Keystone Pipeline

[kochman]

You seem to think this this decision will impact the amount of oil we import from Canada. It won't, they will just find another means of transport. By and large, the public believes that more oil on the market equals lower gas prices. Which is false because there is increased demand from developing nations.



I read the Washington post article. It basically says the issue is overblown on all fronts. It would not have that big of an effect on jobs, gas prices, global warming, etc.

The importance of the decision is more symbolic. It says that America no longer just gives Big Oil a free pass to do whatever it likes. That's the take away. That is what really matters. For once we put the environment before big oil and they don't like it.

This has nothing to do with prices, but you are still arguing with me as though I am in that argument. I really don't understand why you are trying to frame the debate in another area that isn't in contention here.

I am also amazed that is what you gleaned from the WP article...

It was clearly saying Obama is making a wrong decision if he continues to oppose it with no other plan actually working.

 

[Murky]

This has nothing to do with prices, but you are still arguing with me as though I am in that argument. I really don't understand why you are trying to frame the debate in another area that isn't in contention here.

I am also amazed that is what you gleaned from the WP article...

It was clearly saying Obama is making a wrong decision if he continues to oppose it with no other plan actually working.

I'm having difficulty understanding why you think this is such a bad decision. If the WP article basically says it's an overblown issue, what does it matter to you?

The only reason we aren't doing more with other plans is because a bunch of idiots are in control of the house of representatives. We must vote out the tea party in 2012.

 

[wilycoyote]

This decision serves two purposes, 1) to push off the eventual passage until after the elections and 2) to feed the hatred Canadians have for all things American even though no one from outside of the two countries can really tell the difference between the two.

 

[emzie]

This decision serves two purposes, 1) to push off the eventual passage until after the elections and 2) to feed the hatred Canadians have for all things American even though no one from outside of the two countries can really tell the difference between the two.

Americans are the ones with Canadian flags on their backpacks.

 

[Cutlass]

Man... it is odd how you ignore your own talking points when they don't work for whatever agenda.
How many times have you talked about gubbamint stimulus should be used for temporary jobs such as infrastructure improvement. These jobs would last a lot longer than that! And at NO cost to the US gubbamint, but rather, increased revenue in favor of the US gubbamint.

Why did the State not consider it very great risk? Do you have some data that their scientists don't?

It won't decrease money to the ME, but it will decrease US money. China will gobble up their reserves, and the ME's internal conflicts can be China's problem to interfere with, instead of ours.

I totally support reduced oil consumption, and do whatever I can to conserve energy. However, that's all I can do... I can't make cars run on solar power or whatever... I support alternate energy, and I've said this so many times it's like a broken record.
But I live in reality...

If the job was to go destroy things and then build something else and then destroy it again, is that worthwhile?

You are twisting things. This handful of useless jobs will not really help. You don't destroy things just for the purpose of creating jobs. Not every job is worth having. Not when the cost to the public exceeds any possible value to the job.

This is not about jobs. This is about corporate welfare at the public expense. The jobs is just a smokescreen. This oil is not for the US market.


And it absolutely will not change the amount of American money that goes to the Mideast in the long run.

 

[kochman]

If the job was to go destroy things and then build something else and then destroy it again, is that worthwhile?

You are twisting things. This handful of useless jobs will not really help. You don't destroy things just for the purpose of creating jobs. Not every job is worth having. Not when the cost to the public exceeds any possible value to the job.

This is not about jobs. This is about corporate welfare at the public expense. The jobs is just a smokescreen. This oil is not for the US market.


And it absolutely will not change the amount of American money that goes to the Mideast in the long run.

Useless? You think these jobs will last less time than rebuilding a highway?
OK... how is it useless to employ Americans... who would then be off entitlements because they have jobs and be paying taxes because they have jobs... all at ZERO cost to the US government, while the economy is struggling?
You can't honestly believe that.

The oil is for the global market, that's irrelevant. The jobs are for Americans.

Ok... it will change the amount of US money going to the ME. Let me explain.
1) The ME and Canada, and everyone, have limited oil reserves.
2) The less we get from the ME, that void is filled by others.
3) The more we get from Canada, the less we get from the ME... in the long run, because both will eventually run dry.
It is a mathematical certainty that this changes the amount of US money, in the long run, going to the ME.

It is also better than having oil tankers chugging around... you guys keep talking about the threat to the environment that the pipeline could do... what about the threat to the environment that oil tankers could do???

Anyhow, I'm done arguing in circles... Sometimes people have ideas they won't abandon in the face of reality, and that's fine... unfortunately, sometimes those effect others, like the Americans who won't be getting those jobs. It's ok though, we'll just keep them poor and dependent on the government, that way they are sure to vote for us in the future.

 

[GamezRule]

Sometimes people have ideas they won't abandon in the face of reality, and that's fine...

Indeed they do.

 

[Murky]

Useless? You think these jobs will last less time than rebuilding a highway?
OK... how is it useless to employ Americans... who would then be off entitlements because they have jobs and be paying taxes because they have jobs... all at ZERO cost to the US government, while the economy is struggling?
You can't honestly believe that.

The oil is for the global market, that's irrelevant. The jobs are for Americans.

Ok... it will change the amount of US money going to the ME. Let me explain.
1) The ME and Canada, and everyone, have limited oil reserves.
2) The less we get from the ME, that void is filled by others.
3) The more we get from Canada, the less we get from the ME... in the long run, because both will eventually run dry.
It is a mathematical certainty that this changes the amount of US money, in the long run, going to the ME.

It is also better than having oil tankers chugging around... you guys keep talking about the threat to the environment that the pipeline could do... what about the threat to the environment that oil tankers could do???

Anyhow, I'm done arguing in circles... Sometimes people have ideas they won't abandon in the face of reality, and that's fine... unfortunately, sometimes those effect others, like the Americans who won't be getting those jobs. It's ok though, we'll just keep them poor and dependent on the government, that way they are sure to vote for us in the future.

Even if the overestimated job numbers from the dirty oil pipeline were true (which they're not) it would barely put a dent in the U.S. unemployment rate.

Green jobs is the future.

 

[wilycoyote]

Even if the overestimated job numbers from the dirty oil pipeline were true (which they're not) it would barely put a dent in the U.S. unemployment rate.

Green jobs is the future.

That is a comforting point for the unemployed, desperate for anything to give them hope.

 

[Murky]

That is a comforting point for the unemployed, desperate for anything to give them hope.

There's no reason why it shouldn't. We're creating a lot of good jobs through green technology growth. We just need to get the tea party idiots out of the way to open the throttle on it.

 

[amadeus]

There's no reason why it shouldn't. We're creating a lot of good jobs through green technology growth. We just need to get the tea party idiots out of the way to open the throttle on it.

You mean an unprofitable, subsisidy-consuming tumor needs to be protected from people with sensible economic views.

 

[Murky]

You mean an unprofitable, subsisidy-consuming tumor needs to be protected from people with sensible economic views.

So if it doesn't involve raping the environment it is automatically an "unprofitable, subsidy-consuming tumor?"

 

[BasketCase]

How does this make you react?
If you agree with Obama, why?
If you don't, why not?

Big surprise coming, folks--whether Obama made the "right" decision isn't the point. A whole nother game was afoot here. Cue shady politics.

The existence of the Keystone project had Obama between a rock and a hard place. On the one side, unions were pressuring him to give Keystone the go-ahead for jobs reasons. On the other, environmentalists were pressuring him to reject it for environment reasons. Whichever decision Obama made, he was going to piss off a core Democratic lobby.

So Obama decided not to decide. The entire reason the President tried to put the decision off until after the 2012 election was so that he could keep both factions in line. He was trying to have his cake and eat it too. The Republican response? Force Obama to decide. Doesn't matter which decision he made; it was a win-win for the Republicans.

The Republican-imposed deadline was never intended to force Obama to green-light Keystone; the whole point was to simply force him to decide, because any decision would cost Obama support and campaign dollars.


My personal take on Keystone: approving or rejecting Keystone will have no impact on the environment. Canada has already clearly stated that they will ship the oil; so the Tar Sands will be developed (and spew nasty fumes and such) no matter what. The only thing open to change is where the oil goes. Which leads to the question: which is safer, transporting oil in a pipeline or on the ocean via tanker? The pipeline. If you have an oil spill, you want it to be on land where it does less environmental damage and is easier to clean up--Deepwater Horizon demonstrated that quite dramatically.

Plus there's the fact that China's environmental standards are extremely lax compared to the United States. In order to keep things as clean as possible, the oil needs to stay over here.

 

[Cutlass]

You mean an unprofitable, subsisidy-consuming tumor needs to be protected from people with sensible economic views.

That is exactly why we should be moving from oil to renewables.

 

[amadeus]

That is exactly why we should be moving from oil to renewables.

Like corn ethanol?

 

[kochman]

Even if the overestimated job numbers from the dirty oil pipeline were true (which they're not) it would barely put a dent in the U.S. unemployment rate.

Green jobs is the future.

Green jobs in the future... ANY jobs now!
I guess because it doesn't solve unemployment all by itself, we should just forget the pipeline... let the poor people eat carrots for dinner... we'll employ them all when we got those great green jobs on line.

Seriously though, I support green jobs. When it works.

What's the record been recently?

There's no reason why it shouldn't. We're creating a lot of good jobs through green technology growth. We just need to get the tea party idiots out of the way to open the throttle on it.

Ok, what jobs? Solyndra? Creating jobs with subsidies is ok if they work... but that, and other such companies, have been failing. The Green Jobs bubble is bursting.
Too bad for me, I foolishly bought stock in several, and most have lost about 90% of their value.

Big surprise coming, folks--whether Obama made the "right" decision isn't the point. A whole nother game was afoot here. Cue shady politics.

The existence of the Keystone project had Obama between a rock and a hard place. On the one side, unions were pressuring him to give Keystone the go-ahead for jobs reasons. On the other, environmentalists were pressuring him to reject it for environment reasons. Whichever decision Obama made, he was going to piss off a core Democratic lobby.

So Obama decided not to decide. The entire reason the President tried to put the decision off until after the 2012 election was so that he could keep both factions in line. He was trying to have his cake and eat it too. The Republican response? Force Obama to decide. Doesn't matter which decision he made; it was a win-win for the Republicans.

The Republican-imposed deadline was never intended to force Obama to green-light Keystone; the whole point was to simply force him to decide, because any decision would cost Obama support and campaign dollars.


My personal take on Keystone: approving or rejecting Keystone will have no impact on the environment. Canada has already clearly stated that they will ship the oil; so the Tar Sands will be developed (and spew nasty fumes and such) no matter what. The only thing open to change is where the oil goes. Which leads to the question: which is safer, transporting oil in a pipeline or on the ocean via tanker? The pipeline. If you have an oil spill, you want it to be on land where it does less environmental damage and is easier to clean up--Deepwater Horizon demonstrated that quite dramatically.

Plus there's the fact that China's environmental standards are extremely lax compared to the United States. In order to keep things as clean as possible, the oil needs to stay over here.

I agree the Repubs were being shrewd in forcing a rather meaningless vote, because it shows Obama's "true intention", whether it actually shows it or not.
Be sure it will come up in the presidential debates.

That is exactly why we should be moving from oil to renewables.

Again, no one is refuting this idea.
We just need a viable one (or several), accessible, affordable, etc. I'll tell you one thing, this whole corn thing could actually pan out, but for now it is just the corn industry lobbying... Really, to me it seems the best way is to optimize solar energy cells... but I live in FL... that won't work come Dec 21 in Nome, Alaska...

We're screwed.

 

[Cutlass]

Like corn ethanol?

Like all the subsidized oil drilling.

 

[Quackers]

How is it subsidised btw? The Oil industry? I'm curious.
Btw Tax cuts doesn't count as a "subsidy".

 

[BasketCase]

We have alternative energy technology that works now. Why not support more of those projects and less fossil fuel related projects? You can create just as many if not more jobs installing wind farms and solar panels.

Gigantic irony incoming: environmentalists have been protesting these as well. Usually for habitat-preservation reasons. Yes, there have been protests by environmentalists against desert solar-panel farms, because the deserts in question turned out to be possible habitat for the two-toed desert warbler or some other such critter. The general rule is, environmentalists are against any expansion of land utilization.

Fact is, renewables don't work on the scale we need. They never will, especially when you take note that it requires mining, oil, or both to build the solar panels and wind turbines. There are only three choices that will work: oil, coal, and nuclear. Pick one. I'm thinking you're leaning towards oil.....

 

[History_Buff]

This decision serves two purposes, 1) to push off the eventual passage until after the elections and 2) to feed the hatred Canadians have for all things American even though no one from outside of the two countries can really tell the difference between the two.

Rejecting XL doesn't really affect the anti-American sympathies here. The only people who really care about it are people who work in the oil business in Alberta, and politicians who can use it as a drum.

Even know, the pro-oil/pro-business types up are running around screaming about leftist-environmentalists, Hollywood celebrities, and big government. It's insane, though not unexpected; every time someone makes a marginally negative comment about the oil sands, half the province thinks it's been personally insulted for some reason.