside game,” trying to influence U.S. policymakers, Steyer explained that his anti-Keystone campaign is “really trying to talk to citizens about what’s going on so that people can start to understand it.”
- Steyer said it was a “ridiculous statement,” “hilarious,” and “standing on your head” when oil interests call American citizens “special interests” and oil companies “the people.”
- The bottom line, in Steyer’s view, is that this is a “very straightforward choice for the United States and for Canada to decide if we’re going to start thinking about energy differently, and if the idea is that we’re going to do the status quo…then god help us.”