Rejecting the Keystone pipeline is an act of insanity

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by DonGlock26, Jan 20, 2012.

  1. DonGlock26

    DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    47,159
    Likes Received:
    1,179
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Rejecting the Keystone pipeline is an act of insanity


    President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn’t often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and — beyond the symbolism — won’t even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it. All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his reelection that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.

    Aside from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won’t get much. Stopping the pipeline won’t halt the development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed; therefore, there will be little effect on global-warming emissions. Indeed, Obama’s decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker will create extra emissions. There will also be the risk of added spills.


    Now consider how Obama’s decision hurts the United States. For starters, it insults and antagonizes a strong ally; getting future Canadian cooperation on other issues will be harder. Next, it threatens a large source of relatively secure oil that, combined with new discoveries in the United States, could reduce (though not eliminate) our dependence on insecure foreign oil.

    Finally, Obama’s decision forgoes all the project’s jobs. There’s some dispute over the magnitude. Project sponsor TransCanada claims 20,000, split between construction (13,000) and manufacturing (7,000) of everything from pumps to control equipment. Apparently, this refers to “job years,” meaning one job for one year. If so, the actual number of jobs would be about half that spread over two years. Whatever the figure, it’s in the thousands and thus important in a country hungering for work. And Keystone XL is precisely the sort of infrastructure project that Obama claims to favor.

    The big winners are the Chinese. They must be celebrating their good fortune and wondering how the crazy Americans could repudiate such a huge supply of nearby energy. There’s no guarantee that tar-sands oil will go to China; pipelines to the Pacific would have to be built. But it creates the possibility when the oil’s natural market is the United States.

    There are three things to remember about Keystone and U.S. energy policy.

    First, we’re going to use lots of oil for a long time. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that U.S. oil consumption will increase 4 percent between 2009 and 2035. The increase occurs despite highly optimistic assumptions about vehicle fuel efficiency and bio-fuels. But a larger population (390 million in 2035 versus 308 million in 2009) and more driving per vehicle offset savings.

    The more oil we produce domestically and import from neighbors, the more we’re insulated from dramatic interruptions of global supplies. After the United States, Canada is the most dependable source of oil — or was, until Obama’s decision.

    Second, barring major technological breakthroughs, emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, will rise for similar reasons. The EIA projects that America’s CO2 emissions will increase by 16 percent from 2009 to 2035. (The EIA is updating its projections, but the main trends aren’t likely to change dramatically.) Stopping Canadian tar-sands development, were that possible, wouldn’t affect these emissions.

    Finally, even if — as Keystone critics argue — some Canadian oil were refined in the United States and then exported, this would be a good thing. The exports would probably go mostly to Latin America. They would keep well-paid industrial jobs (yes, refining) in the United States and reduce our trade deficit in oil, which exceeded $300 billion in 2011.

    By law, Obama’s decision was supposed to reflect “the national interest.” His standard was his political interest. The State Department had spent three years evaluating Keystone and appeared ready to approve the project by year-end 2011. Then the administration, citing opposition to the pipeline’s route in Nebraska, reversed course and postponed a decision to 2013 — after the election.

    Now, reacting to a congressional deadline to decide, Obama rejected the proposal. But he also suggested that a new application with a modified Nebraska route — already being negotiated — might be approved, after the election. So the sop tossed to the environmentalists could be temporary. The cynicism is breathtaking.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-of-insanity/2012/01/19/gIQAowG6AQ_story.html

    Progressives are insane dreamers. They actually think that we are going back to pre-industrial revolution green life styles.

    _
     
    HB Surfer and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shrillary is complicit.

    The unions are emasculated.
     
    HB Surfer and (deleted member) like this.
  3. pottle1918

    pottle1918 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh please, this is BS. We don't need the pipeline that is what trains, ships, trucks etc are for. How many jobs would we lose to transportation industry with that pipe line??

    Better to put the money in roads, bridges and the repairing of existing gas lines.

    Keystone is simply a way for republicans to give more subsidies to the oil and gas industry.
     
  4. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    21,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    China is stoked!

    Word came out today of entire new energy deals with China above and beyond the Keystone pipeline. China also won the Brazilian Oil deal today. What a bunch of suckers those Chinese are!

    We have Solyndra!!!
     
  5. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its a loan..

    China's national development bank offered a $10 billion loan on the condition that Petrobras ship oil to China for 10 years.

    Sinopec, Saudi Oil to Build Joint Refinery China Petrochemical Corporation, the nation's biggest refiner and the parent of Sinopec Corp
     
  6. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    21,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There was a bid process... U.S.A. lost.

    As our energy prices sky rocket and China's reduces how do you think that will play out for competition? Do you also know that China is building modern nuclear plants all over the place?

    At the end of the day... much more oil for China and the U.S.A. is ever dependent on Middle East whack jobs for energy. How is that for national security?
     
  7. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    why should the US be reduced to competing for the worlds oil supply, eventually it will run out leaving two nuclear powers going to war to see which one gets to fill their SUV

    that means the end of mankind if we don't get more solyndras in operation
     
  8. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No.. it was a loan and its been in the works for a year. The Chinese are buying oil, not extracting it.

    Yes.. I know that China and KSA are building the world's largest refinery.. The Chinese just picked up three concessions in Afghanistan and are buiilding a pipeline and refinery there.

    They are also developing oilfields in Darfur.

    Those ME whack jobs are turning EAST... while you all run around name calling and desperate and won't support a sane or fair minded foreign policy.
     
  9. logical1

    logical1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    25,426
    Likes Received:
    8,068
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Could any liberal explain to me how "the smartest man in Washington" could have made such a stupid decision?
     
    Rapunzel and (deleted member) like this.
  10. Rapunzel

    Rapunzel New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    25,154
    Likes Received:
    1,107
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I swear it's Ubama's goal in life to insult everyone, except dictators who he bows to and kisses their ass.
     
  11. Consmike

    Consmike New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    45,042
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I find it amazing that unions are against building this pipeline.

    I know the regular blue collar worker is not against this but hey, they are controlled by their unions....it just proves that Obama and unions really don't care about jobs, the american people or lower gas prices.
     
  12. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,278
    Likes Received:
    22,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK you can tell me, it's just us here. You're really a conservative trolling as a pretend liberal to make them look dumb. Right? I mean it's a great shtick.
     
  13. Hard-Driver

    Hard-Driver Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    8,546
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The republicans in congress said he had to decide before the information needed to make the decision was complete. So the answer is no.

    Say you were buying a car. You went to the car dealership to look at one that might interest you and they took you to the back rom and hotboxed you and told you that they would only sell you a car today, before you looked at the competition or knew all the facts, invoice prices etc. Would it be smart or stupid to agree to buying the car because the dealer is trying to force you to.

    A smart guy says, no. Then if he decides he likes the car, he goes and gets it later. Obama has reserved the right to do it in the future, when the information to make the decision is complete. But since he has been forced to answer now, the answer is no. That is what a smart guy would do.
     
  14. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,278
    Likes Received:
    22,662
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Not enough time? This project was applied for in 2008 and the State Department had already OK'd it. That's why Hillary will be called to Congress to testify on this. They've already done studies on this.

    I think the President's original timetable (make a decision after the election) is more than sufficient explanation.
     
  15. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is so mysterious about another oil pipeline?

    We have thousands of miles of pipelines in the US, incliding allegely "environmentally sensitive" areas.

    The permit was a no-brainer.
     
  16. JamesDF

    JamesDF Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Rejecting the pipeline is totally insane if you're an oil company tool without a heart who wants oil companies to get rich while polluting peoples water and air makings them sick.
     
  17. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With Obama in the White House the information will always be "incomplete" and the answer will always be no.

    The wacko environmentalists don'r want the pipeline and they control Obama.
     
  18. BroncoBilly

    BroncoBilly Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    29,824
    Likes Received:
    355
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Absolutely wrong HD, liberals like Obama only care about their re-election and not our nation. This is exactly why we must continue buying oil from terrorists nations that hate us, and liberals like you that support this completely boggles my mind.

    Here, read some info as to why this nation is so unbelievably (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up.

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL6E8CJ27520120119?irpc=932

    In a generally sympathetic review of the impact of environmental campaigners on energy policy, Columbia Professor Michael Graetz wrote: "Like so many environmental organisations born in the 1970s, the Sierra Club's Legal Defense Fund resorted to litigation as a means to slow, discourage or halt energy projects, but it also learned quickly to exert its muscle to influence legislation and administrative decisions via the National Environmental Policy Act's requirement of environmental impact statements and other means.

    "Environmental activists had mastered techniques that at a minimum served to delay energy projects and make them more costly, but that in many instances also succeeded in killing the projects altogether. They succeeded in hindering or halting offshore oil drilling, new oil refineries, production and gasification of coal, importation of liquid natural gas, and electricity plants of all sorts," ("The End of Energy", 2011).

    It is no way to make a coherent energy policy.
     
  19. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How about a little reality?

    Canadians don't want a pipeline across pristine British Columbia either..

    The notion that this is your last chance... you have to buy today is for suckers.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...-ado-about-nothing-basically.html#post4998694
     
  20. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Renounce oil and all oil derivatives or admit you're flaming hypocrite.

    This crap sickens me.
     
  21. plant

    plant New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
  22. BroncoBilly

    BroncoBilly Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    29,824
    Likes Received:
    355
    Trophy Points:
    83
  23. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    TransCanada is running a hustle on Americans and using their politicians and public ignorance against them.

    If this pipeline can be rerouted successfully, it may be... I just wonder why it will by-pass refineries in the Mid-West????

    This is all about maximizing profits.. and I have no problem with profit, but a don't like being manipulated.
     
  24. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All the Canadians?

    I seriously doubt that.

    But there are always a few misfits in any group.

    That's why the government has the power to declare imminent domain.

    If not there would never be a new road, shopping mall, sports stadium or water reservoir built in America or Canada again.
     
  25. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0

Share This Page