New York Times urges Obama to say no to Keystone XL


In an editorial in the New York Times today, U.S. President Barack Obama is urged not to approve the Keystone XL pipeline:

“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 paper advises the president to focus on the long-term consequences of the pipeline:

“Mainstream scientists are virtually unanimous in stating that the one sure way to avert the worst consequences of climate change is to decarbonize the world economy by finding cleaner sources of energy while leaving more fossil fuels in the ground. Given its carbon content, tar sands oil should be among the first fossil fuels we decide to leave alone.”

The Times editorial suggests saying no to Keystone would force Canada to a larger role in deciding whether or not it is wise to expand the tar sands:

 “Saying no to the pipeline will not stop Canada from developing the tar sands, but it will force the construction of new pipelines through Canada itself. And that will require Canadians to play a larger role in deciding whether a massive expansion of tar sands development is prudent.”

Find the editorial and related comments here. 

Filed under:

New York Times urges Obama to say no to Keystone XL

  1. Maybe someone should tell the adherents of environmental movement that obstructing the Keystone XL pipeline is not going to stop climate change. That’s a juggernaut that simply can’t be stopped by carrying placards with some witty slogans on them. I’ll guarantee you that not one of these people who claim to wave the banner of environmentalism have solar panels on their homes, drive an electric or hybrid vehicle, invest in wind trubines, or contribute to green technology initiatives. It’s all show and no go.

    • Those green technologies need fossil fuel power to operate. I work in the oil sands, and am a promoter of the Keystone. I do not believe that it changes the climate. But reading about the games the US plays in this instance, I think Canada should turn around and tell them to forget it. Do our own thing, and stop worrying about what the US does. Stop the influx of southern US workers to the canadian oil sands. A lot of them are in managerial positions, making a lot of money. Laughing at us how stupid we are to be hell bent to send our oil to their south to employ their people, while shutting down our own refineries in eastern Canada, and laying off our own people. Those jabs hurt, and I don`t know why we don`t have the shovels in the ground across canada, upgrade the gas pipeline that`s already there, and get the oil flowing east. A few of my colleges are from the east coast and would go back in a flash to work in those refineries they got layed off from and had to come west to support their families

      • I agree with you snowflake567. Canada has been needing to diversify away from the USA and develop more markets in Asia and elsewhere. Especially since the USA is looking more and more like an unstable and erratic trading nation from a Canadian point of view.

Sign in to comment.