ShareThis Page

The Keystone pipeline: Reject the wackos

| Saturday, Oct. 5, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Even if builders of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada ensure by all means possible that it would not increase so-called carbon emissions, per President Obama's ultimatum, Gang Green insists that Mr. Obama must not sign this deal.

And even though Canadian leaders now are pledging stepped-up cooperation with the United States on reducing emissions from petroleum development, that's still not good enough for the environmental hard-liners.

A new missive signed by 25 environmental/liberal groups “oppose any deal-making” and insist — no matter how many U.S. studies prove otherwise — that the Keystone pipeline is an irredeemable hazard, The Hill newspaper reports.

Never mind that the State Department's own draft report concluded that the pipeline would not significantly increase carbon emissions.

Should Obama give in to these wackos, the threat of environmental catastrophe will increase exponentially as Canada's oil instead will be loaded aboard Chinese tankers. It will be destined for refining where the China National Petroleum Corp. and China Petrochemical Corp. (known as Sinopec Group) have resisted costly upgrades to reduce pollutants, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Groups supposedly concerned about alleged environmental damage should be pressing for the safer, superior Keystone pipeline instead of the grim consequences if the pipeline isn't completed.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.