Keystone Pipeline

[kochman]

We could switch to electric or plug-in hybrid cars. Decommission coal plants and replace them with solar and wind power. We have the technology to do that now. We just need to scale it up for the masses. There are also more gains to be made on energy efficiency.

The major road block is getting people to give up their "Black Gold" as a source of income. The Big Oil companies posted the largest profits in the energy sector. Of course they want to keep that money flowing in, no matter how much harm it does to the environment in the process.

As I said, until we HAVE that alternative... accessible to all at a reasonable price... we need oil.

The decision has been made... the fuel will be sold, and used...

As for the Sand Hills region, the company is working on an alternate route around that, so as to not interfere there...

This is a no brainer, has bipartisan support, but it is being held up, at the cost of our economy and national interests. So, instead, send the money to S Arabia, which will mean we continue our presence there and infuriate more jihadists, who are in turn, funded with the money we paid for the oil... while our ally and neighbor sends the oil to China and gets money from them, with NO new jobs in the USA...

BRILLIANT!

 

[Veles]

Or even better: I herd it's kinda hot in Arizona and other desert states, so Y U NO build a ton of solar stations there?

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

As I said, until we HAVE that alternative... accessible to all at a reasonable price... we need oil.

Why do you nee twice as much oil as a German. Live like a swiss person and you could export huge amounts of oil.

 

[Murky]

As I said, until we HAVE that alternative... accessible to all at a reasonable price... we need oil.

The decision has been made... the fuel will be sold, and used...

As for the Sand Hills region, the company is working on an alternate route around that, so as to not interfere there...

This is a no brainer, has bipartisan support, but it is being held up, at the cost of our economy and national interests. So, instead, send the money to S Arabia, which will mean we continue our presence there and infuriate more jihadists, who are in turn, funded with the money we paid for the oil... while our ally and neighbor sends the oil to China and gets money from them, with NO new jobs in the USA...

BRILLIANT!

If you are looking to blame someone blame the Republicans in congress for insisting on a 60 day decision when the President told them that it wasn't possible.

 

[say1988]

Didn't read the OP?



Obama had to have known that would come. Knowing that, he actively chooses to aid the PRC to the detriment of American interests.

And if the US started buying more Canadian oil they would buy less from other sources, which would then turn to China.

I fully support this based solely on the fact that Congress tried to force the issue through passing a law that a decision had to be made within a certain time frame. The decision should be made when all relevent information has been gathered.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

The decision should be made when all relevent information has been gathered.

This is politics. Relevant information isn't needed, so long as you stick to the script.

 

[Murky]

We need to end our addiction to oil, not look for a quick fix.


Link to video.

 

[Synobun]

We could switch to electric or plug-in hybrid cars. Decommission coal plants and replace them with solar and wind power. We have the technology to do that now. We just need to scale it up for the masses. There are also more gains to be made on energy efficiency.

The major road block is getting people to give up their "Black Gold" as a source of income. The Big Oil companies posted the largest profits in the energy sector. Of course they want to keep that money flowing in, no matter how much harm it does to the environment in the process.

We could switch. In fact, we could destroy everything bad in this world and live a clean farmer's life.

That is not how society or this world works.

 

[kochman]

I fully support this based solely on the fact that Congress tried to force the issue through passing a law that a decision had to be made within a certain time frame. The decision should be made when all relevent information has been gathered.

The State Department did a 3 year study and was approving, Obama told them not to, so they changed it. That's the power of the presidency... he controls the State Department.

We need to end our addiction to oil, not look for a quick fix.

Nobody is arguing that we don't need to switch. No one is saying, yippee, oil is fun and healthy, let's just do it! (except oil industry execs of course).
BUT, we are talking about REALITY.
We need it until we don't.


Why do we need twice as much as a German? There are a number of reasons, a major one being cultural attitude which I agree needs to be changed. However, we don't have the population density of Germany, and therefore we are more dependent on fuel... wherever that fuel comes from.

I'm completely for alternative fuels... so help me... but until reality reflects this desirous change, we are stuck with the current reality.

 

[Disgustipated]

Obama just lost my vote for the election. And I was seriously going to vote for him again. Even though I'm disgusted at the republicans, I will vote for Romney. It's mostly just House republicans I hate, I have nothing against Romney.

 

[keli]

Or even better: I herd it's kinda hot in Arizona and other desert states, so Y U NO build a ton of solar stations there?

Oil lobbies.

 

[warpus]

Didn't we get enough of the Manchurian Presidency from Bubba? Now we have another one purposely aiding the PRC against American interests. Great... Just how many Democratic Presidents are going to have to sell us out to the PRC before people realize we cannot trust the Presidency to this party?

I expect better from you VRWC....

 

[Murky]

Nobody is arguing that we don't need to switch. No one is saying, yippee, oil is fun and healthy, let's just do it! (except oil industry execs of course).
BUT, we are talking about REALITY.
We need it until we don't.

I'm completely for alternative fuels... so help me... but until reality reflects this desirous change, we are stuck with the current reality.

Funny how conservatives want to talk about reality when it suits their arguments. How about the reality of global warming? How does the Tar Sands fit in with that reality?

There's no amount of oil or money that is worth the environmental destruction they are doing to mine the tar sands. I would never support something as bad as that.

 

[Disgustipated]

Oil lobbies.

please, that's people's response to everything.

We are building solar plants where I live. But guess what? Solar power is twice as expensive as fossil fuel power. It's difficult to find the funding to build these things. The only way they get built is if they are guaranteed to sell the power at a certain price, and it usually requires government subsidies to keep them going.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I expect better from you VRWC....

It takes partisanism to make a sensible man talk bollocks.

 

[Murky]

please, that's people's response to everything.

We are building solar plants where I live. But guess what? Solar power is twice as expensive as fossil fuel power. It's difficult to find the funding to build these things. The only way they get built is if they are guaranteed to sell the power at a certain price, and it usually requires government subsidies to keep them going.

The price on solar is dropping fast. The oil companies don't get subsidies?

Here Comes Solar Energy

For decades the story of technology has been dominated, in the popular mind and to a large extent in reality, by computing and the things you can do with it. Moore’s Law — in which the price of computing power falls roughly 50 percent every 18 months — has powered an ever-expanding range of applications, from faxes to

Our mastery of the material world, on the other hand, has advanced much more slowly. The sources of energy, the way we move stuff around, are much the same as they were a generation ago.

But that may be about to change. We are, or at least we should be, on the cusp of an energy transformation, driven by the rapidly falling cost of solar power. That’s right, solar power.

If that surprises you, if you still think of solar power as some kind of hippie fantasy, blame our fossilized political system, in which fossil fuel producers have both powerful political allies and a powerful propaganda machine that denigrates alternatives.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/krugman-here-comes-solar-energy.html

 

[Cutlass]

Didn't read the OP?



Obama had to have known that would come. Knowing that, he actively chooses to aid the PRC to the detriment of American interests.

This is explicitly false. There really is no benefit to the US as a nation or the American oil consumer. Nor is denying the pipeline any benefit to China.

That's just not how the oil market works.

All oil essentially goes into one pool. And all buyers buy the price on the pool. Where each barrel stars out and ends essentially doesn't matter. Not to the consumer at any rate.

This pipeline will make some oil companies better off. It will not benefit the consumer or the country. There isn't enough oil involved to change the market price of oil in the world. What will happen is that it will get to the Gulf of Mexico, will be refined...

And then it will be exported to other nations.

Something which is already taking place with US oil supplies, BTW.

The oil world turned upside down–the U.S. exports refined oil products to Mexico and Brazil
posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:30 am

That's right, boys and girls. While the American consumer is still getting gouged at the pump, American refiners are sending oil overseas.

Now, given that it will not benefit Americans, except, of course, the already obscenely profitable oil industry, why should we tolerate the obscene environmental risk and destruction? We are talking about an environmental loss with no economic gain.

Where is the sense in that?

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

I think it's mostly a political move. Obama's trying to drum up support from the environmental camp in the run up to the election. That's why it's not completely off the table, but just shelved for review at a later date.

 

[kochman]

Funny how conservatives want to talk about reality when it suits their arguments. How about the reality of global warming? How does the Tar Sands fit in with that reality?

There's no amount of oil or money that is worth the environmental destruction they are doing to mine the tar sands. I would never support something as bad as that.

Ok, let's break this down for you...
1) The decision to process the oil has already been made, therefore, the subsequent damage is already going to happen NO MATTER if we choose to take the pipeline or not...
2) The Chinese, who are MUCH less concerned with the environment, are happy to use the oil, in the dirtiest manner of their choosing.
3) The "reality of global warming" is a theory. It could very well be true... but the US not getting this oil doesn't prevent this damage, which at this point, is written in stone... just a matter of who will benefit.

It's like saying, I won't eat that deer because that is mean... the deer is already dead, someone else is going to eat it, and you are starving as a result. Shooting yourself, and our nation, in the foot.

There really is no benefit to the US as a nation or the American oil consumer. Nor is denying the pipeline any benefit to China.

That's just not how the oil market works.

1) Less oil tankers floating from the ME to the USA is not a benefit? Considering the Canadian oil is going to flow somewhere regardless of what we do...
2) More jobs in America? That's not a benefit?
3) Less money going to the ME? That's not a benefit?
4) Less dependence on ME oil, thereby leading to less interference based on "national interest"? That's not a benefit?

How could you possibly deny this?

 

[Cutlass]

1) Less oil tankers floating from the ME to the USA is not a benefit? Considering the Canadian oil is going to flow somewhere regardless of what we do...
2) More jobs in America? That's not a benefit?
3) Less money going to the ME? That's not a benefit?
4) Less dependence on ME oil, thereby leading to less interference based on "national interest"? That's not a benefit?

How could you possibly deny this?

1) Look at the long run. Does this lower our dependence on the Mideast? No. It stretches out their profits. we'd be better off in the long run buying from them now and saving ours for later.
2) A trivial handful of jobs for huge environmental destruction? That's not a cost?
3) It won't reduce the money going to the Mideast in the long run.
4) That ain't gonna happen either. This project is a drop in the bucket.

In short, all the selling points of this project are being blown way out of proportion to any realistic benefit we might receive.

This is a special interest giveaway project, not the national interest.