HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Good Reads (Forum) » Obama Picks Sides on Tar ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 06:24 AM

 

Obama Picks Sides on Tar Sands: TransCanada Wins. Earth, Everyone Else Loses



By Mijin Cha
Common Dreams
March 22, 2012

A lesson in how not to reduce gas prices: the White House is backing TransCanada’s bid to build the southern portion of the controversial pipeline Keystone XL pipeline. The section to be built will run from Cushing, Oklahoma to Texas and carry crude oil pumped in the Midwest to refineries in Texas and be completed by late 2013—so it will have virtually no impact on the current high gas prices.

Nor is there any evidence that it will have any impact on future gas prices. As we’ve highlighted continually, there is no guarantee that any of this refined oil will stay in the U.S. In fact, most likely, Keystone will be an export pipeline that will send oil to whoever pays the most for it, like India or China. Building the southern part of it certainly sets the stage for the full pipeline to be built. TransCanada says it will reapply for the cross-border permit soon and the decision to reapply has been welcomed by the White House.

President Obama’s move may be an attempt to fight back against Republican criticism but in doing so, he is sending a signal to environmentalist that despite his rhetoric on clean energy, it really is business as usual and dirty fossil fuels will continue to receive support and preference. On the issue of Keystone, there is no middle ground. The negative environmental and economic consequences outweigh any gains. The construction of the pipeline http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf&pli=1" target="_blank">will not create permanent jobs. The portions already built have spilled tens of thousands of gallons of oil. Tar sands spills on the Kalamazoo River http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_Impact-of-Tar-Sands-Pipeline-Spills.pdf" target="_blank">cost over $700 million to clean up, not to mention the impact on residents’ health and the local economy.

Cornell’s Global Labor Institute has released two excellent reports on the pipeline that further detail the damage the pipeline could bring. The first definitively debunks TransCanada’s hyper-inflated jobs number, as well as the claims that the pipeline will be an economic boost to local areas. The most recent report looks at the impact of tar sands spills on local economies. The report highlights the strong evidence that tar sands oil pipelines have more spills that conventional crude oil pipelines. It also points out that agricultural and rangeland comprises nearly 80 percent of the land affected by the pipeline. Pipeline spills would not only cause severe economic damage to the actual land but begin to impact our food chain.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/21-10

13 replies, 2189 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama Picks Sides on Tar Sands: TransCanada Wins. Earth, Everyone Else Loses (Original post)
UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2012 OP
OKNancy Mar 2012 #1
rfranklin Mar 2012 #2
OKNancy Mar 2012 #3
UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2012 #4
OKNancy Mar 2012 #5
UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2012 #6
OKNancy Mar 2012 #7
emulatorloo Mar 2012 #8
UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2012 #9
Yerkov Markakis Mar 2012 #10
Yerkov Markakis Mar 2012 #11
Ian David Mar 2012 #12
UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2012 #13

Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 06:59 AM

1. the southern portion has nothing to do with

tar sands etc. I suppose the author is thinking it's a "slippery slope", but the southern portion was never what raised environmental objections. Where were these people when the eight other pipelines were built out of Cushing?

We still need oil. Oil is backed up in Cushing. This oil is for domestic consumption and the world market.
I don't see a darn thing wrong with building it. Seems to me it's just another fake argument that is used by the right and the Obama haters on the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:14 AM

2. Perhaps their are some people (not Republicans) who are truly concerned and...

 

know that we have been lied to repeatedly by oil companies about the safety of their operations. (Remember BP with their happy little green plant logo?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:27 AM

3. concern is warranted

but not over-reaction. I don't know of any spills related to all the other pipelines out of Cushing.
I would think that a look at those statistics would give a clearer picture. Ocean drilling and land-based pipelines are two different things. The first US pipeline was built over 100 years ago. It's not a new technology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:39 AM

4. Just a wee section of the pipeline. Nothing to see here.

 

He's already signaled that he will give the rest of the pipeline the go ahead. You're running interference for him.

Nothing wrong with having this as a job, but I do wonder how many Democratic operatives post here. (Ha, as I type this Obama is on TV promoting expediting the pipeline.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:44 AM

5. lol - so anyone who offers support

is a paid operative? I wish. I could use the money to augment my Social Security.
I live in fucking Tulsa Oklahoma with my house painter husband.

When one has no response, it's always a good tactic to question motives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 08:12 AM

6. Mmmm Hmmm. Wink wink. Nudge nudge.

 

Say no more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 08:24 AM

7. whatever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #6)


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 11:04 AM

9. I was joking.

 

Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:16 PM - Edit history (2)

Edited to add that the post above should not have been hidden. I didn't alert on it. I actually agreed with it. (And I thought it was funny.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #2)


Response to Yerkov Markakis (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:09 PM

11. Source:

 

That 75000 to 200000 birds killed each year in the US is actually estimated to be 75000 to 275000 birds killed per year and the source is the American Bird Conservancy. Do the math and imagine the bird holocaust that is occurring worldwide due to windmills and the greedy bastards who are persuing wind profits and freebies by way of government subsidies.

Hypocrites!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yerkov Markakis (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 03:06 PM

12. There are ways to protect birds from windmills. There are no ways to protect them from acid rain. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yerkov Markakis (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:08 PM

13. Waa waa what the fuck?

 

You bird murderers!

Is this Andy Breitbart's ghost?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread