To: Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator
Tell the EPA to Stand Up to Big Oil on KXL
The EPA has been a consistent and important voice in the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline, always advocating for a thorough and independent review of the pipeline's environmental and climate impacts. Your agency's role has been especially important since the State Department's environmental review of Keystone XL has been compromised by insider influence and conflicts of interest.
But just two days ago, you echoed a favorite Big Oil talking point to the Boston Globe when you said that oil from the Alberta tar sands will find its way to market with or without Keystone XL. This is especially troubling because we know from independent analysts and TransCanada itself that Keystone XL is a critical linchpin for expanded development of the Canadian tar sands. And if the oil industry gets its way and fully exploits the tar sands, it will have an incredibly damaging impact on the earth's climate.
The EPA needs to stand firm and not let itself and our planet get steamrolled by oil interests. It is critical that the EPA resist pressure to simply sign off on the State Department's flawed review of the pipeline. Therefore, I respectfully ask that you issue a clarification on your comments and reaffirm that the EPA will not let itself be pressured into approving a flawed Keystone XL review.
But just two days ago, you echoed a favorite Big Oil talking point to the Boston Globe when you said that oil from the Alberta tar sands will find its way to market with or without Keystone XL. This is especially troubling because we know from independent analysts and TransCanada itself that Keystone XL is a critical linchpin for expanded development of the Canadian tar sands. And if the oil industry gets its way and fully exploits the tar sands, it will have an incredibly damaging impact on the earth's climate.
The EPA needs to stand firm and not let itself and our planet get steamrolled by oil interests. It is critical that the EPA resist pressure to simply sign off on the State Department's flawed review of the pipeline. Therefore, I respectfully ask that you issue a clarification on your comments and reaffirm that the EPA will not let itself be pressured into approving a flawed Keystone XL review.
Why is this important?
Ever since the Keystone XL pipeline was first proposed, the Environmental Protection Agency has been a strong voice inside the Obama administration, insisting that the State Department’s environmental review of Keystone XL consider the climate impacts of Canadian tar sands development.
But there are now troubling signs that the EPA may be bowing to pressure to back off its critical comments on this biased review. Two days ago, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy echoed a favorite talking point of pipeline proponents to The Boston Globe when she said that oil from the Alberta tar sands will find its way to market with or without Keystone XL. If we don’t act, this could be the first step in EPA moving towards accepting the pipeline.
Please send a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy asking that the EPA stand strong on Keystone XL.
But there are now troubling signs that the EPA may be bowing to pressure to back off its critical comments on this biased review. Two days ago, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy echoed a favorite talking point of pipeline proponents to The Boston Globe when she said that oil from the Alberta tar sands will find its way to market with or without Keystone XL. If we don’t act, this could be the first step in EPA moving towards accepting the pipeline.
Please send a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy asking that the EPA stand strong on Keystone XL.