The future of Keystone XL

From Discourse DB
Revision as of 22:01, February 25, 2015 by Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Item |author=Los Angeles Times editorial board, |source=Los Angeles Times |date=February 2, 2014 |url=http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/02/opinion/la-ed-keystone-pipeline...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) Los Angeles Times editorial board
Source Los Angeles Times
Date February 2, 2014
URL http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/02/opinion/la-ed-keystone-pipeline-20140202
Quote
Quotes-start.png Obama should place heavy emphasis on what EPA scientists are telling him; these are the nation's top experts on the environment. And even if the Canadian tar sands extraction would not be, by itself, a devastating new source of greenhouse gases, the Keystone XL would be a sorry symbol of the world's continued reliance on fossil fuels. Quotes-end.png


Add or change this opinion item's references


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

Retrieved from "https://discoursedb.org/w/index.php?title=The_future_of_Keystone_XL&oldid=27899"