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.
johnandere -- The Solyndra loss was less than I had recalled, as discovered in the following links. Thanks for pressing me to document my reporting.
Solyndra timeline:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administra...
House of Representatives internal memo from The Committee on Energy and Commerce.
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Oversigh...
Only 2 of 40 loans in this program by the DOE have failed. They were authorized by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It is a 1.3% loss, considering both failures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/opinion/the-solyndra-mess.html
Reinhard,
Anthropogenic (human induced) climate change is real. Do you presume to be more knowledgeable than all of NASA's climate scientists and 99% of world's leading climate scientists?
How about starting by naming a single national scientific institute (globally) that declares "global warming" to be a hoax, rather than becoming "weaker" (as you simplistically state) - the empirical evidence is mounting.. and fast and globally.
A library would be a good place to start, but here's some help in the meantime...
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Happy reading.
How interesting; it is three months and a day since another edition on the same topic.
Canada will exploit the tar-sand oil, their budget depends on it. Haranguing the American government to deny the Keystone-XL pipeline will not stop it.
Canada will build a pipeline to take the tar-sand oil to market. The only question is the route. It can be built south to bring the oil to America, Canada’s preferred market. (I would prefer that it end in Chicago or Detroit, but the Canadian group thinks that market isn't big enough and wants to continue on to Dallas, Houston and New Orleans.)
The discussion of CO2 emission is a red herring. It is not a question of whether the oil is used, only of who uses it and the route it takes to market.
He-who-must-not-be-named succumbed to the environista harangue and denied a southerly route. If another route is proposed through the Midwest the environistas will find another red herring objection. If that is also denied the line will be built westerly to Vancouver B.C. where the oil will be loaded on Chinese tankers for shipment to China. Now, if you think the Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound was bad, wait until we have a Chinese supertanker wreck in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Or, how about a leak in the Canadian Rockies, somewhere around Banff, perhaps.
The Keystone situation is an excellent example of, as George Will wrote the other day, America changing "from a nation that celebrated getting things done to a nation that celebrates people and groups who prevent things from being done."
johnandere -- Anthropogenic Global Warming is what AWG means. Is it 1 or 5 degrees? Does it matter? Please, look at the 100, and 1,000 and, 10,000 year mark. How can we best be assured our children will still be here, on this small Earth. I doubt humans will be here in 1,000,000 years. But, let's make some tough choices to improve the chances. That may mean not doing questionable things like generating unnecessary CO2. My friend, I am trying to make the best future for both of us. It may require we give up gasoline cars; it may mean we need to grow our individual food gardens; it may mean doing the best we can to get something that is "too expensive"; it may mean the Keystone XL pipeline will not be built. Sorry about the 10 year profits. How about the 1,000 year survival? 'nuf said. I'm repeating myself. G'Day.
If the construction unions and companies are so concerned about jobs why don't they lobby for the infrastructure programs that Obama Admin has proposed for roads, bridges, etc. which are much needed?
d-Arcy -- "wait until we have a Chinese supertanker wreck in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Or, how about a leak in the Canadian Rockies, somewhere around Banff, perhaps." The simple solution is to not rape the Earth by mining shale, processing shale, extracting oil, dumping the slag, producing CO2 in the air and fluid contaminants on the ground.
You wrote, "The Keystone situation is an excellent example of, as George Will wrote the other day, America changing "from a nation that celebrated getting things done to a nation that celebrates people and groups who prevent things from being done." "
I would say that discontinuing a human activity that is destroying the Earth for our children in 1,000 years is definitely "getting something done." Running with the status quo may be the lazy way out, producing more junk.
levanoff said, "If the construction unions and companies are so concerned about jobs why don't they lobby for the infrastructure programs that Obama Admin has proposed for roads, bridges, etc. which are much needed?"
Amen, and they are!
Big money doesn't like it because it can't be manipulated from an armchair like oil prices, and more.
They're willing to let the freeway system collapse?
Why doesn't the U.S. or Canada just build a refinery near the oil sands, so the oil does not have to travel across the country and put our ecosystem at risk? If the oil is meant for use in the U.S. then trucks or trains can transport the refined oil to stations across the country. The only reason to build a pipeline to Texas is if that refined oil is going to be loaded onto tankers and sails away. How would that help us? Nothing about this deal seems pragmatic.
CivilizedNation wrote:
"The Solyndra loss was less than I had recalled ..."
Really? Did you know that 35 states received LESS in stimulus money than Solyndra ALONE?! Again, "less" is a relative term when it's OPM.
I glanced at the timeline. Sorry, that's all I've got time for now. It proves my point. While the Bush Administration took a look at Solyndra, Obama gave them the money in 2009.
I'll try to look at your other links at some point and post a reply.
CivilizedNation wrote:
"Anthropogenic Global Warming is what AWG means."
Which is what I said. So what? (And I think you mean AGW).
"How can we best be assured our children will still be here, on this small Earth. "
Well, the best way would be to put on our hair shirts and go live in caves, but I don't think anybody wants that. After that, it's a tug of war between the tree huggers and sensible people.
"My friend, I am trying to make the best future for both of us. "
No. You're not. So don't even go there.
The problem with the rest of your post is that it's all your OPINION on what the future may be. Why should anyone base policy on what someone's OPINION is?
rose-mary,
You, like many others, continue to conflate GW with AGW. They are not the same. The opposite of "AGW is real" is NOT "GW is not real".
quoting from d-Arcy:
"Canada will exploit the tar-sand oil, their budget depends on it. Haranguing the American government to deny the Keystone-XL pipeline will not stop it.
Canada will build a pipeline to take the tar-sand oil to market. The only question is the route. It can be built south to bring the oil to America, Canada’s preferred market."
Don't bet on it. First, there may be a gold-rush type of activity at the tar sands right now but, as in any mineral exploitation, the easiest pickings get taken early - and it's already a very energy-expensive extraction, with a heavy carbon footprint. Secondly, if you think that Canadians are all for the alternative route across BC to the Pacific coast, you are wrong; there's very strong First Nations opposition to it. Thirdly, your selective concern about the possibility of spills from a Canadian-route pipeline or from Chinese tankers is very touching. I see no such concern about the Keystone XL route; and how about extending your environmental sensitivity to the certainty of the very real and massive despoliation that’s going on right now at the extraction site, 24/7? (And that's no accident - it's quite deliberate.)
At what point do we as a society admit that “cheap” energy is not really cheap when you factor in the real costs that are external to the energy companies’ bottom lines? The first choice in energy development should always be conservation (and it's the cheapest choice); the second choice should be renewable energy development; environmental vandalism, like the tar sands and mountain top removal to extract coal, should be the very last in line. And that requires regulation and a carbon tax. Either adopt such measures gradually but deliberately, or nature will force emergencies onto us later.
To Hale Anderson [second comment]:
I second your recommendation. As Bill Mckibben said, there must be attention paid to the State Department's evaluation of the alternate route.
What has not been mentioned is that the use of this oil is dependent on a high price in the cost of oil because of the cost of extraction. Using this oil is dependent on the price of gasoline going higher than $4 per gallon, probably close to $5 per gallon or higher.
This oil is so corrosive that no pipeline as presently constructed will last for many years and the oil companies consider spill cleanup as a "cost of business" and as Exxon (Exxon Valdez) and BP (Deepwater Horizon) find it cheaper to fight and delay in court rather than do the actual cleanup as that is really costly. They outright plan to take money-saving shortcuts in the pipe construction and let "the environment" take the hit, which means the TAXPAYERS. Search for the pipeline construction overseer who monitored another pipeline built by this company and his report of their shoddy practices.
To rose-mary (comment at 2012/01/19, 2:06 p.m.) [and reinhard and johnandere]
Another place is:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
where every (false) claim can be searched and the relevant real science examined. It should not be the only source but it is one of the best because it contains links to other sources, all of which can be shown to have strong credentials.
Just look down the left-hand column or use the search box. The "Newcomers Start Here" box has a great introduction.
Unfortunately, if reinhard and particularly johnandere are like many others, they have studied the science closely and know they are wrong but have "other fish to fry" in this debate, just as the defenders of cigarette smoking do. "Troll" is the term that applies here. The falsity of all their claims is easily determined from the referenced site above.
The one thing that is always missing in the discussion of the Keystone XL Pipeline is that exploitation of tar sands oil will push us completely over the edge of the global warming bridge and we WILL NOT survive the climate change on earth. All of the lies surrounding the pipeline being a safe, domestic energy alternative that will create jobs in the US are nothing new from the oil industry. My family and I have NO agenda except to have a habitable planet for our little girls.
@ johnandere:
It is clear that you are commenting on this webpage to promote mis-information as Mike Larson implies. The falsity of your climate change claims is readily determined from the Skeptical Science website; your exaggeration of the meaning of Solyndra; it was certainly disappointing to everyone but those Republicans (most or all of them) who are carrying water for the fossil fuel industry.
A reasonable report of the meaning is given here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-zeller-jr/solyndra-scandal_b_973990.html
But the MSM have not been reporting much except the inflammatory aspects. The legislation provided money to be set aside to cover the maximum "expected" loan failures and there is enough left to cover the remaining riskier loan guarantees. Most of the loans were to power producers who had to have signed up customers, which makes their likelihood of failure extremely low. And if the government was not making riskier loans than private capital would, why would it be doing it at all? The answer is in the last section of the above linked article. There is a crucial interval between proof of concept and establishing large-scale manufacturing processes that private capital does not do as well at as in other business stages.
DonB wrote:
"as Mike Larson implies"
Mike Larson did not "imply" anything. Neither did you. You both called me a liar - a charge you CANNOT SUPPORT.
"your exaggeration of the meaning of Solyndra"
It's half a BILLION dollars! That may be small potatoes to you and the rest of the OPM-spending left, but it isn't to people like me who believe that our elected representatives should be custodians of the peoples' money not use it to take a flyer on every hair-brained "green" idea.
"inflammatory aspects"
Guess what, Don. THAT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S F'ING JOB. How's that for an "inflammatory aspect". The FG's job is to protect the rights of its citizens. It's not to gamble with the peoples' money. That's what groups like Bain are for. Get that? It's a simple concept.
As for your link, why would I bother? To you, anyone on the right is a liar and a distorter, but Huffington Post is a legitimate source?!
And your condescending statements wrt GW make my blood boil. You can post whatever links you want. What they cannot answer is, why the earth has warmed before (significantly higher than today prior to the burning of fossil fuels), why the earth has cooled dramatically in the past (read: EARTH TEMPERATURE FLUCTUATES! Duh!). Sorry, the science of today on this subject is junk. Any measurements prior to about 1960 are extremely unreliable. The "hockey stick" is a myth. In fact these "scientists" had a conclusion they wanted to prove. That is why they had to "hide the decline". Buy a clue, Don. As a "true believer", you are a sucker.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Bye Don. We have nothing to talk about.
Good post johnandere:
Not sure if anyone else is out there to read, but based on the number of posts for and against the pipeline, it seems evident that the majority of Americans do not want this pipeline to be built. Last I checked we live in a society where the majority is supposed to rule, not the wealthy few. The government is supposed to act for the majority. To add, Canadians do not want a pipeline built through their country, so why should we? One point that is also missing throughout this whole controversy is that oil from the sands are extracted using natural gas. This seems counterproductive, the nat gas should be used for other purposes. We need cars powered by nat gas and electricity for a start and then one could use the nat gas to create electricity. Environmentalists are not tree huggers, they are people huggers. The pipeline and the oil extracted is very detrimental to society, we need other solutions to the energy problem. Get on board with the rest of the majority.
"majority",
Sorry, first, you are NOT the in the majority. The majority of this country is center-right. The majority of people in this country WANT us to use energy available to us and want the jobs that would come along with the pipeline. I wouldn't put too much stock in the "polling" of posts on this board. Most of the people on this board are liberals like you. And to try to extrapolate that to the general population is ... well ... just goofy.
" The government is supposed to act for the majority.."
That's a fallacy of the left. The government is supposed to protect the rights of its citizens...period ... at least according to the Constitution, but I forgot ... liberal progressives like you don't like the Constitution.
" Environmentalists are not tree huggers, they are people huggers"
No. They're tree huggers. THe only way the liberal will be happy is when we are all back wearing hair shirts and living in caves. I would not call that "people friendly". Mankind should be respectfully using the resources that God has given us on this earth. But man still has dominion.
"Get on board with the rest of the majority."
Again, WRONG about the majority. That's just a fact. By the way, the only poll that matters is going to hit you upside the head in November. I can't wait.
Welcome back ecgberth. Where's Monty 1, not the #2 guy.
It is very distressing to realize that big energy is receiving tax subsidies, making historical profits, and yet keep putting forth ever more risky and destructive projects.
If the money was dedicated to non-fossil fuel energy systems, we might be well on our way to a bright future.
But as it is now, the decisions to head in that direction are in the hands of big energy and their elected minions who, based on their track record, arguably have only self interest at heart. That attitude seems diametrically opposed to the cooperation, the sense of common interest, and obligation to ourselves as members of a society that will be necessary to solve the huge problems we face.
The Keystone does present all sorts of complicated problems, but our penchant for game theory eventually has to take a backseat to our climate. Every circumstance in which we compete for resources will offer excuse not to change the tide, but if cooking the Earth isn't a deterrent, what is?
http://22oftheday.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-dl-on-xl-pipeline.html