Re "Report: Pipeline impact minimal" (Page A6, March 2): Following the State Department's assessment of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, UC Davis's Director of Energy Sustainability Amy Jaffe was quoted on National Public Radio as saying "once we reduce our consumption, we can have the luxury of rejecting Canada's oil."
As a UC Davis alumnus, I am appalled by this message apparently supporting the ultra-dirty Keystone XL pipeline.
Yes, it's true that we need to reduce our carbon footprint through smart government policies. But, if President Barack Obama stands up to Big Oil and rejects the Keystone XL pipeline, it would be just that -- a smart policy that would keep a huge amount of pollution underground, where it belongs.
Because Canada's tar sands are so thick and take so much energy to process, gallon-for-gallon they dump about twice as much pollution into the atmosphere as normal gas. Constraining access to the dirtiest and most polluting oil would result in more sustainable collective behavior.
-- Joseph Stewart, Davis