Robert Redford Thanks Barack Obama For Oil Pipe Delay

[bigtree]

November 11, 2011

Eco-warrior Robert Redford has thanked U.S. President Barack Obama for "standing up" to oil giants by refusing to sign off on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline plan.

In the clip, posted online, the Out of Africa star says, "Sometimes a decision can be both easy and tough. It's easy because you know what choice is right and it's tough because of the pressure people apply to influence your thinking.

"For months now, big oil has done everything it could to pressure President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. This pipeline would have carried the dirtiest oil in the world - tar sands - right through the American heartland, threatening our drinking water and putting foreign corporate profits ahead of America's wellbeing.

"This pipeline would have tied our energy future to the destructive ways of the past. It would not have met America's energy needs, nor would it have created substantial permanent jobs. President Obama didn't cave to the pressure. He weighed the facts and he looked at the kind of future he promised when he ran for President. He made a tough decision by doing what was right for America, for our health, and for our clean energy future.

"So I join many others, Mr. President, in saying thank you. Thank you for standing up to big oil and for standing with your fellow Americans."


read: http://www.contactmusic.com/news/robert-redford-thanks-barack-obama-for-oil-pipe-delay_1260427

[lunatica]

1. I love Robert Redford

[Autumn]

2. Has Obama turned it down?

That's the right thing to do. I thought it was just delayed. K/R


Edited re read the article

I have a feeling after the 2012 election a lot of people are going to be saying WTF

[bigtree]

4. the implications of a delay on the plan's future in America

. . . are widely considered by the industry and environmentalists to amount to a shelving in the end. My attitude is that, if he doesn't fully intend for that to happen, we should use the delay to make certain of it.

At any rate, Redford's correct on two points. The delay is an affront to the folks in the Canadian government he gave his original nod to and to whoever in the industry he convinced he'd allow the project to move forward. Take that for what it's worth. I think it's about standard for politics --maybe a step ahead because of the political forces lined up against the President pressuring him to avoid the delay. Remember, the talk went from a delay until next year, to a new environmental impact report due in 2013.

Second, I think Redford is very correct in praising the President. That's how you generate political support, praising the politicians when they do the right thing, while encouraging them to move further. Redford's no kiss-ass on environmental issues. He's pretty sharp to give President Obama credit for this decision, no matter the shortcomings or or wrongness of the original policy that's been shifted in our direction.

[AtomicKitten]

3. The review process was tainted. Obama is ordering another review of the environmental impact.

http://dirtyoilsands.org/news/article/hillarys_legacy_rests_on_fixing_tainted_pipeline_approval_process

[bigtree]

5. right

. . . we could surmise that he expects trouble out of that State Dept. inspector general report for his administration.

[AtomicKitten]

6. Exposure of the shoddy review process was the catalyst.

The State Department standard response to this kind of accusation has been: “We meet with everyone, including environmental groups.” Clinton herself says the department remains in “listen and outreach mode” as it prepares to make a decision.

But the New York Times put the lie to this official cover earlier this month, when they revealed just how deeply compromised the State Department actually was. The State Department — and read this carefully, because it’s almost beyond belief — asked TransCanada who they would like to have conduct the “independent” pipeline review. TransCanada submitted the name of three firms, and State helpfully chose the first one on the list: Entrix Corporation. If you head over to their web site, you’ll find that TransCanada is listed as one of the company’s “major clients.”

The Times called this “flouting the intent of a federal law.” You could say it was like hiring Fox Associates for a security study of Henhouse Inc. It’s hard to imagine even the Bush administration doing anything quite this blatant — it makes a complete and utter mockery of the idea of independent review.

[bigtree]

8. the protests as well

. . . he was basically at the end of the rope with environmentalists after that back-step on the air quality regs. This was a pretty distinct line in the sand.

I think the EPA also hedged the White House in earlier last month when they made several environmental objections to the project. Hard to say if the President brought that forward. I didn't get the sense that the EPA administrator was rebelling or anything, but her report flew directly in the face of the State Dept. assertions, and highlighted the lack of a proper environmental review.

Then you had the awakening of the Nebraska legislature whose republican governor openly questioned the siting and began exploring ways to use state law to circumvent the project or change its route. That resistance in Nebraska was met head on by the President when he made his job tour. In interviews with several local news and radio hosts he voiced reservations for the first time and cited the environmental concerns with few uncertain terms.

Funny that the EPA hasn't been as vocal as they promised last month. Probably because the WH moved out in front of them. Remember, the decision on the project was due by the end of the year, was said to be postponed until next year; and now isn't expected until 2013.

It's hard for me to imagine the President doesn't know full well the implications of a long delay; especially with industry observers and environmentalists alike speculating that a delay could very well kill the project outright.

[AtomicKitten]

9. The delay was good politics, killing the project good policy.

I do hope the former leads to the latter.

Fingers crossed.

[XemaSab]

7. I think there's a lot of confusion on DU

about how the environmental process works.

If they're proposing to change the alignment of the pipeline, it's hardly strange or unexpected for there to be a 2-year delay in the process. The field work for the new alignment is going to take all next summer, and then doing office research and writing the thing is going to take another 6 months. After that, there's agency review and the public comment period.

Also, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a consulting firm that didn't have a conflict of interest. There are differences of opinion within the consulting world, and many companies operate under the idea that their job is to give the clients what they want, and if the agencies have a problem with it, then go back and change the document. I've worked for three companies, one of which totally did that, one of which didn't do that, and one one of which does it on a project-by-project basis. In my limited experience, the HUGE companies have rich clients who can afford to mitigate the impacts and who want everything done by the book. It's the smaller companies with smaller projects that are more likely to be unethical.