You are on page 1of 39

January 6, 2014 Dear friends and supporters, Happy New Year!

Today, I sent Barack Obama the following message. Please enjoy the attached pictorial essay from my friend, Canadian author-activist Franke James. She offers a specific action: Send an email from her website: http:/ / I submitted a modified version of her template email online, and I encourage you to send one also. Following is what I submitted here. The highlighted paragraphs are my additions.

Submitted at:! http:/ / Also email Cc:! Stephen Harper <>, ! Franke James <>

Dear President Obama, Canada must leave the tarsands in the ground. You are approaching the day you will make a decision to deny or approve the construction permit application for the Keystone XL (northern segment terminating in Steele City, Nebraska), and I would like to remind you that excavating tarsands, transporting them as "dilbit" (diluted bitumen, refining bitumen for export, and allowing it’s products to be distributed and burned in international markets is CONTRAINDICATED, given the symptoms of the damage we are wreaking on the health of our environment, humanity, and future generations who deserve to inherit a climate that supports and promotes life. Expanding the carbon-based infrastructure simply is the wrong thing to do. Every aspect of expansion is WRONG, given our understanding of the risks. We need to start reducing the infrastructure, excavation and extraction, processing, distribution and burning of coal, gas, fuel oil, gasoline, diesel, kerosene and other fossil fuels; replacing them with carbon-free technologies. Approving Keystone XL takes us the wrong way, deteriorating life. Denying Keystone XL takes us the right way toward promoting life.

You said your approval of the Keystone XL hinges on whether it makes carbon pollution worse. So, if by some weird, complex calculation you say the Keystone XL does not 'exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution' then whatever I do in my life -- or whatever ANYBODY else does -- cannot possibly make a difference. We can scoff at Anybody who thinks they can fight climate change because... - Approving the Keystone XL means... We can use as much dirty tar sands oil as we want. - Approving the Keystone XL means... We can drive the biggest gas guzzlers. - Approving the Keystone XL means... We can waste energy heating our monster houses... Huh? That can't be right?! President Obama that is the WRONG message. Our future depends on your leadership. You need all of us working together to beat climate change. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren... See Franke James' Letter: http:/ / As you said, "I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that's beyond fixing." Please President Obama, live up to your own words. Say, NO to the Keystone XL. Sincerely, Doug Grandt

Reference: http:/ /

Silencing Scientists “There was trouble of this kind here in the George W. Bush years, when scientists were asked to toe the party line on climate policy and endangered species. But nothing came close to what is being done in Canada… This is more than an attack on academic freedom. It is an attempt to guarantee public ignorance. It is also designed to make sure that nothing gets in the way of the northern resource rush — the feverish effort to mine the earth and the ocean with little regard for environmental consequences. The Harper policy seems designed to make sure that the tar sands project proceeds quietly, with no surprises, no bad news, no alarms from government scientists. To all the other kinds of pollution the tar sands will yield, we must now add another: the degradation of vital streams of research and information.” New York Times Editorial by Verlyn Klinkenborg

“If the Keystone XL is built, the State Department says it could spill more than 100 times.”

“U.S. consumers are not likely to see any reduction in pump prices; after all, the whole reason for building the Keystone XL is to raise the price that producers get paid.” 24/7 Wall Street

“Oil-sands developers are counting on Keystone XL to lift heavy crude prices by connecting them to the world’s largest refining market in the Gulf Coast as they double production by 2025.” Pipeline rejection could set precedent

But if you approve the Keystone XL saying it does not ‘exacerbate carbon pollution’ then…

Visual Essay Credits
“What could Anybody tell President Obama about the Keystone XL?” © 2013 Franke James; All writing, photography and illustration by Franke James (with exceptions and details here). Photos of the bus shelters in Washington, DC by Logan Mock-Bunting. Special thanks to my Indiegogo ‘Banned on the Hill’ supporters, the NRDC, Sierra Club and National Wildlife for their support of my Oh No Canada! art show in Washington, DC.

Key Sources
Dirty truth screen: “Canada is the Dirty Old Man” Bus shelter poster by Franke James. Guardian UK Dirty Old Man quote. Photo of shelter and people by Logan Mock-Bunting. Oh No Canada! art show in Washington, DC. Statistic: Producing Tar Sands Oil is up to 350% dirtier than conventional oil. FAIL: How the Keystone XL Tar Sands PipeLine Flunks the Climate Test Page 6: “extracting and upgrading oil from tar sands can be as much as 4.5 times more greenhouse-gas-intensive than oil from other conventional north american crude sources.” Stockman, Lorne. “Petroleum coke: The Coal Hiding in the tar sands.” Oil! Change!International. January 2013. Page 3: “It is a well established fact that full exploitation of the tar sands is a grave threat to the climate. Emissions from tar sands extraction and upgrading are between 3.2 and 4.5 times higher than the equivalent emissions from conventional oil produced in north america.” Copyright 2013 Franke James. All rights reserved.

Oh No Canada! show in Washington, D.C.
See the Oh No Canada! show in Washington, D.C. which ran from October to December 2013 thanks to Indiegogo ‘Banned on the Hill’ supporters, the NRDC, Sierra Club and National Wildlife.