Wrong
Tar sands oil has been proven to be extremely detrimental to the environment in many ways. For one just getting to the oil sands means clearing trees and brush and topsoil that sits atop the oil sands deposit. The extraction process is no better due to the fact that it takes four tons of sand and four barrels of fresh water to make a barrel of oil, which is the equivalent of about 42 gallons. Extracting and burning tar sands oil also produces a byproduct called “petcoke” — a coal-like, high-sulfur, high-carbon solid that burns dirtier than coal.
This is because naturally present metals like nickle iron and mercury are concentrated during the extraction process which has unsurprisingly led to complaints of mercury contamination nearby rivers and streams and may be to blame for higher rates of cancer in surrounding villages/towns.
That doesn't even address the problem of emissions. Of course burning any kind of oil produces greenhouse gas emissions ,but tar sands is something else. It's estimated that tar sands oil emmits about 5% to 15% more carbon dioxide than regular oil.
To put it frankly the tarsands pipeline is one of if not the greatest threat to the environmental health of the north american continent and perhaps even the world, anything that prevents this cancer causing fresh air water soil polluting substance from getting to texas will go along way towards curbing climate change and giving us some time to soften the already impending consequences.
Of course i admit you may not not believe in climate change, in which case i sincerely hope god does.
PS: "super left wing ultra environmentalists" are not the only ones against this.
South Dakota Sioux tribe calls Keystone XL pipeline approval 'act of war'
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-keystone-xl-pipeline-south-dakota-act-of-war
