While rail may be considered safer than a pipeline, I don't find that argument compelling when considered in the context of the math of climate change. The debate over rail versus pipelines is the wrong argument to be having.
David Gordon, the director of policy planning under former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, says the chances are about four-to-one” that President Obama will approve the Keystone XL pipeline from the Canadian tar sands to oil refineries in Texas.
A train hauling crude oil from Canada has derailed in Minnesota spilling 30,000 gallons of oil. Despite what proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline may argue, this is not a good reason to build that pipeline.
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, explains why the non-profit will add civil disobedience to its roster of tactics in an effort to curtail the "global crisis unfolding before our eyes."
It's already bad enough that we create a lot of carbon pollution by doing useful things like heating our homes and moving people and goods around, do we also have to burn gigantic amounts of fossil fuels for no reason?