Obama approves oil pipeline from Alberta tar sands to Texas coast

[dana_b]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/26/obama-approves-pipeline-alberta-texas

Campaigners disappointed as White House says 1,700-mile pipeline will not cause significant environmental damage
* Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 26 August 2011 22.16 BST

The Obama administration gave an important approval yesterday to a controversial pipeline that will pump oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the Texas coast.

In a blow to campaigners, who have spent the last week at a sit-in at the White House, the State Department said the proposed 1,700-mile pipeline would not cause significant damage to the environment.

The State Department in its report said the project – which would pipe more than 700,000 barrels a day of tar sands crude to Texas refineries – would not increase greenhouse gas emissions. It also downplayed the risks of an accident from piping highly corrosive tar sands crude across prime American farmland.

Campaigners accused the State Department of consistently overlooking the potential risks of the pipeline. "The State Department… failed to acknowledge the true extent of the project's threats to the climate, to drinking water and to the health of people who would breathe polluted air from refineries processing the dirty tar sands oil," Friends of the Earth said in a statement.

more at the link

[Bluebear]

1. Of course he did.

[Rex]

21. This is a surprise!?

Evidently we still don't have the fucking well capped in the Gulf of Mexico, but FUCK IT! Just pave over everything, we need more PARKING LOTS!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

132. No surprise at all. Que Obama loyalist spin control.

We know, we know: Would we rather have Michele Bachman? Would we rather be boiled alive or eaten by a bear?

[karnac]

144. yes. we have to pay for the internet/gas/oil infrastructure so you can complain.

you can thank a dinosaur who died 6 million years ago for you to to be heard to the maximum extent.


aren't you proud?

you mattered!!

[Rex]

167. Funny that you bring it up.

Fuck the dinos there are better energy sources. Time to move on or become like the dinosaurs. Now doncha know you matter! Everything is done for YOU! Honest. :rofl:

[joeybee12]

2. Every freaking environmental group was against this...every one...

Love to know how this adminsitration thinks it's going to get votes and money from them.

[villager]

7. He's a fine Republican President, he is!

:thumbsup:

[digitaln3rd]

35. Best Republican president since Bill Clinton.

Don't know why the Republicans are always slagging him off.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dana_b]

125. maybe a bad time for humor but did you see this?

http://wonkette.com/452065/republican-barack-obama-says-filthy-tar-sands-pipeline-is-great

FUCK THIS GUY
Republican Barack Obama Says Filthy Tar Sands Pipeline Is Great

The difference between the environmental policies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush? You expected it to be bad with Bush Jr. Today, the White House is surrounded with people protesting the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline. Here’s how Rep. Henry Waxman described it: “This pipeline is a multi-billion dollar investment to expand our reliance on the dirtiest source of transportation fuel currently available.” He was one of 50 in Congress to officially protest to Hillary Clinton, who as secretary of state has jurisdiction over this dirty nightmare being extended from Canada’s filthy earth-raping tar sands extraction pits to the American Midwest. Says the Politico just now: “The Obama administration is working overtime to fight the perception that it’s dissing green groups and rubber-stamping a controversial 1,700-mile oil pipeline.” Well that sounds about right for Obama, working at the last minute on the perception of something rather than its reality.

more at the link

[Vincardog]

152. +1Obama, working at the last minute on the perception of something rather than its reality. F him

[WinkyDink]

45. Nixon created the EPA. :-)

[XemaSab]

66. And the endangered species act, clean air act, clean water act, and the national environmental

policy act.

Nixon was sort of awesome. :D

[tabasco]

133. Jesus Christ, you're gullible.

That's as nice as I can say it.

Nixon's responsiveness to various constituencies may have been as much a reflection of his political savvy as a commitment to New Federalism. Prior to the Earth Day demonstrations of 1970, the president showed little interest in environmental issues. But in the millions who gathered in communities around the nation, he saw political power.

The president sent dozens of environmental proposals to Congress, including the Clean Air Act of 1970, perhaps one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation ever passed. He also created two new agencies, the Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency, to oversee environmental matters.

President Nixon
While Nixon increased spending on domestic initiatives during his presidency, he consistently stood by the New Federalist principle of fiscal efficiency. Nixon insisted that all environmental proposals meet the cost-benefit standards of the Office of Management and Budget. In 1972, he vetoed the Clean Water Act, which he generally supported, because Congress had boosted its cost to $18 billion. When Congress overrode his veto, he used his presidential powers to impound half of the money.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/37_nixon/nixon_domestic.html

[bhikkhu]

145. And currently, if the price of gas goes up, or GDP goes down...

the chorus around the WH is more like "off with his head!". It was a lose-lose decision for Obama, though I would have been happier with him if he chose the other losing path.

[XemaSab]

170. He still has a better environmental legacy

than like, every other president in the last 100 years.

[tabasco]

171. Riiiiiight.

And Reagan brought down the Soviet Union, because he was president when it happened, right?

Get a brain, morans.

[savannah43]

129. Yeah, but that garden his wife planted at the WH makes

up for his jeopardizing the environment.

[russspeakeasy]

119. I don't think that he thinks he needs us...He has big oil, the banks

and Wall st...all with full pockets...what a disappointment this guy has been.:wtf: :argh:

[bluestateguy]

3. Will this create American jobs in America?

I don't know much about this issue.

I have no position at this time.

[BeFree]

8. They'll hire Irishmen?

The problem with this is that it keeps us using dirty fossil fuels instead of moving to cleaner renewables. And it is a foreign source.

But Empire demands pipelines. Empire wins again!

[gateley]

83. The transition will be a process, we can't just pull the plug

on fossil fuels -- so I understand that, but this? Absolutely unnecessary and just horrifying, in my opinion.

[whosinpower]

12. Sure - for a while

While the pipeline is being built - there will be jobs not only in manufacturing the pipe itself, but also welding, leveling, monitoring, xraying the welds and inspection.

I would think surveying, preparing the land also would play a big role in this.

Interesting bit of trivia - years ago, when Bush first took office - before 911 - oil was under 30/barrel. And up here, in Canada, there was allot of talk about how the oilsands project would never get off the ground, so to speak, because to BREAK EVEN - THEY NEEDED 40/BARREL.
That was 2003.

Funny how things work out - eh?

[griffi94]

13. the pipe will probly come from china

[yawnmaster]

80. The pipe is coming from Canada, not China. eom

[robinlynne]

103. but the pipe, the metal pipe, may well come from china!

[rhett o rick]

110. Do you have a link for that information? nm

[dbackjon]

139. Any person that likes to breathe clean air

Enjoys nature, like having birds that eat insects, etc should be opposed to this.

[bhikkhu]

147. Yes, and cheaper gas, and a boost to economic growth

The irony is that many of those who protest the pipeline might be the same one's protesting over the price of gas if it went up, or protesting for jobs if GDP went down.

To be for the environment is very difficult unless you are willing to sacrifice economic growth and affordable energy. I don't like the president's decision, but I know why he decided that way.

edited, because I read the article again and it says that Obama hasn't approved the pipeline, in spite of the STUPID headline.

...anyway in the meantime food for though is the existing pipeline network - who approved all this, and were any of these "gamechangers" for people when they were approved?

[amborin]

4. K&R

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. Fuck.

Oh well.

Another bad move by Obama.

[ProSense]

6. No he hasn't

Here's how the article ends:

<...>

Bill McKibben, who helped organise the protests at the White House, said the approval from the State Department had been expected. The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, indicated last year that she favoured the pipeline.

"Everyone has known exactly what they would say all along. And everyone knows that they've valiantly ignored the elephant in the room - the fact that this would go a long ways towards opening up the world's second-largest pool of carbon," he wrote in an email.

However, McKibben held out hope that Obama - who still has final authority over the project - might step in to stop the pipeline.

Seems the media wants to give the impression that this is a done deal. It still has to be approved by several agencies.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Do you think the Obama Administration will ultimately green light the pipeline?

[ProSense]

14. Does what I think

mean he has already approved it as the OP states?

I can't read his mind. I don't have any idea how the other agencies are going to weigh in. Maybe they'll be against it. Maybe there will be significant pressure to reject approval.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. I just wanted your opinion

Do you think the pipeline should be green lighted by the Administration and do you think it will ultimately be green lighted?

[ProSense]

24. Hmmm?

"Do you think the pipeline should be green lighted by the Administration and do you think it will ultimately be green lighted?"

No, it shouldn't be, but that's a different question from this:

"Do you think the Obama Administration will ultimately green light the pipeline?"

[Cali_Democrat]

26. It is indeed a different question. I asked you two different questions in my second reply

Thanks for answering my question regarding your opinion about whether or not the pipeline should be built.

As to whether or not you think the Obama Administration will ultimately green light it, I doubt you'll answer that but I'm sure you know what the likely outcome is going to be. Deep down...you know ;)

[ProSense]

31. Hmmm?

"As to whether or not you think the Obama Administration will ultimately green light it, I doubt you'll answer that but I'm sure you know what the likely outcome is going to be. "

What, this answer wasn't good enough?

[Cali_Democrat]

34. Do you think the Obama Administration will ultimately green light the pipeline?

[ProSense]

37. Does what I think

mean he has already approved it as the OP states?

I can't read his mind. I don't have any idea how the other agencies are going to weigh in. Maybe they'll be against it. Maybe there will be significant pressure to reject approval.

Is it Groundhog Day?

[Cali_Democrat]

43. I'm surprised by you

Judging from your tens of thousands of posts, I figured you knew the Obama Administration very well. Guess not. It's actually pretty easy to know what they stand for at this point IMO.

Let me help you out here...The Obama Administration will approve the pipeline and it will be built.

Got it?

[ProSense]

46. Hmmm?

"Judging from your tens of thousands of posts, I figured you knew the Obama Administration very well."

So those posts gave you the impression that I can read his mind and predict what federal agencies are going to advise?

[Cali_Democrat]

50. You don't have to be a mind reader to know what's going to happen

All you have to do is look at statements and Obama Administration policy decisions since Jan 2009.

You will then come to my conclusion: The Obama Administration will approve the pipeline and it will be built.

It's not that hard, but apparently for you it's rocket science.

[Fuddnik]

149. Not paid to think.

[sulphurdunn]

136. Is the Pope Catholic?

[savannah43]

130. Isn't that what he did yesterday?

[AtomicKitten]

104. So, HClinton favors the pipeline, the State Dept cleared it, and Pres Obama hasn't weighed in yet.

Thanks for reiterating the facts.

[rhett o rick]

111. Maybe he will ask Jeff Immelt what to do. nm

[SHRED]

121. or Larry Summers

[Fuddnik]

150. Or the Koch Brothers.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. How does that feel people concerned with pollution and the power of big oil.

Do you feel that.
Do you feel that.

President Obama, serving one of his best Constituents, big oil. Another conservative position taken by a Democratic President...so that the party continues to slide right.

The next time Obama says he is concerned with the earth, that he wants the oceans to cease rising, and the planet to cease heating; it is lie, just like Republicans do it.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

18. Thank you. Exactly right.

[Ozymanithrax]

22. As others said, I didn't leave he Democratic Party...

It left me.

[amborin]

27. Obama "is counting on... environmentalists ... not having anywhere else to go in 2012"

"But there is a risk for the president, said Julian Zelizer, a professor of public history and public affairs at Princeton University. If he approves the pipeline, he could lose environmentalists in swing states such as North Carolina, where environmentalists stand as a key Democratic swing vote in moderate, suburban areas, he said.

"The president is counting on the fact that environmentalists don't have anywhere else to go in 2012," said Zelizer. "The risk is that they won't do much to help him get re-elected, and that can make a huge difference in key districts."


http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/08/26/26climatewire-hansen-says-obama-will-be-greenwashing-about-72041.html?scp=3&sq=environmentalists%20and%20obama&st=cse

[bahrbearian]

63. That says it all

"The president is counting on the fact that environmentalists don't have anywhere else to go in 2012,"

So I quess we go to hell.

[pecwae]

140. Gives you a

real warm, fuzzy feeling, eh?

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

91. Morally bankrupt

[woo me with science]

173. I just said that re: his protecting the banks.

We may be honing in on a campaign theme.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

127. If he does in fact approve this disaster in the nascent phase,

trust me....I will make somewhere else to go if I have to. I was already standing at the door because of past decisions anyway, so finding somewhere else to go shouldn't be too hard to prepare for.

I am hearing Roger, Pete, John and the "Moon" a lot lately.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

Isn't it amazing (and sad) that so many old songs are still so relevant today? Change?????? I don't believe anymore.

The Who: "Won't Get Fooled Again"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[XemaSab]

15. Color me surprised

:eyes:

To paraphrase Kanye, "Barack Obama doesn't care about the environment."

[Poll_Blind]

16. Assuming for a sec it's anything but insane, why to Texas over Washington or California refineries?

Washington Refineries, California Refineries. It's not like they couldn't handle the volume. Wonder if Texas refineries have special capabilities that the ones in the other states don't.

:shrug:

PB

[saras]

69. It has to do with who makes the money. OF COURSE Texas is better than the liberal West Coast.

[hack89]

107. Because the west coast is an earthquake zone? Stricter state environmental laws? nt

[Fuddnik]

153. Phase two has a pipeline branching off to the west coast.

But, it's not about refineries or domestic consumption anyways.

It winds up at THE PORTS in Houston for export. That's the truth in a nutshell.

[Vinca]

19. Astonishing. Totally freaking astonishing.

[amborin]

20. this will be the final line in the sand (pardon the horrible pun) for many holdouts

[d_b]

23. you betcha

[gateley]

25. Oh, God - I was so hoping he'd do the right thing. This

makes me so sad.

[ProSense]

28. The pipeline hasn't been approved

From the article.

<...>

But Kerri-Ann Jones, the assistant secretary of state, rejected the charges. She argued that other government agencies had still to sign off on the project.

<...>

Bill McKibben, who helped organise the protests at the White House, said the approval from the State Department had been expected. The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, indicated last year that she favoured the pipeline.

"Everyone has known exactly what they would say all along. And everyone knows that they've valiantly ignored the elephant in the room - the fact that this would go a long ways towards opening up the world's second-largest pool of carbon," he wrote in an email.

However, McKibben held out hope that Obama - who still has final authority over the project - might step in to stop the pipeline.

Does anyone care about facts anymore? Or are MSM headlines the only thing people respond to?

[hatrack]

32. Yes, & State's approval makes his ultimate disapproval of the pipeline even more likely, right?

Really adds to the momentum of anti-pipeline sentiment within the administration, doesn't it?

:silly:

[ProSense]

36. So

State speaks for all the other agencies that have to weigh in?

[hatrack]

39. So, do you think he will approve it?

I have very little doubt that he will, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

[ProSense]

51. Hmmm?

"I have very little doubt that he will, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong."

Well, I hope you're proven wrong too, and I have no idea what's going to happen.

[bahrbearian]

38. You always post things agruing that it has been approved ,

"Does anyone care about facts anymore?" Then 1 month later he gives it away. Aren't you tired of defending that shit?

[gateley]

41. Give her a month. Hasn't happened yet, has it? nt

[ProSense]

49. Wait

you're upset that someone is pointing out that the OP article is making a false claim?

It hasn't been approved.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gateley]

40. Thank you! Per usual, I overreacted.

:blush: It's just that this thing especially can put the welfare of the entire planet at risk. Thanks for the dose of reality and facts. :pals:

[tblue]

44. Okay, ProSense.

But if the admin comes back later and approves this after all, will you post that, too?

[bahrbearian]

54. That won't be on the List.

[bvar22]

77. Yes It WILL make the list,

only it will be repackaged and relabeled as:
"Obama creates JOBS for struggling Americans"
or some other Nonsense.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bahrbearian]

94. Thats funny.

[U4ikLefty]

118. I agree....+1000

[Marr]

57. Of course not. It will become "old news" and be dutifully ignored.

Right now we're still in the, "don't look at that, wait until it's officially announced, no need to criticize Obama" phase.

[gateley]

86. No, now we have to keep contacting the WH to let them know

how adamantly opposed we are. Just waiting is NEVER an option.

[libmom74]

128. No but she will

post why it shining accomplishment, replete with blue links and gushing praise of why and how building destructive, carbon emitting pipelines make Obama a master chess player and the greatest president evah! Either that or it will be a sad story about how the mean Republicans forced the powerless Obama to sign off on the pipelines in exchange for insert crumbs...

[SidDithers]

53. Facts don't matter anymore...

as long as accepted narrative meshes with the expected outrage, facts be damned.

Sid

[gateley]

29. So is this a done deal? If I understood it correctly, this was

something he could either approve or disapprove w/out Congressional "involvement" (ironic that this would probably be approved by our current House of Reps!).

That's it? No wiggle room?

[dana_b]

78. what I get from the article is that the

State Department is looking at some safety concerns and that other agencies still need to sign it off. However it looks like you are right about President Obama being able to approve it without congress.

"Jones said that the State Department review had addressed some safety concerns, directing TransCanada, the pipeline operator, to bury the pipeline deeper.

The State Department will hold a series of public meetings on the pipeline next month and into October.

But with Friday's decision the pipeline is now expected to come on line in 2013."

[gateley]

81. Well I'm glad the State Department is looking at it, but someone

posted Hillary supported it, so maybe it's just a stall.

I honestly don't see how ANYBODY could think this would be okay! This goes beyond politics, this is the planet! The future of the WORLD depends on this decision - for centuries to come.

How very discouraging.

[stuntcat]

30. I'm a one-issue voter..

And this is it. I have less than zero hope. But I still will have to vote.. I mean I never don't vote. No Kucinichian option will be on the ballot..

I should just give up on politics, I think. Serious.

[bahrbearian]

33. Even if he thinks it a good Idea , he should say no and use it to barter,,

just like everything he gives a way , its free, no fight.

[whosinpower]

42. I know in my bones I am going to be blasted but

If the US managed to greatly reduce its oil consumption - wouldn't it be nice if you could buy everything you need from a friendly neighbor to the north, instead of supporting despots in the middle east?

[WinkyDink]

47. What makes you think the end products will stay here?

[Fuddnik]

156. It's not.

There's not only refineries in Houston, but PORTS.

[The Traveler]

48. If you really think

a 1700 mile long pipeline transmitting sludge and benzene is a good idea ... I can't help you.

This is a deal breaker for me, personally. If Obama approves this, I really cannot support him. That's a bottom line.

[whosinpower]

72. I understand where you are coming from

I live up here - and I hate the oilsands.

But if you had to choose between war....or transporting sludge, which would it be?
And I am fully aware that this pipeline cannot currently supply all of America's needs. But, lets not be myopic - the Iraq war occured for one reason only - oil. If they didn't have any - George W. Bush wouldn't have given them a second thought - not one iota's second.

And it was never about getting cheap oil to the US - it was about controlling the spigot - who gets it and at what currency.

I am just tossing it out there for discussion.

[Marr]

58. The oil market doesn't work that way.

It's a global market.

[whosinpower]

73. It wouldn't control price - but stability of supply

I would rather it be refined up here and sell it as gasoline to the US, if truth be known. The oil players deem that it is better to use the resources/refineries in place rather than build new infrastructure to refine it here. But, it makes more sense to me to refine it here rather than pipe it all the way down there.

[bahrbearian]

71. If it were to stay here they would refine it in Canada. or somewhere along the Border.

[gateley]

87. Isn't all the world's oils dumped into one big pool, so to speak? Or

the OPEC members, anyway.

I'm not so sure the issue is the oil, but rather the environmental hazards associated with it. I don't understand it all, but some environment expert (seriously) said if this goes through, there goes the climate. It's just too risky, IMO.

But that being said, if we could somehow extract some without such harm (if that's even possible), I'd most certainly like to support Canada and see them prosper.

[TBF]

88. I could possibly agree if he cut defense by about 25% and put that money

into creating jobs right here at home. Working the pipeline and various other infra-structure. If it would stop wars for now, yes, that would be worth it to me while they continue to switch to new resources (put some tax breaks on that rather than big oil).

I don't see him doing that, but I would be for it under those terms.

[Hissyspit]

92. Environmental Risks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21thu2.html

"The risks are real. An earlier pipeline — carrying tar sands oil to the Midwest and built by TransCanada, the company planning to build Keystone XL — has had several spills, including recent ones in North Dakota and Kansas. The E.P.A. suggested that the State Department also needed to give more consideration to how constructing and operating the pipeline would affect wetlands, migratory birds and the communities it would pass through.

The E.P.A. has also asked the department to re-examine its assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands oil. And, the agency notes, both of the environmental assessments failed to consider alternative routes.

These concerns should not be news to the State Department. There has been an outcry against the proposed route of Keystone XL, including protests from senators from Nebraska and Kansas. We oppose this pipeline for several reasons besides its threat to the aquifer. There is already enough capacity to carry tar sands oil from Canada to the United States, and the pipeline would have no effect on oil prices, which are set in international markets.

The extraction process also destroys precious boreal forests, pollutes regional water supplies and creates substantially more greenhouse gases than conventional crude, though Canada insists it is making significant progress toward reducing emissions. On the merits — economic and environmental — and in terms of future energy policy, this is the wrong pipeline for the wrong oil."

[shanti]

52. omg

obama's plans and loss of support keep getting better by the day :(

[Raine]

55. Yet another outrage from this MISadministration

same old, same old. :puke:

[WillyT]

56. Fucking Great...

:puke:

:kick: & Rec !!!

[proud patriot]

60. VERY DISAPPOINTED

x(

[LLStarks]

61. You guys suck. Whenever an opportunity for jobs pops up, you shun it for minor environmental reasons

[XemaSab]

70. If this is "minor"

what exactly constitutes "major" in your mind?

[WillyT]

84. Prostitution Is Also A Growing Industry, But I Shun It... For Personal Reasons, You ???

Lotsa "job" opportunities, ya know???

:shrug:

[Hissyspit]

93. Minor?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21thu2.html

"The risks are real. An earlier pipeline — carrying tar sands oil to the Midwest and built by TransCanada, the company planning to build Keystone XL — has had several spills, including recent ones in North Dakota and Kansas. The E.P.A. suggested that the State Department also needed to give more consideration to how constructing and operating the pipeline would affect wetlands, migratory birds and the communities it would pass through.

The E.P.A. has also asked the department to re-examine its assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands oil. And, the agency notes, both of the environmental assessments failed to consider alternative routes.

These concerns should not be news to the State Department. There has been an outcry against the proposed route of Keystone XL, including protests from senators from Nebraska and Kansas. We oppose this pipeline for several reasons besides its threat to the aquifer. There is already enough capacity to carry tar sands oil from Canada to the United States, and the pipeline would have no effect on oil prices, which are set in international markets.

The extraction process also destroys precious boreal forests, pollutes regional water supplies and creates substantially more greenhouse gases than conventional crude, though Canada insists it is making significant progress toward reducing emissions. On the merits — economic and environmental — and in terms of future energy policy, this is the wrong pipeline for the wrong oil."

[Lorien]

112. Wow, you call "game over for climate change" a MINOR environmental reason???

that's what a top NASA scientist said would happen if this pipeline went through. So now you are just like a science denying teabagger, eh? And what about GREEN jobs??? Millions of those COULD be created right now to help ease the transition that will happen with peak oil AND slow climate change, but no, planet killers come first, right?

[LLStarks]

154. Yup. Because this will create jobs with 100% certainty. Not these nebulous green jobs down the road.

[dana_b]

165. "game over for climate change" is

equal to "game over for us"! Having a job that is assists in killing the majority of the species on the planet is worth it? I am stunned.

[bluetexas]

159. Excuse me, who sucks???

This NOT minor.

We can have jobs without destroying our environment. We just need some fucking leadership.

[smiley_glad_hands]

62. You do know we need oil in the short term?

Not saying i'm totally for this pipeline, but we still use and need oil.......

[bvar22]

79. THAT oil will be sold on the World Market.

Its NOT like they're doing something for America.
This will be ALL PROFIT for the Global Oil Corporations.

If you're lucky,
maybe "they" will let you BUY some at some exorbitant price.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[dflprincess]

100. You do know we need the Ogallala Aquifer more - short & long term?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

The Ogallala Aquifer, also known as the High Plains Aquifer, is a vast yet shallow underground water table aquifer located beneath the Great Plains in the United States. One of the world's largest aquifers, it covers an area of approximately 174,000 mi² (450,000 km²) in portions of the eight states of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. It was named in 1898 by N.H. Darton from its type locality near the town of Ogallala, Nebraska.<1>

About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for irrigation. In addition, the aquifer system provides drinking water to 82 percent of the people who live within the aquifer boundary.{/b]

And Obama and his corporate master think building a "1700 mile long pipeline transmitting sludge and benzene" (thanks, Bvar22) is the thing to do.

What could possibly go wrong? :shrug:

[Pooka Fey]

108. + 1 billion gazillion

[dana_b]

141. 30% of the nation's groundwater?!

holy crap. ugh - I don't even want to think of what could happen if that filthy muck gets into that water.

[bhikkhu]

158. Current pipeline map:

...I don't support another pipeline by any means, but it seems a bit late to protest at this point. Most of our transport is dependent on oil, and I don't see that changing, even though I ride a bicycle myself.

[savannah43]

131. Do you actually think it's coming from Canada

for use in this country? Really?

[in_cog_ni_to]

64. OK. That's IT!

Rat bastard. WTF is wrong with that man. He OBVIOUSLY doesn't give a shit about the Democratic Party OR the ENVIRONMENT! Shame on him!

[SpiralHawk]

65. This is a heinous decision that all America will regret

You blew it, Barack. You totally blew it.

[Shagbark Hickory]

67. my hope tank is officially empty now.

And I dont think AAA is coming

[bvar22]

74. Well OF COURSE he did.

Bill Clinton's title of "Best Republican President EVER"
is in jeopardy.

Poor Old Dog.
It won't be near as much fun being 2nd Best.
Who Thrill Fucks the Runner Up?

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[amborin]

76. 740,000 acres of Canada's Boreal Forest Will be Destroyed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1790440

[QC]

82. I feel so hopeful!

:bounce:

[KoKo]

85. Of Course he Approves of IT! Along with "FREE TRADE for BUSINES," and NOT "FAIR TRADE"

He never changes what he is about. And his peeps love him for that.

I can't understand folks who just support whoever they like to the death of them...just like Repugs supported Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld to the death of them.

I really don't understand how ANYONE with "CONSCIENCE" could vote for something like that? :shrug:

[sasha031]

89. I am disappointed and depressed by this

but not at all surprised.
:cry:

[anamandujano]

95. He will waste time and money running again, all the while

not caring if he will be re-elected, not needing to be re-elected and most likely not being re-elected, as he has accomplished a lot of what his masters have placed him there for.

At this point I wish the Pukes would go forward with the stupid time waster of impeachment. He deserves it.

He is a disgrace, a sell out.

[Lorien]

113. He'll run to keep a real Dem from getting into office. nt

[russspeakeasy]

122. That is my thought too...

:toast:

[NorthCarolina]

96. Is this something that one would expect a "Democrat" to support? nt

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Autumn]

98. Well shit. I hoped he wouldn't approve it.

That sucks.

[AtomicKitten]

120. He didn't; Hillary did. The president has the final say and hasn't weighed in yet.

From the mis-titled Guardian article posted in the OP:

Bill McKibben, who helped organise the protests at the White House, said the approval from the State Department had been expected. The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, indicated last year that she favoured the pipeline.

"Everyone has known exactly what they would say all along. And everyone knows that they've valiantly ignored the elephant in the room - the fact that this would go a long ways towards opening up the world's second-largest pool of carbon," he wrote in an email.

However, McKibben held out hope that Obama - who still has final authority over the project - might step in to stop the pipeline.

[Autumn]

143. Hillary's approval doesn't mean dick,

she works for Obama. His approval is all that counts. And if Hillary and the State Department are for it, then I would guess Obama is too.
"The Obama administration"

I will not believe that his State Department would go rouge if he has other thoughts. I would think that if HIS State Department approves it and announces it, he is fine with it.

[grahamhgreen]

99. What did he get from the R's and big oil in return?

[jimlup]

101. Is that the Obama bottom line or does he still have the refusal option? nt

[robinlynne]

102. drill baby drill......

[blindpig]

105. The bidness of America is bidness.

That's capitalism for ya.

[_ed_]

106. This isn't completely a done deal yet

but if he approves this pipeline, he'll forever lose my vote for 2012. Period. End of story.

[mistertrickster]

109. No point in doing something for his base after two years of zero . . .

[femrap]

114. Well....that certainly is

very GREEN ENERGY of him. What an Oil Boyz' minion.

[dmosh42]

115. This is for the Republican states! All cooperation from our suckball Dem leaders!

[AtomicKitten]

116. Read the article: Hillary favors the pipeline & State Dept cleared it, but O hasn't weighed in yet.

Bill McKibben, who helped organise the protests at the White House, said the approval from the State Department had been expected. The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, indicated last year that she favoured the pipeline.

"Everyone has known exactly what they would say all along. And everyone knows that they've valiantly ignored the elephant in the room - the fact that this would go a long ways towards opening up the world's second-largest pool of carbon," he wrote in an email.

However, McKibben held out hope that Obama - who still has final authority over the project - might step in to stop the pipeline.

As usual, DU overlooks the facts stated right in the OP article posted, aims ammo at the wrong person, and prematurely eviscerates all over these boards.

Ready.Aim.Misfire. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1s3iSQJmqyA/SnHghV0_03I/AAAAAAAAAys/bj3F5WktOsY/s200/Wile+E+Rocket.jpg

[AngkorWot]

117. What a non issue.

Stay classy, GD.

[Fearless]

123. Never thought I'd say this but... fuck Obama.

[AtomicKitten]

124. No, fuck Hillary. She supports the project and cleared it via the State Dept.

President Obama has the final say on the project but hasn't weighed in yet.

[Fearless]

126. Well when he takes a stand I'll take it back. But I'm not counting on it. And fuck 'em all IMO.

[defendandprotect]

160. +1 -- This is recklessness in exploitation of nature --- especially with Global Warming

breathing down our necks!!

And, Obama still has a new generation of nuclear reactors in the works!!

Obama is now turning out to be one of our most dangerous presidencies --

And he still has 15 more months to go -- !!!


Yikes!

[JJW]

134. Benefit of doubt

People giving Mr. O, corporate tool, the benefit of doubt need to realize people are being arrested for simply and peacefully protesting the pipeline, in front of the White House. Also instead of simply fining the people and letting them go, they are imprisoning them for a couple of days.

Shame on you, Mr. O.

[dana_b]

135. that's right

why keep these folks in jail for that long? Why jail them at all?

[defendandprotect]

161. +1000% -- Didn't know they were holding protesters in prison for days ....!!

Thank you --

and once again -- SHAME ON OBAMA !!

SHAME ON DEMOCRATS FOR NOT STANDING UP AGAINST OBAMA -- !!

[greiner3]

137. I can only find one positive here;

This lessens a way with another oil producing country in the next Republican administration; maybe.

[dbackjon]

138. Great - thanks for slaughtering 200 million birds

That breed in the forests that will be forever gone, thanks to the raping of the land.



FUCK YOU OBAMA.

[defendandprotect]

162. +1 ---

Haven't seen all the estimations on environmental damage --

but one insane bit of action after another by Obama --

including his new genration of nuclear reactors we will subsidize!!


Using nuclear energy to boil water to make steam -- !!! MIC is nuts!!

[dbackjon]

166. Some good info here

http://www.borealbirds.org/tarsands.shtml

[defendandprotect]

169. thank you! -- Just the stuff we're not hearing from our corporate-press ... !!!

Each spring more than half of America’s birds flock to the Canadian Boreal
forest to nest. There, every square mile (2.5 kilometers) of forests, lakes,
river valleys, and wetlands in the Boreal can support as many as 500
breeding pairs of migratory birds. Yet almost all the biggest oil companies
are mining and drilling important Boreal forest and wetlands—that could
eventually cover an area the size of Florida—to access thick, low-grade
petroleum. Canada and the United States must protect migratory birds and
bird habitat from this new form of high-impact energy development.


Tar sands oil development creates open pit
mines, habitat fragmentation, toxic waste holding
ponds, air and water pollution, upgraders and
refineries, and pipelines spreading far beyond
the Boreal forest. This development is destroying
habitat for waterfowl and songbirds that come
from all over the Americas to nest in the Boreal.
Each year between 22 and 170 million birds
breed in the 35 million acres of Boreal forest
that could eventually be developed for tar sands
oil. Faced with tar sands development, migrating
birds don’t just move elsewhere since they
depend on a certain type of habitat. Not only do
many adult birds die when faced with lost and
fragmented habitat and ponds of mining waste,
but future generations of birds will have lost their
chance to exist.


The Boreal forest tar sands area is incredibly
important for birds as a breeding habitat and as a
globally important flyway for a great abundance
and diversity of wetland-dependent birds. Unfortunately
the rapidly expanding industrial tar
sands oil extraction operations increasingly place
these birds at risk.

Virtually every facet of tar sands oil development
has the potential to harm Boreal birds—
many of which are migratory birds that are protected
by treaty and national law. Combining the
various estimates of the loss of birds from mining
and in situ operations, our research projects a
cumulative impact over the next 30 to 50 years
ranging from a low of about 6 million birds lost
to as high as 166 million birds lost. Beyond the
direct habitat effects, there are many other impacts
to birds that, while harder to quantify, are
known or expected to cause significant problems
for birds and other wildlife.

And -- it just seems more evidence of Peak Oil -- which we should be facing up to

rather than doing even more harm to nature and animal-life -- !!

[dogmoma56]

142. and make the oil people pay for it..!!

[indepat]

146. Fruition of another RW wet dream, all compliments of a democratic

administration: be damned the potential adverse environmental impact, for all that matters is maximizing mostly untaxed corporate profits. :patriot:

[defendandprotect]

163. "Compliments of Demcorats" -- that's something that needs to be pounded home to voters ....

Has to begin to become clear to voters that Democrats are no longer offering

the solutions we need --

they are too often now creating the problems we feared that the Repugs would create!!


http://www.stophoping.org

[pam4water]

148. :(

[spedtr90]

151. Current Keystone pipeline in US spilled 12 times in a year.

Current pipelines are a disaster. Now it's so much worse...

The Keystone I pipeline spilled 12 times in under a year of operation. (This despite assurances from the company that leaks would occur from Keystone only "once every seven years.")

In July 2010, 800,000 gallons of diluted tar sand crude spilled into the Kalamazoo River in Western Michigan from a pipeline owned by the Canadian company Enbridge. In fact, in 2010, Enbridge's Lakehead system spilled over a dozen times, accounting for more than half of all crude spilled in the United States last year.

A May 2010 breach at a North Dakota pumping station spewed over 500 barrels, like a geyser, into the air.

http://www.desmogblog.com/many-problems-tar-sands-pipelines

[defendandprotect]

155. Obama needs to step down from 2012 race -- will we even make it 15 more months?

[OwnedByFerrets]

157. Once again, not surprised, just vastly disappointed. Remind

me again why we voted for this man?

[woo me with science]

164. What a TOTALLY UNEXPECTED and OUT OF CHARACTER decision from this President!

Who would have EVER thought THIS President would side with the corporations?!

:sarcasm:

[pinboy3niner]

168. WHAT decision from the President?

This was not a presidential decision. One report by one department cleared the plan, with other agencies yet to weigh in.

What we have here is a false headline that wrongly atributes to the President a departmental action on a matter that has not yet reached his desk.

I don't know what the President may do in the end, but I know that an agency report is not a presidential decision.

[woo me with science]

172. I'm sure

you will be SHOCKED. :wow:

[pinboy3niner]

174. No, nothing would shock me

You may be reading more into my reply than was there: I merely pointed out the headline's mischaracterization.

If you took that as a disagreement with your view, or as a defense of the President, read it again.