CNN's Carol Costello surprisingly acted as a supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline on Friday's CNN Newsroom, as she interviewed left-wing Senator Bernie Sanders. The Vermont politician decried the project, since climate change is "already causing devastating problems in our country," and that it would "transport 800,000 barrels a day of some of the dirtiest oil on Earth."
However, Costello, who is on the record of bluntly asserting that "there is no debate" on climate change, badgered Senator Sanders over his position: "The State Department did a study on the Keystone pipeline, and it...would not significantly affect greenhouse gases; and it also would support 42,000 jobs over two years. It would result in $3.4 billion for the U.S. economy. All of that sounds good." [video below]
Throughout the segment, the anchor emulated Senator Mary Landrieu, who has been a vocal proponent of the pipeline in recent days, as she runs for reelection in Louisiana. Costello first asked her guest, "So what do you suspect will happen if Congress passes the Keystone pipeline?"
Senator Sanders replied with his "devastating problems" line, and underlined that "the scientific community is virtually united in saying the that climate change is real...and if we do not transform our energy system away from fossil fuel...that situation is only going to get worse." He also cited that "the CIA and the Department of Defense are telling us [that] these cause international security problems, because you're going to find people around the world fighting over scarce resources."
Costello then pressed the leftist politician by repeatedly citing the State Department study, but he would not budge:
CAROL COSTELLO: Well, there's a fly in the ointment in your argument, though – because the State Department did a study on the Keystone pipeline, and it found the pipeline would not significantly affect greenhouse gases; and it also would support 42,000 jobs over two years. It would result in $3.4 billion for the U.S. economy. All of that sounds good.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I), VERMONT: Well – no. It's – first of all, these – in terms of jobs, the figure that you're giving us comes from the company itself, and it is widely exaggerated-
COSTELLO: It comes from the State Department-
SANDERS: You know what the number of permanent long-term jobs are? It is – it is – no. It is – well, it is less than one hundred. And in terms of jobs, what we're talking about are not 42,000 jobs. We're talking about some construction jobs – that's true. But if we're serious about job creation, we should rebuild our crumbling infrastructure – our roads and our bridges and our rail system and our water plants. We can create millions of jobs – not a few thousand temporary jobs.
Furthermore, as the President just indicated, most of this oil is going to be exported largely to oil (sic). And, in fact, there are studies out there that will suggest that gas prices in the United States will actually go up as a result of this project, not down.
COSTELLO: But – but these things that I passed along to you came from a State Department report, which is an unbiased report. So, is it wrong?
SANDERS: Well, I have – yes, it is wrong. I have looked at other studies, which suggest – there is no debate. In terms of permanent jobs, you're looking at less than one hundred jobs. But let's go back to the most important point – and that is the scientific community is united in saying that climate change is real. And if we support the transportation of 800,000 barrels a day of some of the dirtiest oil in the world, how do we go forward into the world and say, 'Look, we think climate change is real, and we have got to do everything that we can to protect the planet for our kids?'
COSTELLO: I also – I think climate change is real, and I think that it – that man has contributed to that. But you can't really ignore the State Department report that says that it won't significantly affect greenhouse gases, if the Keystone pipeline is completed. How do you just brush that aside?
SANDERS: Well, I think – I think what they're saying is, among other things, that if we do not support the pipeline, the project will go forward in Canada, and somehow or another, they will be able to transport their oil to Asia. I am not sure that that's accurate.
Clearly, the companies in Canada want this pipeline. They're going to make a whole lot of money out of this pipeline. But I think if the United States stands up and says, wait a minute – we want the whole world to move forward in reducing carbon emissions – we are not supporting this project – I'm not so – quite so confident that that project will go forward. But the United States cannot be an international leader on one of the most serious crises facing this planet if we say, okay – we're supportive of the extraction of 800,000 barrels of the dirtiest oil on Earth every single day.
