Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
September 19th, 2011
05:57 PM ET

Daryl Hannah: Proposed Canadian tar sands pipeline "bad news"

Brooke Baldwin chats with actress Daryl Hannah, who explains her stance against a proposed oil pipeline that would stretch from Canada to the Gulf.

Post by:
Filed under: Brooke Baldwin
soundoff (4 Responses)
  1. Mike

    Daryl Hannah would rather see United states obtaining it's oil though its normal traditional means. (invading a country and stealing or starting wars directly or though proxy states).

    September 23, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
  2. yahmez

    It would make more sense to put that 13 billion dollars toward building a refinery closer to the source.
    The potential harm to the Ogallala aquifer could starve millions of people if farming in this area had to be halted.
    It could potentially collapse the economy of Nebraska, and do major harm to Kansas' and Texas' livelihood.
    The jobs would shift to the transportation sector, instead of pipeline maintenance and toxic waste cleanup.

    September 24, 2011 at 2:40 am |
  3. JosefBleaux

    The US has relied on oil, both foreign and domestic, for far too long. When the first oil shortage occurred in the early 1970's, we should have invested heavily in alternative energy. We've had several "shortages", since and of course there's talk during each one about alternatives but nothing ever really gets done. We need to get serious about ethanol, about hydrogen and other options. A well funded, concerted effort would solve the problem. But big oil and their puppet politicans don't want that. They want to continue to destroy and pollute the environment so that the big oil companies can maintain their obscene profits. And as usual, the average American pays the price.

    September 30, 2011 at 9:40 am |
  4. Energy Realist

    You know, who cares what a failed old actress trying to resurrect her career thinks about energy policy. Really? And Mr. "Bleaux"... everything's a conspiracy, isn't it? "Well-funded, concerted," huh? Like... shady loan guarantees to Solyndra and a half-dozen other costly, failed "green" projects? Are those, my friend, not politically motivated subsidies. Americans sure paid the price for those – with no return on investment.

    October 3, 2011 at 6:43 pm |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.