By Miriam Raftery

November 6, 2015 (Washington D.C.) --  Today, President Barack Obama announced that after six years of review,  the U.S. State Department has decided that the Keystone XL  Pipeline “would not serve the national interest of the United States.  I agree with that decision,” the President said.

Obama indicated that the pipeline would be “neither a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others.”  He then laid out key reasons why his administration has rejected the pipeline.

First, he indicated, “The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy…What we should be doing is passing a bipartisan infrastructure plan that, in the short term, would create more than 30 times as many jobs per year as the pipeline would, and in the long run, would benefit our economy and our workers for decades to come.”

April 15, 2014 (San Diego County) - The Keystone pipeline proposal has hit a Nebraska stop sign, but it has deeper problems than right-of-way issues across the United States.  After all, the controversial proposal for transporting Alberta’s tar sands across America was never just about the pipeline.  Just ask the thousand students who rallied in front of the White House recently, who were willing to be arrested to make their point.

By Miriam Raftery

September 20, 2013 (San Diego) -- Over 100 San Diegans will gather outside the Federal Building downtown on Saturday to call on President Obama to reject a permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from Canada to Texas for refining and export. San Diego’s event is one of roughly two hundred “Draw the Line” events planned around the country, part of a nationwide day of action sponsored by 350.org and other climate action groups.

President Obama has said he would approve completion of the 1,700-mile pipeline from Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries only if it would not “significantly exacerbate” carbon pollution, adding that the pipeline’s net effects on the climate would be “absolutely critical” to his decision. 

350.org contends that the pipeline would increase pollution by the equivalent of adding 9 million cars to the highways, also creating water pollution and other problems.

By Miriam Raftery

April 21, 2013 (San Diego) – “Another scourge is beginning in California,” environmental activist Peg Mitchell told audience members at a forum on environmental justice issues hosted by Activist San Diego on April 15.  That “scourge”  is fracking – and in California, it’s all about extracting oil, not natural gas. 

To frack for oil requires millions of gallons of water –a precious commodity in Cailfornia.  It also means injecting toxic chemicals that corporations are not required to disclose due to the “Halliburton Law” pushed through by former Vice President Dick Cheney. 

The public doesn’t have a right to know where fracking is occurring or where its waste products will be dumped—even though fracking can cause earthquakes, disturb radioactive substances in the earth, reinject contaminated water into wells, and potentially pollute thousands of miles of coastline.

So why the push to frack for oil in California?