Senate Democrats Said to Weigh Vote Backing Keystone XL

[xchrom]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-29/senate-democrats-said-to-weigh-vote-backing-keystone-xl.html

U.S. Senate Democratic leaders are considering scheduling a vote on a non-binding resolution urging approval of TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline, according to two Senate Democratic aides.

The option is being discussed as a way to ease passage of separate legislation the Senate could consider as soon as next week that aims to promote energy efficiency, according to the aides, who requested anonymity.

The idea behind the approach is that promising a vote on backing approval of the pipeline would allow Democratic leaders to make the case that Keystone shouldn’t be debated as part of the energy-efficiency bill. It also would give some Democrats a chance to publicly state their support for the project.

The Senate in March 2013 voted 62-37 in favor of a similar non-binding resolution endorsing construction of the pipeline. Sixteen Democrats voted for that measure, including Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Begich of Alaska. The four are seeking re-election this year in states that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won in 2012.

[cantbeserious]

1. Looks Like The Dems Sold Out To Corporate Interests

eom

[Nihil]

29. No "Change" there then ...

... and fuck-all "Hope" left too.

[Champion Jack]

2. Let me guess one of them is Joe "corporate whore" Manchin?

[A Little Weird]

3. That's disheartening

[newfie11]

4. Just freaking great!

It's getting harder to tell the parties apart!!!

Let's just speed up climate change

[jwirr]

6. NO

[TRoN33]

7. Traitors

[cstanleytech]

8. Ya know maybe we should discuss supporting it. Now hear me out first please.

I'm not saying its a great thing to rely on oil but right now the world does and we cannot change that in the short term so we need to go about it with a long term plan and maybe, just maybe we can help achieve that with this pipeline by including a requirement for a major investment both by the government and the oil industry into research and development for safer and renewable energy sources.

[Android3.14]

9. Define major investment?

An Apollo style project would require billions, if not trillions. I would support the pipeline if that were a part of the deal.

[cstanleytech]

12. 30% of the the value of the oil the pipeline supplies might work with

5% from taxpayers and 25% from the oil companies.

[rhett o rick]

11. You realize that the oil isnt for our consumption. The taxpayers take all the

environmental risks and someone else reaps the rewards. It's time to draw the line. The longer we wait the worse it will get and the harder to recover.

[cstanleytech]

13. Yes I know its not designed for use directly in the US but if we can tap into the money the oil

generates from abroad to invest in renewable sources of energy for the future it might pay off for everyone.

[rhett o rick]

14. How do we "tap into the money"? And will it be enough to recover from an

ecological disaster?

[cstanleytech]

15. "How do we "tap into the money"?" See #12.

"And will it be enough to recover from an ecological disaster?" I think the bigger disaster would be not to invest in a a replacement for oil when it runs unless of course you support nuclear as replacement.
Personally I am not fan of that option as the ecological disaster a major nuclear accident could do makes an oil one look tame.

[pscot]

16. The problem with that scenario

is there's no way the energy lobby and their congressional enablers will let us "tap into the money". The oligarchy doesn't believe in sharing.

[rhett o rick]

18. I asked "how". Post #12 only gave numbers not a method. Do you think that if we ask

nicely the oil companies will pay? If they do pay, they will get the money from the taxpayers via gov subsidies.

Just say no to China's oil pipeline.

[cstanleytech]

20. Its called a "fee" rhett. They can charge a % fee based upon the value of the oil

the pipeline carries every year.
As for the subsidies they are an entirely different issue and unrelated to the topic at hand.

[rhett o rick]

23. Who is they, "They can charge a % fee based upon the value of the oil"?? nm

[cstanleytech]

24. I didnt realize I had to provide that much detail as it should have been clear enough to most people

but the "they" would be government.

[rhett o rick]

25. I am sorry, I should have tried to make my point easier. Our government isnt about to bite

the Oil Producers hands that feed them bribes. The only solution is for We The People to tell the Oil Companies to shove their fracking oil up their own pipeline.

Say no to the XL Pipeline. It's an ecological disaster just waiting to happen on the taxpayers credit card.

[cstanleytech]

26. If you dont think they will agree to a proposal that provides funding for

finding better sources of energy what makes you think that they would listen to you then and tell the oil companies no? I mean really you cant have it both ways rhett.

[rhett o rick]

27. I see your point. But the difference is that "We The People" should stand up against the

XL Pipeline and hope our so-called representatives listen to us.

This is a ecological disaster waiting to happen. And who cleans it up? Not the f'n oil companies.

Tell your Congress-Critters to vote no on China's XL Pipeline.

[cstanleytech]

32. I still believe a wiser course would be to use it to fund alternative energy sources for the future

rhett.
After all eventually oil and coal will be gone as a source and then people might turn to something even worse like nuclear.

[rhett o rick]

33. With due respect. We are not capable of getting the oil companies to pay taxes.

In fact the taxpayers subsidize them. If I understand you correctly, you are willing to allow a dangerous pipeline to be built across the whole USofA, across peoples properties that have to be stolen via eminent domain in the hope that we can get the oil companies to fund alternate energy development. Get the oil companies to pay their taxes then we can revisit this issue. Until then, fuck no to the XL Pipeline.

[NickB79]

31. Running out of oil is now the least of our worries

I used to be like you, thinking that the most imminent threat to society today was Peak Oil and the threat it poses. Climate change, for the massive scale of damage it promised, was something that was still decades off, with time to address later on.

Now, I long for those days. It's become clear that climate change is poised to devastate our civilization within all our lifetimes, and that Peak Oil is no longer a primary concern.

Tapping unconventional oil like the tar sands to stave off the consequences of Peak Oil, even if that included multiple nuclear melt-downs, is NOTHING compared to the damage we now face as the fuse of climate change burns down.

There is NO ecological hazard more pressing than climate change, and it's a BS argument that we must accept short-term damage now for some unspecified gains later. We can no longer AFFORD to accept even those short-term gains, because we've run out of ALL wiggle room we once had.

Our current position is that of a man immersed in water, standing on his tiptoes just to keep his lips and nose an inch above water to breath. And you're coming along telling the guy "Hey, if you'll let me add 3 more inches of water to this tank for just 30 minutes, I'll lower it by a foot for the rest of the day! Great deal, right?"

[truebrit71]

19. Good luck with that!!!

"a requirement for a major investment both by the government and the oil industry into research and development for safer and renewable energy sources."

Yeah, I'm this republican congress is going to make sure that happens...

[cstanleytech]

21. If they really want the pipeline to go through they will take the deal to make

make it happen and if they refuse then the democrats can tell them to shove it either way its a win win imo.

[Nihil]

28. They've very rarely had to concede *anything* in the past to get their own way, why start now?

What on earth makes you think that the Republicans will suddenly develop
a fair conscience after years to the contrary?

Or that the Democrats will suddenly develop a spine?

[progressoid]

10. KXL is a done deal. It's just bread and circuses now.

Sorry, got up on the cynical side of the bed this morning.

[sunnystarr]

17. If that's the case

then we should all invest in water. My free tip of the day for your financial security.

[nationalize the fed]

22. Like Goldman $ach$?

Water: Emerging Risks & Opportunities Summit

Water is a critical economic issue in the United States. In the face of growing demand for water, coupled with extreme weather conditions, our nation’s water infrastructure system is failing.

In February 2013, Goldman Sachs hosted a summit entitled “Water: Emerging Risks & Opportunities”, bringing together municipal and corporate clients, leading investors, government representatives, academics and non-government organizations to discuss the intersection of capital, policy and technology in addressing the water challenge. The summit builds upon an ongoing partnership with General Electric and the World Resources Institute, who co-hosted the event.

http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/our-conferences/water-conference/

Remember- the difference b/w proles and G$ is that "They're "Too Big To Fail"

When a Prole fails and can't pay their property tax (for example), the County sends Sheriffs out to evict said prole from their house at gunpoint.

When G$ fails, the Taxpayers bail them out.

That means they can further contribute to the next round of traitorous scum to keep the scam going.

Hillary Clinton Rakes in Big Money from Two Goldman Sachs Speeches in One Week
Presumed presidential candidate is pretty cozy with big bankers.

October 31, 2013

Former Secretary of State, and presumed 2016 presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton spoke at two separate Goldman Sachs events in the past week (on October 24, and then again on October 29), for a cool $200,000 per speech, her normal fee according to Politico and the New York Times. $400,000—not a bad payday for the former First Lady.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/hillary-clinton-rakes-big-money-two-goldman-sachs-speeches-one-week

[Champion Jack]

30. remember when the Bush Crime family bought 98 thousand acres on top of a huge aquifer?