

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."
_______________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |

"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."
_______________________

"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."
_______________________