BREAKING: Lame Duck Senate Will Vote To Approve Keystone Pipeline

[Cali_Democrat]

Senate Democratic leaders have agreed to hold a vote on approval of the Keystone pipeline as early as next week, dropping their longstanding objections after losing their majority last week.

A vote is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, according to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who are poised to trade titles in January.

<...>

Legislation to approve the pipeline has broad support in the Senate and was all but guaranteed to pass under the coming Republican majority if Democrats resisted a vote on it during the lame duck session.

The House is planning to vote on Thursday for legislation to approve by pipeline, offered by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Landrieu's opponent in the runoff.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/senate-vote-keystone-pipeline

[villager]

1. What a completely, utterly worthless fucking political party

n/t

[840high]

27. So true.

[razorman]

36. I hear that the House and Senate are racing to see which one can vote it through first.

That will decide whether Landrieu or Cassidy can take credit for it before the runnoff.

[Octafish]

60. Well said.

We need new leadership.

[riderinthestorm]

2. Oh. My. God.

[hatrack]

3. Gosh, Mary Landrieu will almost CERTAINLY win her election now!

Way to energize environmental voters for 2016 and for years beyond that - well DONE!!

[City Lights]

14. Yes! I'd bet my last penny on it!

It's a sure thing!

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Outstanding!

Posterity will thank them for this.

Regards,

TWM

[Xipe Totec]

9. Literally -

If by posterity you mean the ruling assholes.

[newfie11]

5. Another nail in the coffin

But but the idiots say there's no climate change.

[Recursion]

7. But climate change isn't the problem with Keystone

Pollution, danger to American communities, increase of gas prices... those are all downsides of Keystone. It's not going to increase emissions, though.

[arely staircase]

20. +1 nt

[Algernon Moncrieff]

23. It is part of the problem inasmuch as tar sands extraction is a major polluter

Not climate change, but that oil does funky stuff in sand when it leaks. If it blows over the Ogalalla aquifer, it could get ugly for generations.

[Recursion]

26. Canada is going to drill every barrel it can whether it goes out by train or pipe

Stopping the pipeline does not slow the tar sands extraction. It's been an issue with the anti-pipeline push all along that people have acted like it would.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

31. Then Canada can build it's own pipelines across Canada, and its own refineries

Let them bear the risks.

[hatrack]

28. Far from it! I'm sure adding 830,000 bbl/day to output capacity won't change emissions at all!

In fact, building Keystone will actually suck carbon out of the atmosphere! Pretty cool, huh?!??!

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. Those 830,000 bbl/day will enter the marketplace ...

regardless of whether Keystone is built, or not. That is Recursion's point ... a very accurate point at that.

Here is an area where I disagree with President Obama's approach ... His parameters focus too much on economics and climate change; rather than, the biggest real threat ... the environmental disaster that would follow a pipeline spill.

My solution ... Approve the project; but only after determining and securing a bond sufficient to cover environmental remediation (over the lifetime of the pipeline), should a spill(s) occur.

[hatrack]

55. So, 830,000 barrels/day /42 (roughly - gallons per barrel) * 22.38 (pounds carbon/gallon) . . .

= 780 million pounds (and a bit) of carbon daily - for the life of the pipeline, which comes down to 354,621 metric tons of carbon per day, every day, for as long as the toxic heart of the Athabascan continues to move its sludge.

It's probably a bit low, since some of the tar sands crude is likely to end up as diesel or bunker, which would bump end output up a bit more, to say nothing of particulate pollution, but as guesstimates go, it'll do. As additional pipelines come on line, encouraged by Keystone and leading to both Pacific and Atlantic coasts of Canada, you can double or triple this total C output.

Oops! Sorry - I'm "focusing too much" on climate, I know. Silly me! But hey, I'm sure there's a nifty trade deal in the works with China that will cut total emissions in 2025, or 2035, or 2060, or sometime after everyone on this board is dead.

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. No ...

Those 780 million pounds (and a bit) of carbon daily will enter the atmosphere regardless of whether the pipeline in approved and there is nothing the U.S. can do about it, short of invading Canada.

My (slightly tongue in cheek) solution would make the project coming through the U.S. cost prohibitive ... But I have no illusions that it will stop that oil from coming out of the ground and introduced to the market.

Silly me! But hey, I'm sure there's a nifty trade deal in the works with China that will cut total emissions in 2025, or 2035, or 2060, or sometime after everyone on this board is dead.

The deal has the U.S. doing stuff in the near time; but what do you propose we do about China ... beyond accept their promise?

I've got it ... we could Nuc'em, thereby eliminating their emmisions ... right after we invade Canada to prevent them from bringing that oil to market.

Oh wait!

[NickB79]

77. No, actually, much wouldn't reach market without the pipeline

Between the high cost of moving the oil via train cars and the recent slump in oil prices, tar sands operators could soon find some of their operations no longer cost-effective, initiating a slowdown in oil sands production. A portion of the 830,000 barrels would get moved, but much would eventually be stranded if oil stays below $80/barrel for an extended period.

And once the pipeline is built, it gives an easy way to INCREASE future production quotas through pipeline upgrades and retrofits. Getting a pipeline in place is the hard part; adding a second pipeline next to the first, or enlarging it, becomes simple later on.

You really think they'd stop at 830,000 barrels a day of oil, once they get Keystone in place? There are BILLIONS of barrels of that toxic shit waiting to be ripped from the ground, and so long as it's cost-effective, by God they're gonna keep digging.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. Is that your opinion, ...

or that of industry experts?

The Head of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association disagrees:

But Brenda Kenny, the head of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, thinks producers will find creative solutions to get to market. “I don’t think you will see a collapse in production. What you will see is a slowing down of the actual pipeline projects,” she says. “There are a number of alternative modes of transport and you will see refurbishment of under-utilized pipelines.”

And so does Union Pacific Rail Road's revenue line:

The industry is not taking any chances. More than 30,000 crude tank cars are on order to meet rising demand, primarily from Canadian producers. Union Pacific, North America’s largest crude carrier via rail, estimates more than US$1 billion has been poured into expanding rail infrastructure and capacity

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/05/13/what-happens-if-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-is-not-approved/?__lsa=eb70-fb74

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. Ah yeah

[Blue_In_AK]

8. But they can't take time to approve the Attorney General nomination?

They're all asshats, and we're going to hell in a hand basket, as my grandma used to say ( not the asshats part).

[earthside]

13. Senate Democrats have lost their way.

No time to approve the President's nominee for Attorney General.

But in a rush to sell-out one of the most reliable constituencies of the Democratic Party: environmentalists.

The only upside will be that we will all get to see which 2016 Senate Democratic incumbents seeking reelection NOT to help -- those who vote to approve the tar sands pipeline.

This kind of cynical political game playing is contemptible.

[BlueJazz]

19. That was my first thought. They claim they won't have time until "next year"

This session only lasts 2 weeks and then they all have to rush off to...ah..ah..(oh yea)...the "Holidays".
As if the "Holidays" is some kind of salt mine that they have to attend to...

[G_j]

10. Unfortunately

I have little faith it will meet the veto pen.
I hope it does, but I have an awful feeling...

[notrightatall]

11. And POTUS will sign it with glee.

[Cha]

15. Maybe, maybe not.

[arely staircase]

22. want to bet? nt

[notrightatall]

29. Unfortunately, yes, I will take that bet.

[arely staircase]

32. ok

Loser has to post an op acknowledging said loss.

[notrightatall]

33. OK.

[arely staircase]

37. hope you are wrong

But if he signs it I will own it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. You're gonna lose this bet, hate to say...

[arely staircase]

46. I bet he kicks the can down the road

pocket veto, needs more study yadda yadda. You really think 1. It will pass. 2. He will sign it?

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. It will pass, and he will sign it

The only possible benefit to doing it and vetoing it now would be that the same Congress would have to override the veto, and they may not have the votes to override, while the next one might. It gives some vague and useless cover for Landrieu, who will certainly lose anyway.

But vetoing it now in order to give the GOPers a bill that has already been vetoed and failed override is just a little too clever for our crop of Democrats. They're gonna pass it, and Obama's gonna sign it, and it is a big shit sandwich.

[tritsofme]

74. It is doubtful that a pocket veto would be available to the WH.

Ten days after clearing both houses, the bill would automatically become law if not signed or vetoed. Except when Congress has adjourned, and is unable to act on the president's veto. This vote is only happening because of Mary Landrieu, it is unlikely that the vote will occur less than ten days before the end of the lame duck since her run off is scheduled for December 6th.

[freshwest]

86. Obama has been kicking and obstructing this since he took office in 2009.

But it's going to get really nasty in negotiations. He cannot veto a CR and give the GOP what they really want - a collapse of all social programs and all agencies acting in the public good.

He knows full well that is exactly what the GOPTeas want to do. They want a shutdown and they want default and they are not shy about it when talking with their bagger voting block. They're in the wings waiting for this.

I can't imagine what he can do to shove them off this deal without any help from Congress. The Senate held the Reichwingers back and they will not be there in suficient numbers to stop the KochGOP.

He has repeatedly said that Keystone is not in the nation's best interest and it is not going to provide more than a couple of hundred permanent jobs. The work the GOP tout now is the construction phase and maintenance of a modern pipeline is mimimal.

Also, Obama has said that the USA will get NONE fo the oil or any other fuel to keep prices down and the economy going, and that NO taxes will be paid to the USA for it.

Not only that, he's brought up that in less than a year the income from it being shippped from Koch firms in Canada to their refinery in Houston and then offshore will double the personal wealth of the Koch brothers, increaing their power over the USA.

It's going to be an ugly two years and then frankly I expect everything to go straight to hell when PBO leaves office. He's been the boy with the finger in the leaking dike asking for help and gotten none.

JMHO.

[arely staircase]

89. +1 nt

[davidpdx]

87. I want a piece of that action as well

The loser has to run around city hall naked.

[Ilsa]

12. I'm so disgusted with these assholes...

We need a new political party. "Democratic Vertebrates."

[lob1]

57. This isn't about spineless democrats, it's about democrats

showing their true colors.

[Cha]

16. So get a hold of your Senators and Call and email Harry Reid

[BlindTiresias]

18. yeah that'll do it

[arely staircase]

24. yeah, better to complain on the internet

That'll do it.

[BlindTiresias]

52. Same outcome

But nice try.

[arely staircase]

54. whatever floats your boat

free country more or less.

[Marr]

45. So you're going to blame voters again?

If the party crams this through, it'll be the fault of voters who didn't call enough?

At what point do you acknowledge the responsibility of politicians who actually push this garbage?

[craigmatic]

17. So we don't get an AG confirmation but we get this bullshit. No wonder minorities didn't turn out.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

21. What the Hell - the pipeline passes through all "Red" states

If that effer blows, and spoils some aquifers for generations, well....we can't see it from out house. Besides, those red-staters want to do away with the EPA anyway....right????

(I shouldn't have to say this, but )

[neverforget]

25. That was a quick surrender. Can't wait to see what else they want to give up

[hatrack]

30. Now, now! Let' use our "bipartisan" voices, shall we?

That's better!

[PAProgressive28]

48. Hey!

It's about damn time the Democrats compromise. It's been 6 long years of Obama's progressive agenda being forced into law. ABC News told me.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

58. Not being forced into law

but being crammed down our throats (and demon passed)!

[procon]

34. I vote for Democrats and this is what I get?

I do I even bother if the Dems are voting the same abysmal agenda as the loathsome GOP? Stop the bus and let me off, I've had it!

[DCBob]

35. I think most Democrats dont see what the big deal is with this pipeline.

There are millions of miles pipelines in this country... what makes this one different? We are still a nation dependent on oil and gas. Of course we need alternatives but how does not building this help with that?

[snappyturtle]

53. Are we, the American people, going to benefit from the harvest?

I've heard so many deifferent slants I don't know who to believe.

[Zorra]

38. Maybe they'll vote no, and then filibuster later! It could happen.

bitter

[truebrit71]

39. Fucking spineless assholes...

Words cannot express how disgusted I am with this...

All this, supposedly, to try and save a DINO's seat in LA?

Fucking morons. And it'll provide all the cover Obama needs to sign off on it as well.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

[davidpdx]

88. Landrieu is toast, even approving the Keystone Pipeline wouldn't get her reelected

There is no money for the race.

[kpete]

41. I

gag
and
gag

[LiberalElite]

42. FWIW

i just emailed my senators and voiced my opposition. It felt like a waste of time though.
Way to go, Fkheads.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. Nobody objects that it would be dishonest for departing members to vote on this, like AG

It's absolutely reprehensible behavior.

[Darb]

49. Completely irrelevent. They have no power to approve it or disapprove it.

This is only part of the circus. It is the Executive Branch that has full and complete power to approve or not.

My bet is Obama says I am still waiting for Nebraska. Either way, it is a law without any power.

[PAProgressive28]

50. Do they really think this will save her seat?

Another example of the Party getting it totally wrong. Maybe if they reach out just ONE MORE TIME the Republicans will repay the favor. Landrieu will lose and so will the country. Sick of it. How can you not be?

[Calista241]

93. Can you imagine if it's close, and they Don't take a vote on this?

She would burn the Democratic Party down for decades in Louisiana and the south if she has a chance and they don't support her.

Nobody thought Warner would be close either, and if taking a senate vote gets her a few thousand votes that push her over the top, then it's an overall victory for the Democrats. Can you imagine the effect on this new Repub majority if Landreiu is back in the Senate? It would be epic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Not to worry. Obama will surely veto it. Won't he?

[madville]

64. They probably have the votes to override a veto

The decision now is what looks better, the President getting overridden by a Democratic or Republican controlled Senate?

[earthside]

56. Maddow Ripping the Senate Democrats tonight.

She is making them look like fools.

They deserve it.

[Half-Century Man]

59. Express Yourself.

Harry Reid

522 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington , DC 20510

Phone: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Toll Free for Nevadans (skype) 1-866-sen-reid
http://www.reid.senate.gov/contact


Mary Landrieu

703 Hart
Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Phone: [phone]

Fax: [phone]
http://www.landrieu.senate.gov/?p=contact




Helpful site http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/

[bigwillq]

61. Thank goodness for President Obama

and his veto pen.

[madville]

69. Only about 13 Democrats will need to jump ship

To override any veto. The White House will have to think long and hard about a potential veto and the resulting embarrassment an override would cause.

[bigwillq]

72. If they jump ship, they should just continue jumping to the other party (nt)

[yeoman6987]

83. And let the Republicans have 70 seats ? Yieks!

[Prophet 451]

63. Veto, for fuck's sake. VETO!

The amount of environmental damage that fucking pipeline will do.....

[madville]

65. That's the problem here, a veto likely will be overridden

They probably have the votes to override a veto with this Senate and the new one. The decision now is more about what looks better at this point, the President getting his veto overridden by the Democratic or Republican controlled Senate?

I think the only plus side to doing it now would be them trying to throw a Hail Mary pass and save Landrieu's Senate seat, as unlikely as that is to happen at this point.

[Prophet 451]

66. I really can't see an override happening

To do that, they need, what, 67 votes? Are there really that many corrupt Dems?

[madville]

67. They will only potentially need 13 Democrats

To override a veto, 54 Republicans + 13 Democrats. Doesn't matter if Landrieu wins Louisiana or not because she would vote to override as well so the outcome of that is a wash.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. The same Congress that passes the law has to override the veto

The veto override doesn't get passed on to the new Congress.

[madville]

71. This will surely get passed in the new Congress

But yes, you would be correct to say it's a little more difficult now since they would need 21 Democrats as it stands right now to override a veto in this current Senate. Those votes are potentially there right now as well, this has fairly broad support in Congress.

[alcibiades_mystery]

73. That's certainly true

It will be passed in the next Congress, and it will probably be passed in this one. If it is passed and vetoed in this one, it will be harder to override the veto than in the next one, but not impossible.

I predict that it will be passed and signed in this Congress for some stupid reason.

[madville]

76. I don't think the Administration's

I don't think the Administration's "ego" can take or wants to risk a veto override at this point with the President's lackluster popularity. I'm sure they are counting votes as we speak.

If the override has a good chance I think he would go ahead and just sign it in order to save face.

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. Well, we heard from a million people that Clinton only signed DADT because his veto would be

overridden, so I suppose the same will be argued here.

It is shit from top to bottom.

[LondonReign2]

70. They couldn't even wait until officially becoming the minority to capitulate?

Gosh, why don't voters think there is any difference between the parties?

[taught_me_patience]

75. Well, the keystone states want this

you get what you wanted! Thankfully, this doesn't affect California one iota.

[silvershadow]

79. Stock up on potable water. nt

[dflprincess]

80. And they wonder why people didn't bother to vote. nt

[sweetapogee]

81. if there is so much

support for the pipeline now, why did it take so long for the Senate to act on it? I've always thought that the sun rises in the east, plastic never rusts and the Democratic party would never allow that pipeline to be built. What changed? Speechless right now.

[jalan48]

84. Obama

Will Obama sign it? He just made a big agreement with China on emissions. Looks like they are calling his bluff.

[Gumboot]

85. I don't think most people appreciate...

.... what kind of nasty crap is going to be flowing through that damnable pipeline.

It's not old-fashioned crude oil as we know it, but bitumen. Otherwise known as tar. But how does tar flow through a pipeline?

It's suspended in billions of gallons of water, which is all pumped along at very high pressures, and then disposed of at the end of the pipeline.

And yes - those billions of gallons of precious water will be destroyed in this process.

The plan is then to pump the contaminated water onto Louisiana's precious wetlands, which lie at the end of the pipeline.

Great disposal plan, eh?

Even if the pipeline never leaks (which is statistically unlikely), the environmental destruction is going to be colossal.

[LondonReign2]

90. Kick for the Quislings

[marmar]

91. Our Kabuki Democracy at its best!

[adirondacker]

95. They've really let it all hang out in the last 14 years. We should have an award show in their honor

Govertainment

[krawhitham]

92. So they are going to give up the Keystone Pipeline without getting anything in return?

WHAT THE FUCK


Keystone Pipeline would pass with the new senate, no doubt. They might even pass it veto proof if a bunch of DINOs vote for it. But to pass it without trading for something is unfucking real

[deutsey]

94. That's the difference between the Republicans and Democrats, I suppose

The Republicans lose big in 2008, and yet they vow to obstruct everything the Democrats wanted to do and to make Obama a one-term president.

The Republicans, no matter how foolish they looked, tried to kill ACA how many times, even though there was no way they could succeed?

The Democrats lose the mid-term election, vow to cooperate with the GOP, and fall all over themselves to help them approve something their base, by and large, opposes.