They have concluded that, were he still alive today, he would join them in declaring that climate change is one of the greatest moral issues of our time.

While TransCanada has asked for a rubber stamp process than only evaluates a minor route change in Nebraska, concerned Americans and the environment community have made their expectations of the environmental review process clear.

I know that revisiting the flawed review process will result in the right answer: America does not need to deepen our oil addiction with this tar sands pipeline.

I spent Sunday standing with as many as 15,000 people in an enormous circle around the White House. All of us came to tell President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline for dirty tar sands oil.

The Senate bill must not include measures that increase carbon emissions, take away the laws already on the books to cut those emissions, or weaken other protections for public health and the environment.

As long as we rely on risky fuels like tar sands oil, keeping our communities safe will be an uphill slog. The safest path is to reduce our dependence on these fuels and shift to cleaner alternatives.

There are a lot of voters in this country, and lots of us painfully aware of the impacts our oil addiction is having on real people, their livelihoods, and life-giving ecosystems.

On May 2, 1982, over 2,000 workers set out, like they always did, to Exxon's Colony Project, a nearly $1 billion oil shale venture in northwest Colorado.

Perhaps Blankenship's extreme wealth is why Forbes magazine decided to interview him. But what shines through more than anything is Blankenship's extreme anti-environmental worldview.

My hope is that Obama will not sign on to any joint statements that will help Harper ramp up tar sands production -- a process that accelerates global warming and denudes Canada's great boreal forest.

Americans don't understand the environmental and human consequences of feeding our insatiable appetite for fuel from closer to home: Canada.