pbs高端访谈:数千名民众白宫前游行抗议输油管道计划

 　　JUDY WOODRUFF:So, you're saying it would go to other countries and then come to the U.S. by ship or ...

　　SCOTT SEGAL:Well, I would say there are two options. It's either going to go to China or come to the United States. And in either event, the carbon footprint will be deeper.
　　The further point about whether or not an oil pipeline 1 somehow endangers the land upon which it crosses I think has been asked and answered so many times, it's no longer a relevant consideration. Look, the map of the United States is literally 2 a spider web of oil and product pipelines 3. And ...
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:You're saying already?
　　SCOTT SEGAL:Already.
　　The fact of the matter is, the chances of sustaining a spill of oil out of an oil pipeline is one-quarter the amount of alternative forms of transportation, were we to take those oil pipelines away and take them in a different mechanism 4.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:Bob Deans, what about that second point first? There's already so many pipelines in the U.S., and the rate of spills or problems with that is so low.
　　BOB DEANS:Well, the reason we have these pipelines is because we have been addicted 5 to fossil fuels for more than a century now.
　　We need to turn away from that. We need to begin using less oil. We're using 10 percent less now than we did when President Obama took office because we're using more renewables. We're more efficient. We need to continue investing and moving in that direction, not building more infrastructures 6 to support the ruinous fossil fuels of the past that are driving and accelerating this climate disaster.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:Do you want to respond to that?
　　SCOTT SEGAL:Sure.
　　We're using less oil now because we're in a recession. And the hope is -- in fact, the number one priority of President Obama is that we make an economic recovery and come out of that recession. The notion that we will depend on less efficient forms of energy like solar and wind exclusively or, worse yet, on energy conservation alone, at a time when we're trying to grow ourselves out of a recession, is unrealistic, is damaging to economy, and frankly 7 will not be the alternative that will be chosen.
　　We're in an oil-based economy. And we should have the type of energy security which allows us to have defendable supply lines and not pay for our oil to those who want to do harm to the United States.
　　BOB DEANS:May I say something?
　　Clean energy jobs are now employing 3.1 million Americans around the country. That's according to the Bureau of Labor 8 statistics. These jobs have grown almost out of nowhere over the past decade, at a time when we have lost 4.5 million manufacturing jobs. These jobs have been a bright spot in a tough economy for three million American families.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:Let me ask you about the other points that he's raised. One is that the oil, if it doesn't come through this pipeline, it's going to eventually get to the U.S. anyway. And it's going to come through potentially dirtier sources that burn -- that use more carbon -- or expend 9 more carbon, and the other argument, that if the U.S. doesn't use this oil, it's going to go to other countries anyway, that it's going to get used somewhere on the planet.
　　BOB DEANS:Well, here's the thing.
　　That -- these tar 10 sands are boreal forests, one of the last wild places on the planet. We have already destroyed, made an industrial wasteland out of a part of that forest the size of Chicago. That needs to stop. Alberta, where these tar sands are, is a long way from Shanghai. That oil is not going to China, unless it goes out of the west coast of Canada. They won't build a pipeline there because the Canadian people don't want it crossing their farms, their salmon 11 streams, their native lands. And we respect that.
　　SCOTT SEGAL:No, the Canadians have already said they are in favor of a pipeline. The problem is not with the Canadian polity.
　　The problem here is with a few elite 12 environmentalist organizations that are trying to stop 20,000 jobs in construction, trying to stop a multiplier effect of many more jobs in the manufacturing sector 13 and $20 billion dollars net contribution to the U.S. economy, all for very specious 14 environmental and safety concerns.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:How do you answer that?
　　BOB DEANS:Judy, complete nonsense.
　　We had 30-some-thousand people from all over the country assembled by the Washington Monument and marched to the people's house, the White House, to say -- I talked to these people. I was out there. There were people from New Orleans. They had come up all the way from Louisiana. There were people from Maine. There were people from Nebraska.
　　There were people from all over this country and from all walks of life, farmers, students, businessmen, folks who are saying we need to turn away from the fossil fuels of the past, invest in efficiency and renewables and build a 21st century economy on new fuels and ...
　　SCOTT SEGAL:And many, many, many more work in industry in the 20 industrial sectors 15 which are energy-intensive and trade-exposed in this country that depend on the reliable and affordable 16 supplies of energy.
　　Even the steelworkers who were opposed to this at one point now appear to be coming round and are likely to support the pipeline because they know the steel itself is sourced here in the United States.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:Let me finally ask you both, what's at stake ultimately here, Scott Segal, if this pipeline is not built, in your view?
　　SCOTT SEGAL:Yes.
　　Well, in my view, the United States loses on the energy security front. The United States loses on the job creation front. The United States gains absolutely nothing from either a global climate change or a protection of wild areas, because we already have a dependence 17 on these pipelines and a significant network of them. All that happens is the president becomes embarrassed in front of our number one trading partner, the Canadians, and all for no net benefit.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:And what's at stake, from your perspective?
　　BOB DEANS:You know, the climate.
　　Judy, we just finished the hottest year on round in this country. We lost 50 percent of our corn across the heartland, 60 percent of our pasture lands. We had ranchers liquidating 18 their herds 19 from the Rocky Mountains to the Ohio River Valley because they couldn't afford to feed their cattle anymore.
　　We lost 130 Americans. We did $80 billion dollars worth of damage just from Hurricane Sandy. We have a crisis. This climate chaos 20 needs to end. And that's a conversation we can have with our friends in Canada because they're working like we are to reduce their carbon footprint. They're working like we are to improve renewables. They're working like we are to do more with less. We need to partner around that and create jobs of the future in Canada and the United States. We're going to do it.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:Well, the debate over this pipeline extension goes on. And we thank you both for being here with us tonight.
　　Bob Deans, Scott Segal, we appreciate it.
　　SCOTT SEGAL:Thank you.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:So, you're saying it would go to other countries and then come to the U.S. by ship or ...
　　SCOTT SEGAL:Well, I would say there are two options. It's either going to go to China or come to the United States. And in either event, the carbon footprint will be deeper.
　　The further point about whether or not an oil pipeline somehow endangers the land upon which it crosses I think has been asked and answered so many times, it's no longer a relevant consideration. Look, the map of the United States is literally a spider web of oil and product pipelines. And ...
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:You're saying already?
　　SCOTT SEGAL:Already.
　　The fact of the matter is, the chances of sustaining a spill of oil out of an oil pipeline is one-quarter the amount of alternative forms of transportation, were we to take those oil pipelines away and take them in a different mechanism.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:Bob Deans, what about that second point first? There's already so many pipelines in the U.S., and the rate of spills or problems with that is so low.
　　BOB DEANS:Well, the reason we have these pipelines is because we have been addicted to fossil fuels for more than a century now.
　　We need to turn away from that. We need to begin using less oil. We're using 10 percent less now than we did when President Obama took office because we're using more renewables. We're more efficient. We need to continue investing and moving in that direction, not building more infrastructures to support the ruinous fossil fuels of the past that are driving and accelerating this climate disaster.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:Do you want to respond to that?
　　SCOTT SEGAL:Sure.
　　We're using less oil now because we're in a recession. And the hope is -- in fact, the number one priority of President Obama is that we make an economic recovery and come out of that recession. The notion that we will depend on less efficient forms of energy like solar and wind exclusively or, worse yet, on energy conservation alone, at a time when we're trying to grow ourselves out of a recession, is unrealistic, is damaging to economy, and frankly will not be the alternative that will be chosen.
　　We're in an oil-based economy. And we should have the type of energy security which allows us to have defendable supply lines and not pay for our oil to those who want to do harm to the United States.
　　BOB DEANS:May I say something?
　　Clean energy jobs are now employing 3.1 million Americans around the country. That's according to the Bureau of Labor statistics. These jobs have grown almost out of nowhere over the past decade, at a time when we have lost 4.5 million manufacturing jobs. These jobs have been a bright spot in a tough economy for three million American families.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:Let me ask you about the other points that he's raised. One is that the oil, if it doesn't come through this pipeline, it's going to eventually get to the U.S. anyway. And it's going to come through potentially dirtier sources that burn -- that use more carbon -- or expend more carbon, and the other argument, that if the U.S. doesn't use this oil, it's going to go to other countries anyway, that it's going to get used somewhere on the planet.
　　BOB DEANS:Well, here's the thing.
　　That -- these tar sands are boreal forests, one of the last wild places on the planet. We have already destroyed, made an industrial wasteland out of a part of that forest the size of Chicago. That needs to stop. Alberta, where these tar sands are, is a long way from Shanghai. That oil is not going to China, unless it goes out of the west coast of Canada. They won't build a pipeline there because the Canadian people don't want it crossing their farms, their salmon streams, their native lands. And we respect that.
　　SCOTT SEGAL:No, the Canadians have already said they are in favor of a pipeline. The problem is not with the Canadian polity.
　　The problem here is with a few elite environmentalist organizations that are trying to stop 20,000 jobs in construction, trying to stop a multiplier effect of many more jobs in the manufacturing sector and $20 billion dollars net contribution to the U.S. economy, all for very specious environmental and safety concerns.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:How do you answer that?
　　BOB DEANS:Judy, complete nonsense.
　　We had 30-some-thousand people from all over the country assembled by the Washington Monument and marched to the people's house, the White House, to say -- I talked to these people. I was out there. There were people from New Orleans. They had come up all the way from Louisiana. There were people from Maine. There were people from Nebraska.
　　There were people from all over this country and from all walks of life, farmers, students, businessmen, folks who are saying we need to turn away from the fossil fuels of the past, invest in efficiency and renewables and build a 21st century economy on new fuels and ...
　　SCOTT SEGAL:And many, many, many more work in industry in the 20 industrial sectors which are energy-intensive and trade-exposed in this country that depend on the reliable and affordable supplies of energy.
　　Even the steelworkers who were opposed to this at one point now appear to be coming round and are likely to support the pipeline because they know the steel itself is sourced here in the United States.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:Let me finally ask you both, what's at stake ultimately here, Scott Segal, if this pipeline is not built, in your view?
　　SCOTT SEGAL:Yes.
　　Well, in my view, the United States loses on the energy security front. The United States loses on the job creation front. The United States gains absolutely nothing from either a global climate change or a protection of wild areas, because we already have a dependence on these pipelines and a significant network of them. All that happens is the president becomes embarrassed in front of our number one trading partner, the Canadians, and all for no net benefit.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:And what's at stake, from your perspective?
　　BOB DEANS:You know, the climate.
　　Judy, we just finished the hottest year on round in this country. We lost 50 percent of our corn across the heartland, 60 percent of our pasture lands. We had ranchers liquidating their herds from the Rocky Mountains to the Ohio River Valley because they couldn't afford to feed their cattle anymore.
　　We lost 130 Americans. We did $80 billion dollars worth of damage just from Hurricane Sandy. We have a crisis. This climate chaos needs to end. And that's a conversation we can have with our friends in Canada because they're working like we are to reduce their carbon footprint. They're working like we are to improve renewables. They're working like we are to do more with less. We need to partner around that and create jobs of the future in Canada and the United States. We're going to do it.
　　JUDY WOODRUFF:Well, the debate over this pipeline extension goes on. And we thank you both for being here with us tonight.
　　Bob Deans, Scott Segal, we appreciate it.
　　SCOTT SEGAL:Thank you.