I live in a bush village in Southeast Alaska where I can breathe clean air and drink water from the creek next to my home. I have lived this subsistence lifestyle for 35 years but fear that climate change will affect our village and the rest of the world. Supporting the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is supporting one of the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fossil fuels on earth and an accelerator of global warming. President Obama made the right choice when he did not allow it before and he needs to take executive action to keep the pipeline from traversing American soil. If he takes action immediately, it will be a step in the right direction to slowing down the destructive results of climate change. Our focus needs to be getting off fossil fuels and encouraging alternative energy through tax incentives and research and development funding.
Joan McBeen
Tenakee Springs
Comments (7)
Add commentcomment
This letter says so much about the Alaska condition. Tenakee has emergency services, a school, a beautiful government building, an expensive modern harbor, regular ferry service, Power Cost Equalization, etc. etc. all paid by .....petroleum. No one in Tenakee pays any taxes, but they do mostly take their annual PFD (derived from petroleum of course).
Ms McBeen, we're all equally dependent. You could first try to wean Tenakee from petroleum money before trying to influence Obama.
Poor Joan...
Although glass houses do lend themselves nicely to solar heating, there's always that nagging little detail about throwing stones.
Good comment Glacierdogs.
The sun will not rise tomorrow
I find myself in total agreement with geedogs twice in the same day!
Fortunately, Joan, the Senate has taken an excellent first step toward weaning us all off of oil money.
realpolitik
the Canadians are going to extract the resource whether the pipeline traverses the midwest or juts westward to BC coast and transferred to LNG tankers bound for PRC.
Keystone means jobs. Obama should be taking his fight to beloved UN, to address global concern of climate change. At home he has done poor job explaining why EPA-approved EIS was not good enough to make Keystone happen. If Big Oil had influence in EIS, do another one with non-affiliated researchers. Make it a national security priority, among many.
grendel
Perhaps you should stick with what you actually know something about. Keystone will be moving heavy crude oil. LNG tankers move liquified natural gas. Rather different commodities.
Why would Keystone be a national security priority when oil companies are EXPORTING petroleum from the U.S. right now? We're spending tax dollars and soldiers' lives to secure vital national security (read 'oil') interests in Middle Eastern countries, going into massive debt in the process. We're on a trajectory to be energy independent when it comes to petroleum, through domestic production, efficiency, and renewable energy efforts.
Before we spend one more nickel defending these foreign so-called national security interests when it comes to oil, let's eliminate all exports of oil until we're 100% independent domestically. Otherwise, all we're defending is some multinational corporation's balance sheet, and I don't think the Constitution really had their profits in mind.
Now, if you want to talk about 'real' national security interests, the CIA views climate change as a threat, principally due to the geopolitical chaos it will span with increasing droughts, crop failures, famines, and floods - fertile ground for al qaeda.
Lat
I was typing too fast and did not want to post a novella. I re-read, and yes, I see where omissions derailed the post. Thanks for pointing out.
Natural gas pipeline across BC to Kitimat or Vancouver would be considerably less expensive and easier to get on-line than Northern Gateway plan for Alberta crude-- also to Kitamat or possibly Prince Rupert (that is, if Keystone gets scrubbed).
Asian markets for Canadian LNG is projected at 200-300% increase if pipeline is a go. Same markets for refined petro from oil sands is projected at 20-30% increase and has many more obstacles -- mostly because LNG poses less environmental impact if catastrophic rupture occurs. Natural gas makes more sense, where investment & regulation are concerned.
China will eagerly take either natural gas or refined petro or both, and they dont care where it comes from. Their economic ascent is a national security concern - especially since they have US by the financial short hairs.
If you can solve the climate change crisis with consideration of geopolitical influences, you should tell someone that matters, outside of Empire chat room.
Grendel
Nice pivot. You should have played in Gold Medal.