Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

HUZZAH!: Why Rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline is Good News

by Rose Marie Berger 01-18-2012 | 1:30pm
Print
25 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

Politico is reporting that President Obama is planning to reject the Keystone XL pipeline this afternoon.

Here’s a quick roundup of some reasons why we think that’s awesome:

  1. Keystone XL pipeline is a climate-killing disaster waiting to happen. When you see the match being tossed toward the gas can, you don’t think “Wow! It’s really going to employ a lot of people to put out the fire and drive the ambulances.” No, you suck it up and blow out the match.
     
  2. In 2009, Obama talked to the UN about climate change. “We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations.” We think it’s nice when you can actually do what you say you are going to do.
     
  3. Uuuuhhmm. Can you say “earthquakes in the Midwest”? I know that’s “fracking,” but still … It doesn’t take a genius to see that there might be a problem with a non-traditional crude product under high pressure going through the American breadbasket and our largest supply of drinking water at the same time that some earthquake faults are waking up — for whatever reason.
     
  4. A bunch of religious folks met with State Department officials in August to tell them that it makes God sad when big oil and gas companies eat out the heart of the earth for money. We had lots of scripture to back that up. I know they’d rather be on God’s side in this debate. It’s always the better choice. And the people are a lot more interesting!
     
  5. We like cranes. Those Sandhill ones especially. They are so geeky, squawky, and gregarious. Maybe a thousand of them will fly over the White House and tip their wings. Just to let us know they’re watching.

Take a minute to thank President Obama for rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline by clicking HERE.

Rose Marie Berger, a Sojourners contributing editor, was an organizer for the Tar Sands religious witness. Learn more about the pipeline at www.tarsandsaction.com.

25 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: randrews4

01-18-2012 @ 4:57pm

I read Sojourners newsletters often and I usually appreciate their perspective. I am an environmental advocate who has been studying global warming since the 1960s. I belive most environmental questions can be evaluated with a cost/benefit analysis with planty of weight given to environmental costs. I'm struggling to figure out why there is such ardent opposition to an oil pipeline. Is this just a chance to stick it to big oil? Rejecting this pipeline will not significantly decrease the amount of oil we use. It will only increase the cost of transporting the crude oil to refineries. It may mean we import a bit more oil from the middle east. Would you prefer to have oil transported by trucks, trains, and ships instead of in a pipe? Building a pipeline is about as objectionalbe as building a new highway. 

by: pdijk

01-18-2012 @ 9:29pm
in reply to: randrews4

Thank you for putting some logic into the discussion. Blocking a new pipeline is a poor decision, even in the context of choices that are best for the environment. The Canadian oil will be developed and delivered to refineries. To imagine otherwise is to wish the world back into the dark ages. The US has the best refineries for this oil and delivering by a new pipeline is far safer than delivering by truck, train or old pipelines. We will also impose more stringent environmental standards than the Chinese.

by: Pete315

01-18-2012 @ 5:29pm

Sad that so many folks including our President are willing to sacrifice energy independence for emotions instead of facts.

by: jamelao

01-18-2012 @ 8:03pm

Obama is saying that the reason he is rejecting the pipeline is that he needs more time to study and analyze the project - I am wondering if the people from his administration that recommended the Solyndra loan are available to complete the study.

by: pdijk

01-18-2012 @ 9:00pm

Sad news. Politics aimed at re-election. Rather than building a state of the art pipeline that will bring oil from Canada, we will continue importing oil from countries that despise us. Canada will sell oil to China. China wins. We lose.

by: kansasmennonite

01-19-2012 @ 7:42am
in reply to: pdijk

Yes, the republicans did use it for political reasons. Look at the distorted "jobs creation" figures behind the push for the pipeline. Was this oil going to be used for USA consumption? You need to do some more homework before making such statements.

by: Assistant Villa...

01-19-2012 @ 12:38pm
in reply to: kansasmennonite

So in your mind, "homework" is reading the minds of Republicans?  You have some sort of Motive-o-meter that reveals this secret knowledge to you? A few scraps is good enough for confirmation bias, I know, but an actual logical argument requires more.

When it occurs to you that a lot of political arguments are nothing more than reciting your favored narrative, you may begin to get it.

by: Squeaky

01-19-2012 @ 1:08pm
in reply to: Assistant Villa...

Umm--aren't the Repubilicans doing the same to Pres Obama when they assume he is delaying the Keystone decision for political reasons?  At least be fair, and make the same comment to posters who are making that claim.

by: Assistant Villa...

01-19-2012 @ 12:51pm
in reply to: kansasmennonite

Double-post.  Deleted

by: Jamie

01-18-2012 @ 10:04pm

Take it with a grain of salt.

If you really care about the environment, then your foreign policy needs to change. i.e. no more wars that are connected to the oil industry with the OPEC countries.

You should also realize that Obama's panel released a 72 page document on their plan to drill for more oil at home and more corporate tax cuts; I guess he's looking to see if there's more oil in the U.S. before asking Canada for some. And if neither of those two options work, then Iran's there.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/01/17/presidents-jobs-council-pushes-co...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-18/obama-jobs-panel-urges-broad...

by: kansasmennonite

01-19-2012 @ 7:44am
in reply to: Jamie

The state of Kansas gave Keystone tax abatements for something like 10 yrs. Kansas was the only state that fell for that trap by our conservative politicians.

by: agnosticnomore

01-19-2012 @ 9:01am

As I understand this pipeline debate, building it is really to benefit energy company's ability to export processed product, not necessarily our energy independence. If we wish to alleviate our energy troubles we might be best served by quitting our pursuit of empire and work to Love our neighbors thus aiding our Creator to establish the Kingdom of Heaven in the hearts of humankind

by: Squeaky

01-19-2012 @ 12:26pm
in reply to: agnosticnomore

You made the exporting point as I was writing my post!  It indeed is an important point to consider, and there is good reason to thorougly study this issue rather than just jumping into an expensive energy project sold to us under the guise of our energy needs.

by: Squeaky

01-19-2012 @ 12:24pm

Montana and Washington both have oil refineries. Those who want this oil from Canada should focus their political efforts on having it refined in those states and building new refineries if needed. Since there is a precedence of refineries in these states, I'm not sure how it is a more daunting political task to get new refineries built as opposed to building a pipeline across several states and dealing with the environmental issues in each of those states.

What is the aim of the oil companies pushing for this pipeline? Louisiana has shipping ports, and this should lead us to wonder how much oil do these companies intend to use in the US and how much they intend to export. Are we just being duped into building a pipeline so oil companies can export their oil?

by: StillWitnessing

01-19-2012 @ 3:35pm
in reply to: Squeaky

I had understood that the Port Arthur refineries had excess capacity. The area also has experienced personnel, something that may be in short supply in Montana and Washington, even if it makes sense to build a new refinery closer to the source.  What is often left out is that this pipeline will be built with private funds. This is a great chance for government to get out of the way and let private enterprise, for all its faults, do what it does best: create jobs.<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

The carbon will go into the atmosphere in North America or in China one way or another. Why play politics with this?  Yes, it is consistent with the President's philosophy that Big Government is better than private citizens and corporations, but why play politics with jobs, just to make a point and "send a message"?

by: Squeaky

01-20-2012 @ 1:17am
in reply to: StillWitnessing

"The area also has experienced personnel, something that may be in short supply in Montana and Washington, even if it makes sense to build a new refinery closer to the source. "

It's far less expensive to simply relocate experienced workers to MT and WA or train more workers, I would think.  

Given all the hoops the oil companies need to jump through and the kind of expense involved in building a pipeline across several states, we really should be asking exactly what is motivating these oil companies?  How is it that it is more profitable to refine oil thousands of miles from the source than much nearer the source?  I would think their profits would be greater if they didn't have to pipe it so far.  So what makes it so profitable to get to those refineries?  

We are being told the reason we need this is to fuel the U.S.  economy.  It is worth asking if that is really the motives, or if they are really just wanting to export the oil.  If we won't be receiving this oil, then it hardly is the solution to our energy problems that we are being told it is.  

The carbon will go into the atmosphere wherever it is burned, this is true.  But oil spills in sensitive areas, such as the Ogallala Aquifer which is in decline and vital to our food production, won't happen.  

As for the "jobs" argument.  The big knock on Obama's jobs program, putting people to work on infrastructure, is that they are temporary jobs--Somehow that is acceptable in this project.  Republicans play politics with jobs all the time--ultimately I lost my job because of those very politics (budget cuts).  

 

by: StillWitnessing

01-20-2012 @ 7:22am
in reply to: Squeaky

I’m sorry to hear about your job.  My employment situation  also seems rather grim.

Thanks for admitting what many deny, that the carbon will be released anyway.  Still, I’d like to point out an inconsistency: when Obama created temporary jobs by borrowing, he was a hero.  But when private individuals invest their own money and create a mix of temporary and long term  jobs, your  response is a vague assertion of a conspiracy to export the oil after all.  Hmmmm

by: Squeaky

01-21-2012 @ 2:29am
in reply to: StillWitnessing

I'm sorry to hear about your job, and I hope your employment situation becomes less grim!  

"when Obama created temporary jobs by borrowing, he was a hero. "

I was pointing out the following hypocrisy:  

If Obama's job creation was illegitimate because he was only creating short-term jobs, why are the short-term jobs created in building this pipeline legitimate? 

You skillfully countered with "reverse hypocrisy."  (I've just coined a new term that I hope catches on in this political climate.  Just remember:  you read it here first  =)).

As for conspiracy theory, I don't trust oil companies to have US' best interests in mind.  It is not their aim to create jobs or to provide oil to the US.  It is their aim to make money.  So I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are less than altruistic goals involved with this pipeline.  

This issue is about more than jobs.  And surely environmentalists understand the oil will be burned regardless.  So there must be more to their objections.  It is worth considering that we don't need to just rush in without adequately assessing what is involved in building a 1700 mile pipeline.  Such assessment includes environmental impact, obtaining true job creation numbers, and determining if this is really the best course of action.  

I would think after the Gulf disaster, most Americans might find wisdom in moving forward carefully, thoroughly, and thoughtfully rather than rushing head on at the whim of the oil companies.  But, that is how addicted to oil we are.  Even when the oil companies screw up royally, we still trust them to do the right thing.  I don't.  And I think that is a large part of the reason environmentalists don't support this pipeline.  

 

 

by: Squeaky

01-19-2012 @ 12:35pm

Heh-heh. Completely off-topic. So, I like that we now have likes and dislikes again. And I like that the authors are more involved in the discussions. I also like that I can change the font on this server, now. Great improvements. Still want e-mail notifications, and hopefully those are next on-deck.

I would like to point out, however, that to test the system, I just "liked" my own comment. I pushed the negative sign to remove my like, but I'm now going to see how many times I can "like" this comment...

Just tried it, and I could only do it once...I guess it is fair that we should be able to vote for ourselves!

Also, I noted that my previous "unlike" (another thread) resulted in a -1 rather than a zero, so I changed it back to a like.

You're welcome for doing the leg work on this research.  

by: Assistant Villa...

01-19-2012 @ 12:50pm

"...it makes God sad when big oil and gas companies eat out the heart of the earth for money."  Okay, you were being cute, but coming off the previous unevidenced assertions, you might not want to give away the game that the tie betyween your faith and your environmentalism may be founded on an anthropomorphising kitties-and-puppies argument.

Tradeoffs are the reality of the adult world.  Every time you find yourself thinking that something is an unmitigated evil, waving your hands about in the air claiming it is a climate disaster, you need to stop dead in your tracks and realise you must be at least partly mistaken.  Real life isn't like that.

If you do that often enough, you will discover that Bill McKibben no longer makes any sense, too, freeing up all the time you used to spend reading him.

by: ElrondPA

01-19-2012 @ 2:33pm

This is another example of environmentalists preferring symbolism to reality. Canada has decided to permit the oil to be extracted. Killing (or delaying) the Keystone pipeline will not cause one drop less of oil to be extracted from the Alberta oil sands and burned. Instead, it will actually harm the environment further, because oil that otherwise could have traveled on a highly efficient and safe pipeline will instead be transported to China (or, perhaps, California) by tanker, while we get more of our oil by tanker from other places. A bad pipeline spill measures in the hundreds or maybe a few thousand gallons; the Exxon Valdez dumped 7.2 million gallons. And ships (including tankers) are among the dirtiest of air polluters even when they don't crash.

But it lets the U.S. environmental community feel self-righteous because they're not putting any of that dirty oil sands-derived gasoline in their Prius; instead, the oil comes delivered by tanker from dictatorships and human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

by: kansasmennonite

01-20-2012 @ 8:12am
in reply to: ElrondPA

Let me see here. You're saying that enviromentalists will put "dirty" oil in their Prius? You should applaud them for driving such a good gas mileage vehicle that won't use so much oil.


 


Your argument on tankers is too short sighted. The oil will reach Texas via pipeline, possibly refined and sent out on tankers. What's the difference? We will get the pollution here in Texas. If there's a tanker incident, it will happen off Texas's coast vs Canada's coast.

by: Arachne646

01-22-2012 @ 11:29am

The figures for jobs building the Keystone XL pipeline are greatly inflated. The way they are calculating the figures skews the numbers in a way that looks extremely favourable to them. Operating staff numbers are negligible, excepting, of course, spills, which are likely with any pipeline, and will create many jobs in cleanup. This kind of job creation we need?

by: entsoltech

01-23-2012 @ 1:40pm

This article is an example of the folly of persons with viewpoints that are captured by only singular considerations. If on the one hand, there is concern about encouraging industrial projects that are relatively more 'dirtier' than normal; these considerations must be weighed against, not only energy security and thereby economic security, but issues of war and peace.

Though America is not as significantly beholden to the unstable Middle East potentates as it once was, the interests of the West, to which America's economic interests are deeply invested, is. By discouraging non-Middle East sources of oil production, it is allowing that part of the world continue to be too important in the competition between nations; thereby making it a greater powder keg than it otherwise would be.

In 1986, I got furious with the Reagan administration for not exploiting the large price reductions caused by drops in world demand (below $10/bbl) by taxing oil with offsetting tax reductions in other areas of taxation to make it revenue neutral. It was also a foolhardy decision to eliminate the gas efficiency mandates that Carter imposed several years prior. The idea was to continue to put pressure on demand so as to keep the supply / demand balance in the consumers' favour. It was my belief that by paying with 'treasure' then, it would save on the amount of blood, time, talent and treasure that America would have to pay later. I believe consequent history has proven my argument correct. Making the Middle East less important reduces the overhanging threat of war in the area; an area which has the same potential for producting wider war as the Balkans did prior to the First World War.

It would be nice if we could eliminate carbon based sources of energy. However, we are not practicably there yet. The alternatives are not yet economic (if they ever will be). It is not merely an issue of unpalatable price increases. It is that those increased prices would make America less competitive than it is now, if competitor countries do not follow suit. Besides, with historical irony, the alternatives have been found to create their own problems. (i.e. Wide scale ethanol production causes food shortages and price hikes for third world countries while not significantly reducing oil use.) 

We are not there yet. And I am irritated with simple-minded and single-issued persons who do not understand that political decisions must reflect several counterbalancing considerations. The more deleterious effect of tar sand oil should have been weighed against these other considerations.

 

by: kiniraya

01-27-2012 @ 5:16pm

Our prez has done such a wonderful job of "creating jobs" that he doesn't need any stinking corporations to do it for him! I think he needs an Econ 101 class where they explain that taking money from one group (taxes) and giving it to another (government subsidies, handouts, entitlements) does not actually create jobs but it does create an incentive not to work hard at making a profit (which actually does create jobs)

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: randrews4

01-18-2012 @ 4:57pm

I read Sojourners newsletters often and I usually appreciate their perspective. I am an environmental advocate who has been studying global warming since the 1960s. I belive most environmental questions can be evaluated with a cost/benefit analysis with planty of weight given to environmental costs. I'm struggling to figure out why there is such ardent opposition to an oil pipeline. Is this just a chance to stick it to big oil? Rejecting this pipeline will not significantly decrease the amount of oil we use. It will only increase the cost of transporting the crude oil to refineries. It may mean we import a bit more oil from the middle east. Would you prefer to have oil transported by trucks, trains, and ships instead of in a pipe? Building a pipeline is about as objectionalbe as building a new highway. 

by: pdijk

01-18-2012 @ 9:00pm

Sad news. Politics aimed at re-election. Rather than building a state of the art pipeline that will bring oil from Canada, we will continue importing oil from countries that despise us. Canada will sell oil to China. China wins. We lose.

by: pdijk

01-18-2012 @ 9:29pm
in reply to: randrews4

Thank you for putting some logic into the discussion. Blocking a new pipeline is a poor decision, even in the context of choices that are best for the environment. The Canadian oil will be developed and delivered to refineries. To imagine otherwise is to wish the world back into the dark ages. The US has the best refineries for this oil and delivering by a new pipeline is far safer than delivering by truck, train or old pipelines. We will also impose more stringent environmental standards than the Chinese.

by: StillWitnessing

01-19-2012 @ 3:35pm
in reply to: Squeaky

I had understood that the Port Arthur refineries had excess capacity. The area also has experienced personnel, something that may be in short supply in Montana and Washington, even if it makes sense to build a new refinery closer to the source.  What is often left out is that this pipeline will be built with private funds. This is a great chance for government to get out of the way and let private enterprise, for all its faults, do what it does best: create jobs.<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

The carbon will go into the atmosphere in North America or in China one way or another. Why play politics with this?  Yes, it is consistent with the President's philosophy that Big Government is better than private citizens and corporations, but why play politics with jobs, just to make a point and "send a message"?

by: Pete315

01-18-2012 @ 5:29pm

Sad that so many folks including our President are willing to sacrifice energy independence for emotions instead of facts.

by: jamelao

01-18-2012 @ 8:03pm

Obama is saying that the reason he is rejecting the pipeline is that he needs more time to study and analyze the project - I am wondering if the people from his administration that recommended the Solyndra loan are available to complete the study.

by: Assistant Villa...

01-19-2012 @ 12:38pm
in reply to: kansasmennonite

So in your mind, "homework" is reading the minds of Republicans?  You have some sort of Motive-o-meter that reveals this secret knowledge to you? A few scraps is good enough for confirmation bias, I know, but an actual logical argument requires more.

When it occurs to you that a lot of political arguments are nothing more than reciting your favored narrative, you may begin to get it.

by: Squeaky

01-19-2012 @ 12:24pm

Montana and Washington both have oil refineries. Those who want this oil from Canada should focus their political efforts on having it refined in those states and building new refineries if needed. Since there is a precedence of refineries in these states, I'm not sure how it is a more daunting political task to get new refineries built as opposed to building a pipeline across several states and dealing with the environmental issues in each of those states.

What is the aim of the oil companies pushing for this pipeline? Louisiana has shipping ports, and this should lead us to wonder how much oil do these companies intend to use in the US and how much they intend to export. Are we just being duped into building a pipeline so oil companies can export their oil?

by: Squeaky

01-19-2012 @ 12:35pm

Heh-heh. Completely off-topic. So, I like that we now have likes and dislikes again. And I like that the authors are more involved in the discussions. I also like that I can change the font on this server, now. Great improvements. Still want e-mail notifications, and hopefully those are next on-deck.

I would like to point out, however, that to test the system, I just "liked" my own comment. I pushed the negative sign to remove my like, but I'm now going to see how many times I can "like" this comment...

Just tried it, and I could only do it once...I guess it is fair that we should be able to vote for ourselves!

Also, I noted that my previous "unlike" (another thread) resulted in a -1 rather than a zero, so I changed it back to a like.

You're welcome for doing the leg work on this research.  

by: Assistant Villa...

01-19-2012 @ 12:50pm

"...it makes God sad when big oil and gas companies eat out the heart of the earth for money."  Okay, you were being cute, but coming off the previous unevidenced assertions, you might not want to give away the game that the tie betyween your faith and your environmentalism may be founded on an anthropomorphising kitties-and-puppies argument.

Tradeoffs are the reality of the adult world.  Every time you find yourself thinking that something is an unmitigated evil, waving your hands about in the air claiming it is a climate disaster, you need to stop dead in your tracks and realise you must be at least partly mistaken.  Real life isn't like that.

If you do that often enough, you will discover that Bill McKibben no longer makes any sense, too, freeing up all the time you used to spend reading him.

by: agnosticnomore

01-19-2012 @ 9:01am

As I understand this pipeline debate, building it is really to benefit energy company's ability to export processed product, not necessarily our energy independence. If we wish to alleviate our energy troubles we might be best served by quitting our pursuit of empire and work to Love our neighbors thus aiding our Creator to establish the Kingdom of Heaven in the hearts of humankind

by: Squeaky

01-19-2012 @ 12:26pm
in reply to: agnosticnomore

You made the exporting point as I was writing my post!  It indeed is an important point to consider, and there is good reason to thorougly study this issue rather than just jumping into an expensive energy project sold to us under the guise of our energy needs.

by: ElrondPA

01-19-2012 @ 2:33pm

This is another example of environmentalists preferring symbolism to reality. Canada has decided to permit the oil to be extracted. Killing (or delaying) the Keystone pipeline will not cause one drop less of oil to be extracted from the Alberta oil sands and burned. Instead, it will actually harm the environment further, because oil that otherwise could have traveled on a highly efficient and safe pipeline will instead be transported to China (or, perhaps, California) by tanker, while we get more of our oil by tanker from other places. A bad pipeline spill measures in the hundreds or maybe a few thousand gallons; the Exxon Valdez dumped 7.2 million gallons. And ships (including tankers) are among the dirtiest of air polluters even when they don't crash.

But it lets the U.S. environmental community feel self-righteous because they're not putting any of that dirty oil sands-derived gasoline in their Prius; instead, the oil comes delivered by tanker from dictatorships and human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

by: Squeaky

01-21-2012 @ 2:29am
in reply to: StillWitnessing

I'm sorry to hear about your job, and I hope your employment situation becomes less grim!  

"when Obama created temporary jobs by borrowing, he was a hero. "

I was pointing out the following hypocrisy:  

If Obama's job creation was illegitimate because he was only creating short-term jobs, why are the short-term jobs created in building this pipeline legitimate? 

You skillfully countered with "reverse hypocrisy."  (I've just coined a new term that I hope catches on in this political climate.  Just remember:  you read it here first  =)).

As for conspiracy theory, I don't trust oil companies to have US' best interests in mind.  It is not their aim to create jobs or to provide oil to the US.  It is their aim to make money.  So I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are less than altruistic goals involved with this pipeline.  

This issue is about more than jobs.  And surely environmentalists understand the oil will be burned regardless.  So there must be more to their objections.  It is worth considering that we don't need to just rush in without adequately assessing what is involved in building a 1700 mile pipeline.  Such assessment includes environmental impact, obtaining true job creation numbers, and determining if this is really the best course of action.  

I would think after the Gulf disaster, most Americans might find wisdom in moving forward carefully, thoroughly, and thoughtfully rather than rushing head on at the whim of the oil companies.  But, that is how addicted to oil we are.  Even when the oil companies screw up royally, we still trust them to do the right thing.  I don't.  And I think that is a large part of the reason environmentalists don't support this pipeline.  

 

 

by: Jamie

01-18-2012 @ 10:04pm

Take it with a grain of salt.

If you really care about the environment, then your foreign policy needs to change. i.e. no more wars that are connected to the oil industry with the OPEC countries.

You should also realize that Obama's panel released a 72 page document on their plan to drill for more oil at home and more corporate tax cuts; I guess he's looking to see if there's more oil in the U.S. before asking Canada for some. And if neither of those two options work, then Iran's there.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/01/17/presidents-jobs-council-pushes-co...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-18/obama-jobs-panel-urges-broad...

by: Assistant Villa...

01-19-2012 @ 12:51pm
in reply to: kansasmennonite

Double-post.  Deleted

by: Squeaky

01-19-2012 @ 1:08pm
in reply to: Assistant Villa...

Umm--aren't the Repubilicans doing the same to Pres Obama when they assume he is delaying the Keystone decision for political reasons?  At least be fair, and make the same comment to posters who are making that claim.

by: StillWitnessing

01-20-2012 @ 7:22am
in reply to: Squeaky

I’m sorry to hear about your job.  My employment situation  also seems rather grim.

Thanks for admitting what many deny, that the carbon will be released anyway.  Still, I’d like to point out an inconsistency: when Obama created temporary jobs by borrowing, he was a hero.  But when private individuals invest their own money and create a mix of temporary and long term  jobs, your  response is a vague assertion of a conspiracy to export the oil after all.  Hmmmm

by: kansasmennonite

01-20-2012 @ 8:12am
in reply to: ElrondPA

Let me see here. You're saying that enviromentalists will put "dirty" oil in their Prius? You should applaud them for driving such a good gas mileage vehicle that won't use so much oil.


 


Your argument on tankers is too short sighted. The oil will reach Texas via pipeline, possibly refined and sent out on tankers. What's the difference? We will get the pollution here in Texas. If there's a tanker incident, it will happen off Texas's coast vs Canada's coast.

by: Arachne646

01-22-2012 @ 11:29am

The figures for jobs building the Keystone XL pipeline are greatly inflated. The way they are calculating the figures skews the numbers in a way that looks extremely favourable to them. Operating staff numbers are negligible, excepting, of course, spills, which are likely with any pipeline, and will create many jobs in cleanup. This kind of job creation we need?

by: entsoltech

01-23-2012 @ 1:40pm

This article is an example of the folly of persons with viewpoints that are captured by only singular considerations. If on the one hand, there is concern about encouraging industrial projects that are relatively more 'dirtier' than normal; these considerations must be weighed against, not only energy security and thereby economic security, but issues of war and peace.

Though America is not as significantly beholden to the unstable Middle East potentates as it once was, the interests of the West, to which America's economic interests are deeply invested, is. By discouraging non-Middle East sources of oil production, it is allowing that part of the world continue to be too important in the competition between nations; thereby making it a greater powder keg than it otherwise would be.

In 1986, I got furious with the Reagan administration for not exploiting the large price reductions caused by drops in world demand (below $10/bbl) by taxing oil with offsetting tax reductions in other areas of taxation to make it revenue neutral. It was also a foolhardy decision to eliminate the gas efficiency mandates that Carter imposed several years prior. The idea was to continue to put pressure on demand so as to keep the supply / demand balance in the consumers' favour. It was my belief that by paying with 'treasure' then, it would save on the amount of blood, time, talent and treasure that America would have to pay later. I believe consequent history has proven my argument correct. Making the Middle East less important reduces the overhanging threat of war in the area; an area which has the same potential for producting wider war as the Balkans did prior to the First World War.

It would be nice if we could eliminate carbon based sources of energy. However, we are not practicably there yet. The alternatives are not yet economic (if they ever will be). It is not merely an issue of unpalatable price increases. It is that those increased prices would make America less competitive than it is now, if competitor countries do not follow suit. Besides, with historical irony, the alternatives have been found to create their own problems. (i.e. Wide scale ethanol production causes food shortages and price hikes for third world countries while not significantly reducing oil use.) 

We are not there yet. And I am irritated with simple-minded and single-issued persons who do not understand that political decisions must reflect several counterbalancing considerations. The more deleterious effect of tar sand oil should have been weighed against these other considerations.

 

by: kiniraya

01-27-2012 @ 5:16pm

Our prez has done such a wonderful job of "creating jobs" that he doesn't need any stinking corporations to do it for him! I think he needs an Econ 101 class where they explain that taking money from one group (taxes) and giving it to another (government subsidies, handouts, entitlements) does not actually create jobs but it does create an incentive not to work hard at making a profit (which actually does create jobs)

by: Squeaky

01-20-2012 @ 1:17am
in reply to: StillWitnessing

"The area also has experienced personnel, something that may be in short supply in Montana and Washington, even if it makes sense to build a new refinery closer to the source. "

It's far less expensive to simply relocate experienced workers to MT and WA or train more workers, I would think.  

Given all the hoops the oil companies need to jump through and the kind of expense involved in building a pipeline across several states, we really should be asking exactly what is motivating these oil companies?  How is it that it is more profitable to refine oil thousands of miles from the source than much nearer the source?  I would think their profits would be greater if they didn't have to pipe it so far.  So what makes it so profitable to get to those refineries?  

We are being told the reason we need this is to fuel the U.S.  economy.  It is worth asking if that is really the motives, or if they are really just wanting to export the oil.  If we won't be receiving this oil, then it hardly is the solution to our energy problems that we are being told it is.  

The carbon will go into the atmosphere wherever it is burned, this is true.  But oil spills in sensitive areas, such as the Ogallala Aquifer which is in decline and vital to our food production, won't happen.  

As for the "jobs" argument.  The big knock on Obama's jobs program, putting people to work on infrastructure, is that they are temporary jobs--Somehow that is acceptable in this project.  Republicans play politics with jobs all the time--ultimately I lost my job because of those very politics (budget cuts).  

 

by: kansasmennonite

01-19-2012 @ 7:44am
in reply to: Jamie

The state of Kansas gave Keystone tax abatements for something like 10 yrs. Kansas was the only state that fell for that trap by our conservative politicians.

by: kansasmennonite

01-19-2012 @ 7:42am
in reply to: pdijk

Yes, the republicans did use it for political reasons. Look at the distorted "jobs creation" figures behind the push for the pipeline. Was this oil going to be used for USA consumption? You need to do some more homework before making such statements.