Pipeline not good for environment

To the editor:

After reading John Stiegelmeyer's letter ('Pipeline is safer way to transport oil,” Nov. 24), I thought about the lead story in the Nov. 23 New York Times, 'The Downside of the Boom.”

It addresses the dangers of the entire oil fracking business in North Dakota, the blowouts, the leaks, the contaminated soil, sickness, you name it. It also addresses the fact that fossil fuels are causing more problems than anyone ever thought, not to mention the awful injuries that workers have suffered and the companies they work for, turning their backs on it all.

What seems to be needed more than anything is to go forward with the development of clean energy to reduce pollution of water, ground and air that we all breathe, instead of continuing this conversation about the benefits of building pipelines that break and leak, causing even more contamination. And the pipeline goes over precious aquifers.

Ask ourselves this: Do we really want to imperil our children's future for today's bad solutions to continue to support dependence on fossil fuels? Please read the story online and understand what's already happened.

Bobbie Paxton

Iowa City