OBAMA RUNNING OUT OF REASONS TO REJECT KEYSTONE XL

[okaawhatever]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is running out of reasons to say no to Keystone XL, the proposed oil pipeline that's long been looming over his environmental legacy.

Five years after the pipeline's backers first asked the Obama administration for approval, the project remains in limbo, stuck in a complex regulatory process that has enabled Obama to put off what will inevitably be a politically explosive decision. But the release Friday of a long-awaited government report removes a major excuse for delay, ramping up pressure on the president to make a call.

The State Department's report raised no significant environmental objections to the pipeline, marking a victory for proponents, who argue the project will create jobs and strengthen America's energy security.

Environmentalists disagree and insist approval would fly in the face of Obama's vaunted promise to fight climate change, even as the report gives him political cover to approve it. They argue the report, which provides a detailed assessment of tar sands emissions, offers Obama more than enough justification to oppose the pipeline.

Continued at Link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_KEYSTONE_PIPELINE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[louis-t]

1. What's worse, a leaky pipeline or

trains that derail and blow up?

[Are_grits_groceries]

3. A leaky pipeline.

Neither is good, but a leaky pipeline could have serious consequences for the environment in a large area. The water could be compromised.

Then there is the issue of knowing when and where leaks occur. Companies have not exactly been beacons of transparency when this happens.

A train explosion has a defined area and can't be hidden. In addition, requirements for cars, trains and the rate at which they travel could be more easily monitored.

Do I want to see pictures of places devastated by derailed trains? No. IMO leaky pipelines would be much harder to deal with.

[cali]

17. actually, it depends. if more and more oil is being transported in unsafe tanker cars

(and nearly all the tanker cars being used are unsafe; there is a years long wait for safe tanker cars which are produced by 1 TX company), then the possibility arises that there will be such a large number of disasters involving rail transport that the damage done will be equal to a bad pipeline leak.

Both suck.

[Are_grits_groceries]

19. I still think it's a leaky pipeline.

There is no way to control where the leaked material will go. There isn't a defined area. People can at least plan routes and take some precautions with trains.
And I repeat, unless another entity is monitoring the pipeline, we have to depend on a company to report the leak. They have been notoriously bad about doing this. Even government officials may cover them up.

But, you're right. They both suck.

[Mass]

2. The State Department still has not rendered its opinion and then the White House has to decide.

It can still last one year before everything is decided.

[TheMathieu]

4. We can be that reason.

Or we can demand major concessions from the GOP before approval.

I am so conflicted about this.

[okaawhatever]

14. I think the climate change issue isn't the biggest issue with Keystone. For me it has more to do

with the fact that there isn't anything in it for the United States. A very few people will make billions and the risk will go to the American taxpayers. Some are even suggesting that in areas where there is surplus oil, like some parts of Oklahoma, the pipeline will be used to export it driving the price even higher here in the United States. At a bare minimum there needs to be a huge insurance policy in effect for potential damage. As in hundreds of billions of dollars. We also need to find some way to tax the risk. Canada voted to not allow this pipeline in their country. There's a good reason for that. Why do we want to take on this risk for nothing?

[gulliver]

5. The anti-Keystone stuff was a misfire.

I consider myself an environmentalist, but I don't consider the Keystone pipeline a priority in halting/reversing climate change. That is an old school zero sum game of development vs. environment. I think climate change is not a good fit for that approach. To fight climate change we need to make fighting it pro-development. If we are serious about fighting climate change, the fight needs to be given a big payroll.

[ProSense]

6. No,

"The anti-Keystone stuff was a misfire."

...it wasn't, and the OP article is typical of the media spin environmentalists reject.

NRDC: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024423143#post4
Michael Brune: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024423143#post5

[gulliver]

7. It's not that I think the pipeline is a good thing.

I don't. I don't think it is a good thing that I need to put gas in my vehicle to get to work.

The only question is priority and approach. The certainty on the effect of the Keystone pipeline varies. It is a lynchpin. It is nil. It is the last straw. It is nothing. The best I can make of it is that it is not a lynchpin, it is not a last stand, it is not a line in the sand, it is not a point of no return. I think it is more of a projection of frustration and the wish to confront and stop climate change. Human nature wants something concrete to fight, so Keystone becomes a point of contention. But it is really just one point of contention in what could be a decades long negative sum game of whack-a-mole.

We need to make fighting climate change a jobs program. In general, if a good idea has no payroll (no work force), it has no chance.

[ProSense]

8. It's a case

It's not that I think the pipeline is a good thing.

I don't. I don't think it is a good thing that I need to put gas in my vehicle to get to work.

The only question is priority and approach. The certainty on the effect of the Keystone pipeline varies. It is a lynchpin. It is nil. It is the last straw. It is nothing. The best I can make of it is that it is not a lynchpin, it is not a last stand, it is not a line in the sand, it is not a point of no return. I think it is more of a projection of frustration and the wish to confront and stop climate change. Human nature wants something concrete to fight, so Keystone becomes a point of contention. But it is really just one point of contention in what could be a decades long negative sum game of whack-a-mole.

We need to make fighting climate change a jobs program. In general, if a good idea has no payroll (no work force), it has no chance.

...of the greedy just wanting what they want. It benefits no one but them. If they really cared about jobs, instead of hawking a project that could become an environmental disaster, one that will only create 50 jobs (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024423143), they would have passed the jobs bill in 2011 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021294027). The country could have used those 2 million jobs.

[gulliver]

9. But this is a very good reason why the pipeline fight is not a good one.

It has to be admitted that some pittance of jobs will be created by the pipeline, but that is enough to allow the developers to play a cynical "pro jobs" tune.

And, yes, of course the Republicans are completely the back-asswards, "wrong way" party when it comes to jobs. We just had the worst recession in decades courtesy of their proven wrong, knee-jerk, sometimes ill-motivated, and always gut-wrenchingly blind instincts. It's not like they want to create recessions and reduce employment. It's just that they are economically incompetent and have way too much meanness and brain-deadness in their bloodstream.

So why does the NRDC or whoever think it is a good idea to let the wrong side of the argument have the jobs card?

[ProSense]

10. Wait

"But this is a very good reason why the pipeline fight is not a good one. It has to be admitted that some pittance of jobs will be created by the pipeline, but that is enough to allow the developers to play a cynical 'pro jobs' tune."

...Republicans are currently opposing a program that creates 4000 times the "pittance of jobs" and has no harmful effects on the environment.

Why do they get to dictacte the debate, and why do you think it's important to cede it to them because they're being disingenuous?

[gulliver]

11. Easy

The Republican opposition to Obama's pro-jobs efforts is actually buttressed by their support of Keystone. For the sake of argument, let's accept your 4,000:1 ratio. It surprises you that the Republicans can use one "obvious, build something" job to undermine 4,000 proposed jobs via government action?

Of course they can. Of course they do. The Republicans don't have to "dictate the debate." They just have to confuse it.

This is another reason why the anti-Keystone effort is a misfire. Saying no to even a single definite job is uphill politics. We need to be fighting for the environment by creating jobs and lots of them. Create jobs building and installing CO2 capture and sequestration technology. Create jobs retrofitting houses with insulation. Create extra jobs even on Keystone...make it be cleaner than they want to make it. Always be creating jobs.

[ProSense]

13. Then

"Of course they can. Of course they do. The Republicans don't have to 'dictate the debate.' They just have to confuse it."

...it's up to informed people to call them out on their attempts to "confuse" the debate.

"This is another reason why the anti-Keystone effort is a misfire. Saying no to even a single definite job is uphill politics. We need to be fighting for the environment by creating jobs and lots of them. Create jobs building and installing CO2 capture and sequestration technology. Create jobs retrofitting houses with insulation. Create extra jobs even on Keystone...make it be cleaner than they want to make it. Always be creating jobs."

Yet Republicans can say "no" to 200,000 and 2 million jobs? As for "fighting for the environment by creating jobs," they rejected the climate change bill that would have created 4 million jobs.

[Rex]

12. Well his environment legacy died during the BP fiasco.

I guess this term he can do something about it, maybe just flat out reject the XL as too much a security risk.

[ProSense]

15. That's

"Well his environment legacy died during the BP fiasco. I guess this term he can do something about it, maybe just flat out reject the XL as too much a security risk."

...simply nonsense. I mean, by that logic, he has nothing to lose so he should just go for it. Besides, doing so would likely help both the anti-Obama and Hillary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024333473

[Rex]

16. The anti-Obama? Did you just make that up?

You are so funny, with your nonsense. I understand you cannot handle any criticism of Obama so it would be a waste of time talking to you.

Really the anti-Obama? You've gone around the bend with this one.

[ProSense]

18. I guess

The anti-Obama? Did you just make that up?

You are so funny, with your nonsense. I understand you cannot handle any criticism of Obama so it would be a waste of time talking to you.

Really the anti-Obama? You've gone around the bend with this one.

...you didn't click on the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024333473

No matter. Speaking of "gone around the bend":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024420929#post26

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024420929#post32