Climate Change: Not in our national interest!

The State Department is in the process of re-reviewing the northern leg of Keystone XL, but it's not clear that they will consider the climate change impacts of opening up the tar sands.

Ten top climate scientists wrote the State Department to tell them that "omitting climate change from the considerations is neither wise nor credible," but we need to make sure that Secretary of State Clinton and the State Department know that we are expecting them to do the right thing.

When you submit this form, your comments will be filed with the State Department and become public record. The State Department may post your full comments and indentifying information such as your name and address on its website.

Send a Letter

Here's a sample letter you can send to Sec. Clinton and the State Department - feel free to use it as-is, or make your own edits:

Dear Sec. of State Clinton:

This summer Americans have seen the beginning of how climate change will transform our country. From unprecedented heatwaves that smashed thousands of heat records, to the largest declared drought in USDA history, to the immense fires sweeping the west - we now know the dramatic toll that climate change will take on our country.

As the State Department begins its review of Keystone XL, I would like to join with 10 of the nation's top climate scientists to insist that climate change be included in the scope of your review. Keystone XL will provide a critical link to the exploitation of the Alberta tar sands, North America's single largest deposit of carbon, and would allow for the drastic increase in the rate of production of tar sands crude. Full exploitation of the tar sands would lead to what NASA's James Hansen calls "essentially game over" for the climate.

Tar sands production poses a massive risk for our climate and in the process, to Americans, and I trust that by considering the impacts of climate change, you will decide that Keystone XL is not in our national interest. Between the 240 gigatons of carbon trapped in the tar sands themselves, and the 700,000 acres of Boreal Forest that would be destroyed by tar sands production, opening up a new supply link to the tar sands would pose too many risks to allow.

Thank you for your consideration,

Your Name

City

Postal/ZIP

Not ? Click here.

350.org / Privacy Information / Contact Us

Privacy Basics:

We do not share the information you've given us with unaffiliated groups without your explicit permission. For petitions, letters to the editor, and surveys you've signed or completed, we treat your name, city, state, and comments as public information. We will not make your street address publicly available, but we may transmit it to members of Congress, the President, or other targets specifically noted on the signup page. We will send you updates on this and other important campaigns by email. If at any time you would like to unsubscribe from our email list, you may do so.

For our complete privacy policy, click here.