Skip to content
December 21, 2012 / franteplitz

Ring in the New Year: No Keystone XL; Yes to Clean Energy!

IMG_2401As the new year approaches, we can expect that the State Department will soon issue its Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL dirty tar sands oil pipeline. The Statement should identify the crucial environmental and energy security impacts of the proposed pipeline. As outlined previously, it is clear that our nation’s long-term interests — in terms of energy security, climate pollution, job creation, human health, and environmental protection – are best served by abandoning the Keystone XL pipeline and developing our domestic renewable energy infrastructure.

The State Department is involved because the pipeline is international – crossing between the U.S. and Canada. At the beginning of 2012, President Obama refused to proceed with the pipeline on the grounds that further research on its impacts was required. With a new impact report soon to be available, President Obama will make the final decision on the fate of the pipeline. The decision will have profound implications for the future of our country and for future generations. Should the President decide to approve the pipeline, it will be a tremendous blow to our ability to create the clean energy economy that is already overdue.

Fortunately, opposition to all tar sands pipelines continues to grow in the U.S. and in Canada.

You can help amplify the call for a clean energy future by contacting the White House and expressing your support for renewable energy development in the US and your opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. Let’s ring in the new year with this message!

Contact the White House (call or email).

Photo: From 350.org mobilization, November 2012, Washington, DC

3 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. forex / Jan 14 2013 11:28 am

    Felix Homogratus, Dimitri Chavkerov Rules! You pay us we post good about us!!

  2. David Harris / Jan 25 2013 10:31 am

    Please do your research

    Currently 57% (November 2012) of the crude leaving North Dakota is via railway.
    More rail-lines are oil depots are being built to transport the oil to refineries.

    If the risk of a spill via railway is greater than a pipeline, WHY would anyone want to support an inferior and more danger mode of transportation?

    • franteplitz / Jan 29 2013 2:52 pm

      Thank you for your comment on the dangers of transporting oil. Our nation needs to move away from oil and other fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources. We are far behind where we need to be in developing our renewable energy sector in order to meet our energy needs, reduce carbon pollution, and avoid the many dangers to human and environmental health that are inherent in extracting and transporting fossil fuels.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: