Kyra Sedgwick Joins List Of Keystone XL Pipeline Opponents (VIDEO)

Add Kyra Sedgwick to the list of celebrity activists who believe the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is a bad idea.

In this video from the Natural Resources Defense Council, "The Closer" actress says, "Just like the BP oil spill, one glitch in the tar sands pipeline could destroy our clean water sources, possibly forever."

She joins many other activists concerned about the safety of the pipeline. Actor Mark Ruffalo said in a Tar Sands Action video, “I’ve seen the kind of damage that out-of-control energy development can do to water and to communities near my own home ... All these problems are connected — we need to get off fossil fuels.”

Actress Daryl Hannah was arrested in August for protesting the pipeline outside of the White House, shouting “No to the Keystone pipeline," as she was handcuffed.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama and seven other Nobel Peace Prize laureates have signed letters to both U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper urging them to stop the pipeline.

Residents of Nebraska, one of the states through which the pipeline would pass, recently expressed their fears over the pipeline's potential to contaminate groundwater.

HuffPost's Tom Zeller reports that dozens of recently released emails suggest a close relationship between State Department employees and a pipeline lobbyist.

Click here for more information about the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline.

WATCH:

--

Comments

[Diane Karr]

09:22 PM on 10/04/2011

I find it ironic that while farmers and ranchers are required to follow rules about how to dispose of used oil on their property to protect the groundwater - and gladly do so because it's in the best interest for their families and livestock and anyone else who uses the water - are now are being told that risking an oil spill would somehow be in everyone's best interest. It isn't just celebrities against this project, it's common sense people who know this land best who also oppose it. Nebraska just might be the most conservative state in the nation, so if Nebraskans are saying something about protecting the environment - that's saying something. It's horribly wrong to pollute one of the world's largest aquifiers, and our nation's desperation for jobs is no excuse. We need innovation and discipline to move away from dependence on finite supplies of fossil fuels. Anyone who is in favor of the proposed route that puts an oil pipeline over an aquifer is either entirely ignorant of the situation or profitting from "dirty oil" companies.

[energydem]

04:14 PM on 10/04/2011

Well this does it for me. Stop the pipeline. Please people.

[Chauncey Mabe]

02:25 PM on 10/04/2011

I may have to start watching 'The Closer.'

[vidaurri]

02:19 PM on 10/04/2011

Yea!! Good on you,Kyra. Speak up and damn the folks with their heads in the sands.
Let us not go quietly into this good night.

[Kassandra]

10:53 AM on 10/04/2011

This Tar Sands thing is a big part of the North American Union that has been whispered
about since 2000 or before.
Next comes the 4 football stadium wide superhighway which will complete the destruction of any of our breadbasket that's left.
America's taking the ecological hit all in the name of temporary jobs. Canada and Mexico will be fine, thankyouverymuch, while we allow our land to be turned into a wasteland
Notice we always have to pay corporations for our slave wages jobs now?

[Kassandra]

09:43 AM on 10/04/2011

Very good article by Bill McKibben in (gasp!) today's' NYT:
The Cronyism Behind a Pipeline for Crude
By BILL McKIBBEN
"In 2008, Barack Obama promised to turn things around with new ethics guidelines and promises of transparency. But if two batches of e-mails released via the Freedom of Information Act — the first last month and the second on Monday — are any indication, he’s not delivering on that promise."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/opinion/the-cronyism-behind-a-pipeline-for-crude.html

[RONALD MCKENZIE]

09:03 AM on 10/04/2011

Go girl go.

[glasswalker]

07:56 AM on 10/04/2011

All of you screaming about doing research and can't do your own is hilarious.
- There is another pipeline already- yes. It runs through Eastern Nebraska, not Western. The XL would be built through unstable sand and over one of the largest fresh water sources in the entire US. The other pipeline was exposed and potentially damaged in the recent flooding, it just hasn't started to leak yet. And the cost to fix it? The landowners responsibility, not TransCanadas. How is that right?
- It will create jobs- yes. It's a construction project. All construction projects create TEMPORARY jobs.
- It will help us get off foreign oil- NO. The oil from the XL would go to China. And gas prices in the Midwest would go up. Prices are low in the Midwest right now only because the current pipeline bottlenecks in Oklahoma.

[Kassandra]

09:44 AM on 10/04/2011

Thanks for the info. Fanned

[girldog]

12:43 PM on 10/04/2011

Excellent summary, thanks!

[ddpalmerr]

05:55 AM on 10/04/2011

All these protesters do realize that there already is a pipeline that runs from the tar sands area more than halfway to Texas don't they? All the new pipeline, built with better technology and stricter regulations than the old pipeline, will do is shorten the existing line by cutting across the US on a diagonal, rather than the current 'L' shape, and extend it about a further 400 miles to the East Texas coast.

[Kassandra]

09:57 AM on 10/04/2011

Surely you jest. What "better technology" we haven't produced any "better technology" since we sent all our jobs to China and India.
You'd risk our breadbasket for oil. Can't eat oil and you can't eat money.
This will be "game over" for the climate and the oil won't even stay here. We'll wreck our land for oil to China

[energydem]

08:09 PM on 10/04/2011

Don't you realize they have been producing and shipping oil across the breadbasket for 80 years or more? I am not deeply vested in the pipeline one way or the other and I don't like tar sands because of their carbon intensity but these arguments are ridiculously overwrought. We have 1.4 million miles of pipelines crossing the country (oil, gas, refined product, CO2) and I encourage you to look at the incident reports on the OPS website. We develop better technologies in the US all the time, what nonsense.

[bcunnin679]

09:58 AM on 10/04/2011

Please do not confuse them with facts

[horsedrag]

04:24 AM on 10/04/2011

Sooner or later it will take a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil, at that point were out. It will happen and already is, we not drilling holes 5 miles deep in the ocean cause we have so mush. We will pipe it, ship it and go to war for it because we are an oil economy and nothing will take its place. It made us great when we had it all and paid 17 cents a gallon, now we rely on others and pay $4.00. Yet we clammer for growth as if using more will somehow revive our economy, daa. It will only make it worse while destroying our air, land and water as our capitalistic system enters its death throws.

[Kassandra]

09:48 AM on 10/04/2011

And the entire planet.
Somewhere in the human brain there's GOT to be a way to actually change trajectory; Our "leaders" sure haven't found it yet, that's for sure.

[ASRock78]

12:13 PM on 10/04/2011

Our leaders know their are alternative, clean, renewable energy sources out there....they just refuse to put them on the table for consideration because all they see are dollar signs stamped all over the continued use of fossil fuels linning their pockets!

[realityCheckInTheMail]

03:56 PM on 10/04/2011

"Sooner or later it will take a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil"

Tar sands use natural gas to refine the oil.

The history of the tar sands is of less and less input technology required to extract the oil.

[jim ky]

11:09 PM on 10/03/2011

we are going to need fossel fuels for the forseeable future, so what do you think is safer way to transport it, in a readily accessable pipeline or a ship on the seas? if you are talking enviornmental concerns, it seems to me that the pipeline is the far safer alternative.,

[girldog]

12:47 PM on 10/04/2011

"it seems to me"

Translation..."I've read absolutely nothing on this subject so I will just jump to my own conclusions".

[brianmouland]

10:30 PM on 10/03/2011

Thank you Kyra for your concern, now head back to your little isolated,gaited community

[123dee]

10:17 PM on 10/03/2011

Good job Kyra, I appreciate your efforts. It's too bad people do not research
how many pipeline spills and leaks have contaminated our water ways. If we
are not careful and thoughtful, we will be importing barrels of drinking water.

[Smith1820]

07:57 PM on 10/03/2011

Botox can destroy your face.

[aFtersootdamP]

07:43 PM on 10/03/2011

The "keystone kops" strike again. Why do television personalities believe they know anything about the issue? They like to pat themselves on the back for keeping the rest of Americans from energy independence.

[123dee]

09:32 PM on 10/03/2011

Why do you believe you know anything about the dangers associate with this issue?

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) -- A failed Exxon Mobil pipeline that spilled an estimated 42,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River

The July 26 pipeline break near Marshall, Michigan, caused 19,500 barrels (800,000 gallons) of heavy Canadian crude oil to leak into the Kalamazoo River

and there are many more examples.

[aFtersootdamP]

11:35 PM on 10/03/2011

There many more examples, but you chose to stop a two. The first example is a good one. The pipeline had been in operation for twenty years and one accident that was not irreparable. Now this is exactly what it is all about. liberals would lord it over the rest of us while they limit the availability of energy.