After the State Department released the supplemental environmental impact statement for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, LCV President Gene Karpinski called the pipeline “inconsistent with President Obama and Secretary Kerry’s many efforts to confront the climate crisis.”
And now, the New York Times wrote an editorial advocating against approving the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline:
“The State Department’s latest environmental assessment of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline makes no recommendation about whether President Obama should approve it. Here is ours. He should say no, and for one overriding reason: A president who has repeatedly identified climate change as one of humanity’s most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience approve a project that — even by the State Department’s most cautious calculations — can only add to the problem.
The 875-mile pipeline avoids the route of an earlier proposal that traversed the ecologically sensitive Sand Hills of Nebraska and threatened an important aquifer. It would carry 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta to pipelines in the United States and then onward to refineries on the Gulf Coast. From there, most of the fuel would be sent abroad.”
Read the full article at the New York Times.