Readers React: Keystone permit denial keeps dirty tar sands oil in the ground

To the editor: If the world is to keep global warming to the targeted increase of 2 degrees Celsius, most of the already identified sources of carbon fuels must be left in the ground. The Alberta tar sands in Canada that would supply the Keystone XL pipeline are among the more expensive and most disruptive known sources. (“Obama’s ‘no’ to Keystone XL was the right call,” editorial, Nov. 6)

It does not make sense for supporters of the pipeline to insist that tar sands oil will be used even though President Obama denied the permit for the pipeline to be built through the Midwestern United States to the Gulf of Mexico. Thanks to the Times for this sensible editorial.

Freeman Allen, Claremont

..

To the editor: Though not surprised by Obama’s denial of a permit for the pipeline or The Times’ support of the administration, I am disappointed.

Yes, oil prices are down now and production is up, but it is unlikely that these favorable conditions will continue indefinitely. The pipeline would have been a welcome, necessary and safe addition to our infrastructure, especially considering the alternatives to it.

In Monday’s paper there was a short news brief reporting the derailment of a train carrying crude oil in Wisconsin. Surely, transporting oil through a pipeline is much safer than that.

Mark Buchman, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Now that Keystone is out of the way, maybe instead of an oil pipeline, we can build a network of water pipelines distributing this resource to any needy area in our nation.

This job-creating project could be called “Drought-Free America.” The pipes would be controlled by spigots, and in place of an environmental catastrophe if there were leakage, it would only be considered irrigation.

Gene Uzawa Dorio, Santa Clarita

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook