SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Our analysis clearly demonstrates that the Keystone XL pipeline would dramatically boost the development of dirty tar sands oil, significantly exacerbating the problem of climate pollution," Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of NRDC's international program, said in a statement.
The pipeline would add up to 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution to the atmosphere over the 50-year span of the project, according to the economic and climate analysis from the group. And, adds Casey-Lefkowitz, "this is without taking climate pollution from destruction of Boreal peatlands and wetlands into account."
The group quotes Obama's climate address from June when he said:
Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.
As the report details how tar sands are more carbon-intensive than traditional crude, the group says the pipeline would fail the president's own climate test for approving the project. Following the climate speech, DeSmogBlog pointed out, "You can't be a leader on climate action if you're a willing accomplice in accelerating the expansion of one of the largest carbon bombs on the planet."
Rejecting the Keystone XL also means rejecting tar sands, the group says, as other pipelines out of Alberta are at or near capacity, and tar sands refineries are limited. Further, tar sands by rail is costly, making train export of the heavy crude an unlikely possibility.
"Approve [the Keystone XL], and our children's future is jeopardized. Deny it, and we'll avoid sending over a billion tons of additional carbon pollution into the air," said Casey-Lefkowitz. "The right choice is obvious: Keystone XL fails the president's climate test and he should reject it to protect our national interest."
_______________________
Â
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
"Our analysis clearly demonstrates that the Keystone XL pipeline would dramatically boost the development of dirty tar sands oil, significantly exacerbating the problem of climate pollution," Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of NRDC's international program, said in a statement.
The pipeline would add up to 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution to the atmosphere over the 50-year span of the project, according to the economic and climate analysis from the group. And, adds Casey-Lefkowitz, "this is without taking climate pollution from destruction of Boreal peatlands and wetlands into account."
The group quotes Obama's climate address from June when he said:
Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.
As the report details how tar sands are more carbon-intensive than traditional crude, the group says the pipeline would fail the president's own climate test for approving the project. Following the climate speech, DeSmogBlog pointed out, "You can't be a leader on climate action if you're a willing accomplice in accelerating the expansion of one of the largest carbon bombs on the planet."
Rejecting the Keystone XL also means rejecting tar sands, the group says, as other pipelines out of Alberta are at or near capacity, and tar sands refineries are limited. Further, tar sands by rail is costly, making train export of the heavy crude an unlikely possibility.
"Approve [the Keystone XL], and our children's future is jeopardized. Deny it, and we'll avoid sending over a billion tons of additional carbon pollution into the air," said Casey-Lefkowitz. "The right choice is obvious: Keystone XL fails the president's climate test and he should reject it to protect our national interest."
_______________________
Â
"Our analysis clearly demonstrates that the Keystone XL pipeline would dramatically boost the development of dirty tar sands oil, significantly exacerbating the problem of climate pollution," Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of NRDC's international program, said in a statement.
The pipeline would add up to 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution to the atmosphere over the 50-year span of the project, according to the economic and climate analysis from the group. And, adds Casey-Lefkowitz, "this is without taking climate pollution from destruction of Boreal peatlands and wetlands into account."
The group quotes Obama's climate address from June when he said:
Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.
As the report details how tar sands are more carbon-intensive than traditional crude, the group says the pipeline would fail the president's own climate test for approving the project. Following the climate speech, DeSmogBlog pointed out, "You can't be a leader on climate action if you're a willing accomplice in accelerating the expansion of one of the largest carbon bombs on the planet."
Rejecting the Keystone XL also means rejecting tar sands, the group says, as other pipelines out of Alberta are at or near capacity, and tar sands refineries are limited. Further, tar sands by rail is costly, making train export of the heavy crude an unlikely possibility.
"Approve [the Keystone XL], and our children's future is jeopardized. Deny it, and we'll avoid sending over a billion tons of additional carbon pollution into the air," said Casey-Lefkowitz. "The right choice is obvious: Keystone XL fails the president's climate test and he should reject it to protect our national interest."
_______________________
Â