White House Decision On Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-01-19/white-house-decision-proposed-keystone-xl-pipeline
Yesterday the Obama administration denied TransCanada’s application for the Keystone XL pipeline. The project was to carry oil from Canada’s tar sands to the Gulf Coast. The proposed route would have been an economic boost but raised environmental concerns, especially in Nebraska’s Sandhills. The White House claims a deadline imposed by Republicans in Congress precluded adequate review, but the project may still go forward: TransCanada is likely to reapply with a revised proposed route. Please join us to discuss the Keystone XL pipeline, jobs and the environment
Guests
Bill McKibben
founder,350.org
scholar in residence,Middlebury College.
Steven Mufson
energy correspondent, the Washington Post
Matthew Koch
vice president, Oil Sands and Arctic Issues at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy
Sarah Ladislaw
senior fellow, Energy and National Security Program,
Center for Strategic and International Studies
David Mallino
Laborers International Union of North America
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
It's clear the Obama administration only cares about reelection or more precisely personal gain, the decision is typical of the depravity that grips the highest office in government. Obama is more concerned with votes than jobs. All but the most extreme zealots know were not getting off oil anytime soon, so it's obvious that Obama's "urgency" to create jobs is a total lie. This oil will be used and exported through the use of pipelines regardless of any decision or lack of a decision made by the BO administration.
We move on now, great to know the President found some courage. Climate change and forest destruction is part of the next battle - Tar Sands extraction projects have to be halted in their tracks. The larger issue is to sensitize and generate boots on the ground globally to meet this Challenge. At Pomona College on Thursday evening, Bill Mckibben delivered an address to a packed crowd - during the Q&A he pointed out, when each of us awakens each day, we must ask ourselves, what can I do to change the odds just a little bit. --- That mandate remains in place - we changed the odds enough to make a difference - and we must continue doing so to insure a livable future for the planet
Diane,
Thank you for taking on this most important topic.
I am exceedingly pleased with the President's decision today; yes it was a *temporary* delay in re-evaluating this misbegotten project's destiny; still it must not be forgotten that only a few months earlier, the State Department's blessing of the permit was (almost) a given. Massive Protest and Civil Disobedience turned the tide. I was one of those (per Bill McKibben's call to action) who joined fellow activists (repeatedly) at both the White House and the State Department hearings. Bill Mckibben is a hero. :). You can tell him I said so.
A critical aspect that is missing in much of the news coverage (re: denying the permit) today is the significance of the Canadian Boreal Forests that are being systematically massacred to extract the Bitumen (Tar Sands). James Hansen, NASA's leading climate scientist, has stated -very clearly- that the progression of the Tar Sands Project in Alberta, Canada spells "Game Over" for the climate issue. In other words, the co2 that will be both released into the atmosphere and the co2 that will not be subject to sequestration by the "destroyed" forest will be (cumulatively) sufficient to wave goodbye to our chances in view of reversing the trend on global warming/climate change.
The Boreal Forests in question are the size of Florida; if the Tar Sands project continues.. it could destroy a pristine forest (and all the life therein) the size of Florida.
I hope you are able to talk to Bill about this aspect of this issue - and give him a chance to elaborate.
Many many thanks for your good work and may Earth Live!
-rosemary.
Thanks Hale!
Agree wholeheartedly - it will take a massive movement.
-rosemary.
You're on to it, Rosemary, the larger issue is Climate Change. That must be etched into the minds of everyone, everywhere - all the time 'til it's front page.
Obama's decision is a temporary decision and he will flop.
Keystone will apply for permits again.
And once the elections are over, he will OK the pipeline.
1. Please ask the guest ("experts", I presume) -- why not build a refinery way up north near the Canada/US border so that the "dangerous" sludgy type oil doesn't have to go thru pipelines?
Even tho I realize that building a new refinery is extremely expensive, it still seems that it is less expensive than being dependent on mideast oil (which cost us trillions in wars and anti-terrorism operations!)
2. As for alternatives to fossil fuels -- solar sounds fantastic, but doesn't seem to be working as planned (Solyndra!) But ask the guests about the Tata Motors of India which has a small car powered by compressed air.
Nobody seems to mention that the Keystone pipeline already partially exists and is on-line pumping oil to refineries in Oklahoma and Illinois. What they want is an extension (XL) and another segment to the Texas Gulf Coast. Why? The obvious answer is to EXPORT it. Why else would they need to build it all the way to a Gulf port?
Man made global climate change as a theory is getting weaker as time goes by, I wonder how long it will be for the conversation of fear to revert back to the 70's when the big scare was another ice age is coming or something else. By the way if you think countries like China and India are going to stop using fossil fuels and further impoverish their people you do not have a grip on reality. Even this country doesn't have the stomach for expensive and woefully inadequate power sources pushed by the radical left.
Steve on Plum has it right, we are going to get that pipeline after the game playing stops.
Hale Anderson wrote:
"The larger issue is to sensitize and generate boots on the ground globally to meet this Challenge. "
Then we can all put on our hair shirts and move into caves.
This is great news for the majority of the electorate who believe this President is taking the country in the wrong direction. This decision will further strengthen opposition to the President and insure we have a new President next January -- THAN GOD!!
If the oil pumped through this pipeline were essential to Americans, it would either be refined as near to the source as possible, or at some location central to most of its potential buyers. So why then does the pipeline traverse the entire nation from north to south to terminate near a port on the Gulf of Mexico? Not for export, surely???
Building a refinery near the Canada/US border would be a bad idea because it is environmentally safer to pipe crude instead of gasoline. The density of the crude means less pervasive contamination and easier clean up.
The President's action was the obvious choice. America needs neither the jobs nor the stable supply of economical oil from a strategically friendly source.
It seems to me that a TWOFER is in order. If the oil pipeline were built side by side with a fresh water pipeline from the thousands of unspoiled freshwater lakes in northern Canada, we could pipe water to the southern USA and not have to build more dams.
AND if the Nebraska aquafer was despoiled by an oil spill, bingo, the water source could be replaced right away by the water pipeline.
Then nearly everyone would be satisfied. The oil folks, the environmental folks.
Why doesn't Canada build their own refinery?
Your guest from Chamber of Commerce heads the 21st Century Energy Commission. What's 21st century about petroleum?
AGW (Antropogenic Global Warming) aka MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming) continues to be an interesting, but unproven theory. Until it is scientifically demonstrated it is a crime to persecute our populations with restrictions for a problem over which we may have no control whatsoever. The question isn't whether the planet is warming. It's whether man is causing it. If man is not causing it, all our attempts to halt the process are a waste and we ought to look to methods to adapt, instead of wasting billions sticking our thumbs in the dike.
The conflation of GW with AGW by the progressive left (not just in this country, but world-wide) is a convenient way to bring about the control of peoples' behavior, however. And that's what this is really all about.
There are some economic activities that get prohibited because they are not worth the cost to society. From what I've read, TransCanada already has a spotty safety record and has used substandard materials in the construction of the original Keystone pipeline.
Mike Klink: Keystone XL pipeline not safe
http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/mike-klink-keys...
Allowing this company to suck oil out of sand and pump that product across a fragile aquifer should be regarded as the moral and practical equivalent of slavery, forced prostitution and selling crack to schoolchildren. At what price jobs?
I've been dismayed by this President's timidity in the past in confronting bullies and villains, but in this instance, he's done the right thing and I applaud this action.
Definitely seems like they need to do more studies on safety etc. And this is what President Obama is doing. What was the response of the folks who live in the areas that the pipeline was going to go through?
Over the years I have come to grips about the huge contradiction with so called environmentalist who fight developing national energy resources while they drive their trucks, etc 30 miles out in the country to the farmers market to buy organic vegetables, or running their kids off to dance classes, sports events etc. Or so called environmentalist who fly all over the planet burning fuel and scream about local development of energy resources. This hypocrisy is outrageous.
The big issue with energy development or ongoing extraction is SAFETY and enforcing existing regulations and researching potential problems
Cornell has a study out that says 6500 jobs would be created
The Keystone pipeline will NOT create 20,000 new jobs
12:09 pm December 14, 2011, by Jay
“Millions of Americans are desperate for jobs, and no single project promises more of them than the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would run from Canada to the Gulf Coast…. As the largest shovel-ready infrastructure project in the U.S., Keystone XL was expected to create 20,000 new jobs right away.”
– U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar and
Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell
And that, of course, is false, and Lugar and McConnell have good reason to know it is false. The Keystone XL Pipeline, the centerpiece of the latest standoff in Washington, will not produce 20,000 shovel-ready jobs. Even TransCanada, the company pushing the pipeline’s construction, now acknowledges that it is false.
The number that the company likes to throw around is now 13,000 direct construction jobs, but that too is misleading. When challenged, the company acknowledges that it is counting what you might call “job years.” In other words, TransCanada believes the project will produce 6,500 jobs that last for two years.
Six thousand five hundred jobs is a far cry from 20,000. And even the 6,500-job estimate is much too high. According to an independent assessment by Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, the project would produce between 2,500 and 4,650 construction jobs, and could even end up costing the country jobs, for reasons that we’ll get to below.
More oil to the US: false! Every drop of refined oil from this project is destined for export.
Oh, so many jobs: on the order of 70,000, which is much less than monthly added jobs.
As I testified when the State Department visited Houston last year, this pipeline will encourage more production from the tar sands and doom our climate to even more damaging change than we are already going to experience. Plus, as a person who cycles about 100 miles a week in the Houston area, I was not looking forward to the added air pollution refining these dirty tar sand would create.
The oil companies keep saying that their purpose is to promote enery independence and create jobs. It's quite clear their real purpose is to use the Federal Government to help them bully their way accross the land in center of this nation to move their oil to refineries in the Gulf so they can increase their exports and profits. Let's be honest about this.
How about a little information about Harris County, Texas, where this dirty oil will be refined?
We have the dirtiest air in the country:
http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/harris-county-among-the-...
Big oil respects no one's lungs.
Several weeks ago I saw a map of the existing and proposed pipeline. There is already a pipline running from Canada to Illinois. Why is it necessary to expand it to Texas?
Please ask why the Canadians won't refine the tars (oils?) themselves in Canada, i.e., if it's so abundant and valuable, why would the Canadians want to export the tars at all?
One of the claims I've heard is that the pipeline will help bring about energy independence in the US. I just checked the CIA web site and it seems they believe that Canada is still a separate country and not part of the United States.
How much consideration has been given to the issues of storage or disposal of the waste produced by the various Oil Sands processes? We are now in a good position to use lessons learned from the nuclear industry, as part of determining whether or not this may be a decisive factor.