Obama’s Keystone pipeline rejection is hard to accept

From Discourse DB
Revision as of 21:34, February 25, 2015 by Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Item |author=The Washington Post editorial board, |source=The Washington Post |date=January 18, 2012 |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-keystone-pipeline-rej...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) The Washington Post editorial board
Source The Washington Post
Date January 18, 2012
URL http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-keystone-pipeline-rejection-is-hard-to-accept/2012/01/18/gIQAf9UG9P_story.html
Quote
Quotes-start.png We almost hope this was a political call because, on the substance, there should be no question. Without the pipeline, Canada would still export its bitumen — with long-term trends in the global market, it’s far too valuable to keep in the ground — but it would go to China. And, as a State Department report found, U.S. refineries would still import low-quality crude — just from the Middle East. Stopping the pipeline, then, wouldn’t do anything to reduce global warming, but it would almost certainly require more oil to be transported across oceans in tankers. Quotes-end.png


Add or change this opinion item's references


This item argues for the position Pipeline should be built on the topic Keystone XL pipeline.