Should Obama approve the Keystone XL pipeline?

Murky

Murky

Deity
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
7,216
Location
The Milky Way Galaxy
Journalist Ryan Lizza says there's one far-reaching, controversial issue President Obama will soon get to decide all by himself, without having to ask Congress. He alone can approve or reject construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, designed to take heavy crude oil extracted from Alberta, Canada, through America's heartland to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

The oil here isn't conventional oil, Lizza tells Fresh Air's Dave Davies: "It's not really oil at all, it's oil sand — it's basically a mixture of oil, sand, water and some other clay deposits, and to extract that oil from this asphaltlike mixture, it requires a lot of energy."

Many environmentalists believe that blocking the Keystone pipeline is critical to addressing climate change. They worry that extracting, refining, selling and burning this oil will result in so much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that it will dramatically change the climate to the point of no return.

Meanwhile, proponents say it will make an important contribution to energy independence. Lizza explores the argument that the pipeline will have a major environmental impact and profiles a billionaire former hedge fund owner who has thrown himself in the battle to stop Keystone XL.
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/09/23069...n-do-decide-the-fate-of-the-keystone-pipeline

New Yorker article
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/09/16/130916fa_fact_lizza
Click to expand...

You probably can already guess where I stand on this. It's obvious that we should not allow this pipeline to go forward. Further, we should ban the import of the tar sands oil.

What are your thoughts on it?
 
He should have done it already. The needless delays have been mystifying.
 
I enjoy drinking clean water that won't make me sick, so no, absolutely not.
 
It's obvious that we should not allow this pipeline to go forward. Further, we should ban the import of the tar sands oil.
Click to expand...
For the record, given the fact China exists, is energy hungry, and Canada is more than willing to sell oil to them what purpose would this serve?
 
Pipeline should definitely not be allowed to proceed.

Whether or not China would be willing to import tar sands oil is irrelevant to the question of whether the USA should. We should not, as US citizens are already responsible for far too much CO2 pollution.
 
DinoDoc said:
For the record, given the fact China exists, is energy hungry, and Canada is more than willing to sell oil to them what purpose would this serve?
Click to expand...

It would tell them we do not approve of their environment destroying ways. That we all need to clean up our energy production. Fight climate change.
 
Murky said:
Fight climate change.
Click to expand...
[G]iven the fact China exists, is energy hungry, and Canada is more than willing to sell oil to them how do you see that fight going? The only thing not approving the pipeline seems to accomplish is to deny the economy much needed stimulus.
 
"But they're doing it too!", said the five year old.
 
Leoreth said:
"But they're doing it too!", said the five year old.
Click to expand...
I don't really see the point in taking vainglorious stands that serve no purpose other than to hurt both my own economic position and relationship with allies. Perhaps you could enlighten me of the good that might be accomplished.
 
Prisoner's dilemma.
 
So that's a "no" on explaining what good rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline might realistically accomplish, yes?
 
The explanation is right in there.

But you are of course free to pretend otherwise.
 
DinoDoc said:
I don't really see the point in taking vainglorious stands that serve no purpose other than to hurt both my own economic position and relationship with allies. Perhaps you could enlighten me of the good that might be accomplished.
Click to expand...

peter grimes said:
Pipeline should definitely not be allowed to proceed.

Whether or not China would be willing to import tar sands oil is irrelevant to the question of whether the USA should. We should not, as US citizens are already responsible for far too much CO2 pollution.
Click to expand...

I think that answers it.
 
The pipeline is a net loss for the United States, and US consumers. American consumers would pay more for gasoline, and the American public would be on the hook for all the environmental damage. We gain nothing, and lose a lot. That's the bottom line.
 
As a Canadian I'm not sure how I feel about this. The whole tar sands thing seems to be smeared in controversy - so I'm not exactly sure what the facts are. If it's possible to get the oil out of these sands without causing environmental damage, then I'm all for it.
 
http://www.thenation.com/blog/168011/keystone-xl-will-increase-gas-prices-explained

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...een-raising-gas-prices-in-midwest-energy.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ill-raise-u-s-gasoline-prices-group-says.html

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/pipeline-and-gas-prices-072213

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-steyer/keystone-pipeline-gasoline-prices_b_3605297.html

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/07/1...-could-raise-gas-prices-by-40-cents-a-gallon/

http://money.msn.com/now/post--would-keystone-xl-pipeline-raise-us-gas-prices

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/keystone_xl_and_gas_prices.html

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17704-keystone-xl-may-actually-raise-american-gas-prices

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/new...-shows-keystone-xl-raises-american-gas-prices

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ystone-XL-Pipeline-would-raise-U-S-gas-prices

I mean, seriously, how could it do anything other than raise gas prices in the US? Canada is currently one of America's top oil sources. But we have them captive, because they cannot export their oil to any nation other than the US. Oh, Canadians make the claim that they could. That they could build pipelines east or west instead of south. But yet they haven't actually done it. Why? Well, tar sands oil is expensive to produce to begin with. And then you're either going to pipeline it east, 2500-3000 miles, before you get to the only deep water ice free port in eastern Canada, which is Halifax, or you are going to pump it 1000 miles west...

and over an mile in altitude high...

to clear the Rocky Mountains.

Neither one of those routes can be cost justified. So the Canadians can use it themselves, or they can sell it to the US, or they can leave it in the ground.

Or they can talk the US into approving the pipeline, and sell it to Latin America, the Caribbean basin, or China.

And that means more price competition in the US domestic market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crezth
  • Locked
Why Should the security of Ukraine cause the U.S. government to shut down?
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
5K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Quintillus
European Energy Independence
10 11 12
Replies
228
Views
15K
r16
r16
Angst
Green policy makers and dirty consumption
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Farm Boy
Farm Boy
Askthepizzaguy
[RD] The threat to American Democracy
15 16 17
Replies
328
Views
16K
Sommerswerd
Sommerswerd
Boris Gudenuf
Visions of the Seventh Civilization
2 3
Replies
59
Views
6K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
Top Bottom