Robert Redford: Open letter to John Kerry about Keystone Pipeline

[limpyhobbler]

Where Is the Climate Leadership? We Need to Get It Right on Keystone XL

Mr. Secretary, I am disappointed. I thought that we all understood that to fight climate change, we have to be able to say "no" to dirty energy projects. Our friends around the world are looking to us for climate leadership and it starts with drawing the line at tar sands expansion. It also means that we need to give health and environment a fair shake in the environmental review of a dirty energy project such as the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Yet the draft environmental review prepared by the State Department for Keystone XL misses what folks in industry themselves are saying: the Keystone XL project is necessary for expansion of tar sands. We know this means that Keystone XL will make climate change worse.

Once again, the State Department acknowledges that tar sands are dirtier than conventional oil and will make climate change worse. So how, can it then not tell us about what this means for our climate? Somehow, the State Department claims that tar sands will be developed anyway so it doesn't need to look at the harm done by expansion. This just doesn't make sense. Our friends in British Columbia are saying no to tar sands pipelines to the west coast. Our friends in eastern Canada and New England are saying no to tar sands pipelines to the east coast. Rail is a pretty expensive alternative. What is left? Keystone XL's path to the Gulf Coast.

But don't just listen to me. Let's look at what some of the industry's own experts are saying.

Global energy consultant Wood McKenzie found that "a lack of visibility on available transportation capacity and, in turn, the prices that may ultimately be achieved could impact oil sands projects' commercial viability." To me that means that without ways to get tar sands to the coast for export, the price of this very expensive to extract oil is going down making it a risky investment.
...

complete piece: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-redford/keystone-xl-pipeline_b_2807098.html

[politicasista]

1. Dear Mr. Secretary,

Please come out and oppose/nixed this deal, so people who are dissing and environmentalists won't throw you under the bus (despite your positive environmental record).

That said, hope that this letter gets to the State Department and the White House.

[MotherPetrie]

2. Dear Bob,

Hey, I'm a cabinet member in a big oil/Wall Street/big banks ass-kissing administration now.

If I must choose between the environment and big oil...
You can bet your movie star ass it's not going to be the environment.

Sorry!

Sincerely,
John

[limpyhobbler]

3. LOL

funny

[KoKo]

4. Kick for a nice effort from Redford....whatever.. n/t

[JDPriestly]

5. Thank you, Robert Redford.

[DallasNE]

6. Big Money Says This Is Going To Happen

The route selected still sucks. This should follow ridge lines rather than river valleys because of the threat to drinking water in a number of major cities. The route should stay north and east of the Missouri River and follow ridge lines. Up north that would mean between the Kaw and Missouri then when it turns south between the Red and Missouri then veer into western Iowa between the Mississippi and Missouri but finally cross the Missouri River east of Kansas City. That way earthen dams could be quickly built to trap the spill. The oil could probably even be recycled. That would add a couple hundred miles to it but cost of construction should not be the only criteria.