Clinton's Decision on Keystone Pipeline Needs Further Consideration

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated she may approve the Keystone XL pipeline in remarks made earlier this week to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, despite the fact that her agency has not completed a full review of the pipeline’s potential environmental impacts.

Secretary Clinton has final authority over whether or not the 1,600 mile pipeline, carrying the world’s dirtiest oil through six states, will be granted approval for construction. A decision is not expected to be made officially until sometime next year, yet Clinton’s remarks suggest she is leaning toward a premature approval of this massive polluting project, which would threaten water resources throughout the Midwest, and dramatically increase refining pollution in the Gulf.

Senators Ben Nelson (D) and Mike Johanns (R) of Nebraska, whose state’s most valuable water resource -- the Ogallala aquifer -- is directly threatened by the Keystone XL, wrote letters expressing their dismay with Clinton’s comments. Senator Jeff Merkley (D) of Oregon joined the bipartisan Nebraska pair in criticism of Clinton’s remarks.

These senators add their concerns to a growing list of elected officials, agencies and American citizens, including 50 members of Congress, tens of thousands of citizens, and Nebraska’s governor, who have all expressed disapproval of the Keystone XL project. The EPA weighed in as well, calling the current review of the pipeline’s environmental impacts “inadequate”.

With full consideration of the risks this project poses to American water, air, and health, Secretary Clinton will certainly conclude the costs of the Keystone XL are too high.

Instead of jumping to premature decisions, Secretary Clinton needs to heed the concerns of the Senators, Congressmen and citizens who have called for a more thorough consideration of the risks and alternatives before rushing to approve a project that will lock us into dependence on the world's dirtiest fuel for decades.

We do not have to choose between dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada. Instead, we should be investing in domestic sources of clean energy, like wind and solar and efficiency measures that will keep dollars and jobs here at home.

This toxic project has no place in America’s clean energy future, and we have no need for the risks it poses today. The pipeline would not be able to meet full delivery capacity for nearly a decade, providing little relief from our reliance on hostile regimes to feed our oil addiction. If we increased the average fuel economy for American-made vehicles by just 2.5 miles per gallon, we would eliminate demand for all the oil the Keystone XL can ever provide. A cleaner, healthier and more efficient America has no need for the Keystone XL, and no place for the world’s dirtiest oil.

-- Gabriel DeRita

Comments

[Green Home Plans]

I'm agree with that
"A cleaner, healthier and more efficient America has no need for the Keystone XL, and no place for the world’s dirtiest oil."

Oil is bad!