General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre you OK with the Democratic Congresspeople voting for the Keystone Pipeline?
Will you be OK if enough Democratic Senators vote with the Repubs to over-ride a presidential veto?
If the answer is "Yes", then that is what is wrong with this fucking Party!
If the answer is "No", then they should know that they do not have our support in their idiotic votes.
spanone
(135,874 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)MineralMan
(146,331 posts)The oil will move, either by pipeline or rail. Both methods have serious issues. Here's another thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025817515
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)from people who seem to know what they are talking about.
Opposing this pipeline, however, is approaching religious fervor.
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)There's no simple answer on how to transport crude oil over long distances. I recognize that many of the opponents don't want the oil transported at all. That complicates things, since it will be transported. I want it transported in the way that has the least potential impact in all areas, from environmental to safety.
It's just not such a simple thing.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And why do you want it transported? How will that benefit the people of the US? Where is this filthy product going? And how is it in the interests of the US to destroy parts of our environment, what is the pay-off to this country?
Thanks in advance, I would like to see some of the reasons for any support of this pipeline that I have not seen before in order to consider anything I am not already aware of.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)MineralMan
(146,331 posts)You do not know me. Please do not assume you do.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)As for knowing you one thing is obvious, you're very condescending.
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)I suggest you read what I've written. The oil will be transported, because people use it. Nothing about that appears to be changing. So deciding how it will be moved is the question at hand. I support neither method. Both have serious problems. The oil will move, though.
See this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025817515
arthritisR_US
(7,292 posts)The Chinese will be very grateful because they carried none of the risk and all of the benefit at the peril of the earth and its people who mean nothing to them. Gee, the companies in my Calgary backyard are the same selfish pigs.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)"I'm not a proponent of the XL pipeline. I'm not necessarily an opponent, either."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025817515#post12
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)it will move either way. We're in an hour glass transition. Progress is being made, but far slower than I had hoped. In utopia it would happen quite quickly, the reality is there is so much money, greed and selfishness that for some that takes precedence over the future of the planet and humanity. Some days I do wonder what is polluted more, the planet or peoples minds with all of the propaganda and disinformation swirling around.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What he said was SINCE the oil will be transported, he wants it transported in a manner that would do/have the potential for the least harm.
People seem to think the U.S. government has a say in what happens with the oil. Recognizing that the U.S. doesn't, is not advocating for the project.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)money? When did that takeover of our country happen?
I believe MM is capable of speaking for himself. He stated there were problems with what those who oppose this pipeline are saying,
I asked him to inform us as to what those issues are so we could consider them. I oppose it, have researched it for a long time now both cons and pros, he has not responded, so I still do not know what those issues are.
If you are speaking for him, then I am even more concerned, as I have always assumed the US Government, not some Foreign Corporation or Foreign Government not known for their concern for the environment in their own countries, let alone ours, definitely DOES have a say in who gets to use OUR country for profit.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I suspect that MM is rather agnostic on the pipeline; but, the point (I believe MM was making) is the oil WILL come out of the ground ... And that oil WILL be shipped to market ... the U.S. Government has no say over that.
Even if the pipeline project is killed, the oil WILL still be shipped into, and through, the U.S. by rail (and, in a far lesser amount, by truck) ... and that is similarly problematic; but unless it wants to bar shipment of all oil, there is nothing the U.S. Government can do to stop that, either.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)give up worrying about it. I say make it as tough on them as possible. Stop the crazy pipeline and make stiff safety regulations on oil tankers.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I wouldn't say make it as hard as possible ... rather as SAFE as possible.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Except of course, for the unethical, corrupt oil corporations who have zero interest in anything other than THEIR profits.
What no one who is either for this pipeline or agnostic about it has explained to me is 'how does this in any way benefit the US'?
We do NOT have to transport this filthy product by train or pipeline through this country.
The oil is not FOR this country. All we would be doing is to facilitate the destruction of a large part of our own environment so that Foreign Corporations can benefit.
How does this pipeline, or any other mode of transport of this dangerous product, benefit the people of this country?
The original attempt to claim it would provide jobs has been thoroughly debunked, so that is no longer an issue.
Other than that dubious reason, how does the transport of this product benefit the American people?
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)keep flow of goods and services moving across the globe
I can go on, oil is the de facto fuel of our civilization, have a problem with that? I wish you luck getting the human race to abandon their comfortable ways.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)short-lived, thoroughly destructive Oil Era. And the change to alternative energy sources is happening so rapidly now, (we are always behind the rest of the world on these issues for some reason) that already the demand for oil is down.
Enjoy it while you can, I see Oil Trucks where I live, being replaced with Solar Energy trucks. I didn't expect to see that for many years to come.
It's exciting to be a part of this new era. The Oil Era will soon be history, and a bad part of human history.
Home Depot is now selling do-it-yourself Solar products. When Department stores get into the act, you know the market is there and growing. And as the market grows, the wind and solar products have become much cheaper.
Sorry you are stuck in the past. It was just another blip on history's radar screen, it will pass because it is unsustainable.
IF this disastrous pipeline does come to pass, they are going to lose so much money. That alone has been a real incentive for many people to get off the 'oil drug' and to realize, 'we don't need it'.
Only old dinosaurs of the brief, bloody, greedy oil era are still struggling to justify it. The rest of the world is focused on getting off that particularly dangerous drug.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I so enjoy your screeds against reality.
Tell me about your plan to convince the human race to go back to no electricity, no cars, and only sail powered ships.........I find your ways fascinating and quaint.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"hasn't voiced an opinion on the issue of the pipeline", itself; but rather, is taking the fact that the Canadian companies WILL pump the oil out of the ground (something that the U.S. Government has no control over), and that once out of the ground, that oil WILL be transported to refineries and, ultimately, to market. The U.S. Government can, however, affect whether the oil travels through the U.S. (and to U.S. refineries) by killing the project, and to a lesser degree by restricting transport by rail (through changing the existing regulatory scheme).
How will the oil, once extracted, benefit the U.S.? There will be the refinery work, and if transported by rail, the railroad car sales and the rail transport fees, most of which go to companies domiciled in the U.S.; if transported by pipeline, there will be a short-term realization of construction jobs, along with the refinery work.
True ... by killing the pipeline, the oil will be slowed; but again, there is no way to ban this particular oil, since we DO allow other filthy products to be transported by rail throughout this country ... unless you are suggesting starting a trade war with our neighbors to the North.
The ultimate destination of the oil is, really, irrelevant ... the oil will affect global prices (slightly), as this oil purchased by China is oil China won't be purchasing on the global market.
Actually, what has been "debunked" is not WHETHER jobs will be created ... everyone agree that there will be jobs ... the thing "exposed" is the nature of the jobs ... the vast majority of the pipeline related jobs will be temporary jobs during the construction phase, lasting 2-5 years, though there will be an uptick in permanent pipeline monitoring and maintenance jobs, plus the gulf coast jobs related to refining the oil.
Now ... None of this response is me taking a position advocating for the pipeline, as I do not favor it ... (like MM) not for climate change reasons. Even "Bill Nye the Science Guy" (this morning on one of MSNBC talk shows) stated that killing this pipeline project will have little affect on climate change because, even without the pipeline, the oil will still be extracted, refined and will make it to market. My objection to the project is that we have yet to find an environmental safe method for transporting it ... pipelines leak, pipelines affect wildlife migratory patterns and train cars leak and crash.
Secondly, none of this response will convince anyone whose opinion on the pipeline starts and ends with the unlikely proposition that the oil should stay in the ground.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 16, 2014, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)
environmental damage due to bad policies when it comes to supplying our energy needs, we may as well allow even more?
You are right, this argument will not change the minds of those who KNOW how damaging our energy policies have been. They are the cause of most of our brutal wars, tragic destruction of the Environment, greed, corruption and worse, huge influence over our government by some of the most unethical people on the planet.
Especially since we know, none of it is necessary. That back in the seventies it was known that we could begin the change to alternative energy sources.
Had we put the same amount of money and effort into that change, we would long ago have ended our dependence on oil. But then, there would not have been a need for WAR and the Oil Cartels would not have the power they now have, or the money.
So we are supposed to just throw our hands in the air and say 'oh well, it's already a done deal, the destruction of the planet, so let's just speed it up. Let's not oppose anything they do, like FRACKING, like the Keystone Pipeline, because our destruction is inevitable and we are not capable of finding other ways.
No thank you, those of us who oppose the continued destruction of the planet, may lose, thanks to those who keep on excusing it, but IF there are future generations, I would like them to know that we tried not to leave them with a planet that has been made practically unlivable for them. For whatever that is worth.
Otoh, if all those who put politics before what is right, would join in the effort to begin to halt that destruction, we might actually succeed.
I am far more angry at those who know we should be ending this dependence on oil, who know how ruthless the Oil Cartels are, see their murderous actions in the Third World eg, yet attack US rather than those they should be angry at. For political purposes.
I don't expect anything of BP, Exxon or any of the rest of them, their history shows how unethical they are, but they could keep not on doing what they do without the help of those who continue to make excuses for them.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"No" ... that's not what I am saying ... rather, killing the pipeline project will do little to meet the climate change coalition's goals.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have enough evidence of the potential environmental disasters it will create to know that just stopping it will protect our country's environment from what has happened already in theirs.
We were told, airc, 18 days before the Gulf Oil Spill, that we no longer needed the ban on Offshore Drilling because 'technology, according to my advisers, has advanced since 30 years ago and will prevent the kind of disaster the ban was supposed to prevent'.
Of course we knew that was not true. Who WERE these 'advisers' anyhow, Oil Corp shills? And then 18 days later 11 men died and our Gulf was destroyed for generations to come.
Keeping the ban in place, we were told, would 'do little' to protect the environment. What we know now is, the ban was not extensive enough to protect the environment.
So forgive me if I am supportive of even a 'little' environmental damage. We need MORE protection from these oil corporations, not less.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)their lands to do it.
No, we allow it. Isn't a damn thing in existence about must for this. How would they go about forcing us to?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but there are two considerations: first, their "plan" is/was to transport the oil to the gulf coast for refining.
That was why (soon to be former) Senator Landrieu (and most other gulf coast politicians and a significant portion of gulf coast residents) favored(s) the project, i.e., refinery JOBS.
Secondly, there is no way to ban this particular oil, since we DO allow other filthy products, i.e., oil, to be transported by rail throughout this country ... unless you are suggesting starting a trade war with our neighbors to the North.
Again ... None of this response is me taking a position advocating for the pipeline, as I do not favor it ... (like MM) not for climate change reasons. Even "Bill Nye the Science Guy" (this morning on one of MSNBC talk shows) stated that killing this pipeline project will have little affect on climate change because, even without the pipeline, the oil will still be extracted, refined and will make it to market. My objection to the project is that we have yet to find an environmental safe method for transporting it ... pipelines leak, pipelines affect wildlife migratory patterns and train cars leak and crash.
Secondly, none of this response will convince anyone whose opinion on the pipeline starts and ends with the unlikely proposition that the oil should stay in the ground.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Nor do I give a damn about "trade wars", what the hell are they going to do and why do I care if they do it? Keep your "bacon", syrup, your boring ass hockey, and your fucking Labatts Blue.
How about we stop providing security for international trade and let them pay for it?
If our neighbors to the north want to poison or water supply and wreck the habitat for a few bucks then they are welcome to more than a trade war, in my opinion. At that point, it is a water matter and they would pose an existential that makes them subject to hot war.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that is clear ... And the luxury of those NOT having to exist in the real (political) would where "F@#% it" is NOT an answer, as every decision has down stream ramifications.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Put that downstream ramification in your pipe and smoke it.
Canada can't do a damn thing but suck it, if we tell them to suck it or face existential threat themselves and one a lot quicker and more final than what they want for us to make a few bucks.
They can all go to hell and if they jump bad then send them there. Good enough for ISIS, good enough for those wishing to kill us for filthy lucre.
In fact, that poison is orders of magnitude greater direct threat than a bunch of yahoos half a world away running around in light trucks and trying to go back to the stone age.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(all except for the "Put that downstream ramification in your pipe and smoke it." part)
And that is the basis of my reservation with Keystone, in particular, and ALL transport of oil through the U.S., in general, However, my solution is NOT to ban this particular project/transport; but work to find an environmentally safe(r) mode of transport, as we work to transition to green/renewables.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)You are damn near a generation out, at best with that being fantasy because who is trying to do any such thing but rather as much as they can as cheaply as possible. Add in development and implementation and you are most likely solving yesterday's problems tomorrow.
It is unavoidable that the threat to the already under more than extreme duress water supply is magnifying while this approach plays out.
In fact, if one were serious about safe(r) forms of transport they would cut off and putting gremlins in the gears of unsafe ones and allow necessity to be the mother of invention instead of doing nothing but allowing threats to increase. "Who could have seen this coming" and some resigned hand wringing won't mean a thing when the shit hits the fan.
It is sort of like the Chinese "agreeing" to only ramp up the pollution for another 15-16 years. Have you out seen what it looks like on a good day with the factories on shutdown now? That'll fix it, that's the ticket.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But their plan is/was to transport the oil to the gulf coast for refining.
That was why (soon to be former) Senator Landrieu (and most other gulf coast politicians and a significant portion of gulf coast residents) favored(s) the project, i.e., JOBS.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)"This presumably accounts for some of the spin-off jobs. In the case of Keystone XL, it seems as though the intention is to export significant amounts of this petroleum abroad after its processed into gasoline, diesel and other products at existing Gulf Coast refineries, so its not clear how many additional jobs might be created. The notion of spin-off jobs is so vague and imprecise that it is impossible to predict beforehand or even estimate after the fact." http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2013/05/10/pipe-dreams-how-many-jobs-will-be-created-by-keystone-xl/2/
If existing infrastructure is used at the other end, there may be no need for significant new jobs in the refineries. mojo
DeadEyeDyck
(1,504 posts)That is one place it is going.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Gasoline goes in cars, goes go Vroom-vroom on the highway.........
I don't think I can make it any simpler as to why I want this "filthy product" that powers our civilization transported.
The pay off is oil transported from the source to refineries.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)all but about 100 years of its entire history. Sorry, but the days of 'vroom-vroomers' are numbered.
All over the world people are taking matters into their own hands and finding out that not only can they live with that filthy product, but life is a whole lot better once the stop being dependent on it.
I am thrilled to be among those who are moving away from dependence on what was after all, just a very short period in the history of the world.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I want an internal combustion engine and fortunately you have no power to deny one to me. Thank Goddess for that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)understand. Not to worry, when all the combustion engines are out of commission, or piled up in landfills around the world, those of us who have those skills will be happy to help you get acquainted with a horse.
They are wonderful creatures, they don't run out of gas, break, stop running on the highway, cost a fortune, they work with you and they are far less dangerous than combustion engines.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)yeah.....I will be dead long before the world runs out of oil. I have another 40 years in me minimum and I am not worried.
AND I know how to ride a horse, I did grow up in West Texas, I just don't need one when I have a car that runs of gasoline. As always I enjoy your rants disconnected from reality.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)but you might get burned.
arthritisR_US
(7,292 posts)are left, after the derailment, see if they see the oil industry as being good stewards of public safety?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The oil will only move if it's cost effective to do so. With the pipeline, that break-even point is much lower. So keeping it on the tracks keeps more of it in the ground.
Additionally, running a railroad creates more jobs than running a pipeline.
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)be profitable to produce and transport this crude. It's not necessarily true that less will move if the pipeline is not built, but it is true that less of it will move in tank cars on our railroad lines. We're one disaster away from people understanding just how dangerous rail transport of crude oil actually is. St. Paul or Seattle could be that disaster location. I hope not.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)No matter what, it costs more to move by rail than to move by pipeline. That's why they want the pipeline so badly.
Yes, moving by rail won't keep it all in the ground forever. But it'll keep more of it in the ground than the pipeline.
Because a neighborhood near my childhood home didn't explode from a pipeline leak. It was raining gasoline. Then something caused a spark.
Neither pipelines nor rail transport are safe.
arthritisR_US
(7,292 posts)the transport, it's the energy. Time to get real about alternatives and give them all the breaks the oil whores have had!
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)If only we had stayed with Jimmy Carter's visionary energy policy that was implemented in 1978 and then trashed by Ronald Reagan a few years later, our energy situation would be so much better!
arthritisR_US
(7,292 posts)him. Looking at the disgusting breathing environment the Chinese now live in, Carter would literally been a breath of fresh air if his policies had been implemented. Alas, greed won out.
arthritisR_US
(7,292 posts)universe will see it differently, but who gives a feck.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)create profits for Koch?
arthritisR_US
(7,292 posts)it.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I would object to it traveling through my city county or state by rail or truck or pipeline.
Let Canada run it through their own goddamn country.
Some folks seem to think, however, that shutting down the pipeline will stop the extraction of product and that's just not so.
Similarly, others think that supporting the pipeline is like supporting the extraction of product, and that's not exactly so, either.
The sludge will flow, no matter what.
Same with fracking, it's been going on for years and will keep happening.
The smart thing to do is to press for full disclosure of the specific admixtures to the fluid, we have the right to know and that's a very realistic objective to have.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)You can get a leak in a pipeline that goes on for years and
years undetected until one day you are taking a bath and
light a smoke and BOOM.
Now I realize that's hyperbole; of course you would taste
or smell something funny sooner. But probably not until
you had been drinking cooking and bathing in it for months.
A train accident is terrible and can be catastrophic of
course in a different way. But the danger is not hidden,
and the causes are not disputable.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Out of sight, out of mind.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)ctaylors6
(693 posts)It was an informative discussion of facts that are relevant to this issue.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)brooklynite
(94,728 posts)A significant majority of Americans support building the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a ABC/Washington Post poll released Friday.
Despite relatively widespread concerns about its potential effects on the environment, 65 percent of Americans said the government should approve construction of the pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada to Texas. That is an increase over a June 2012 poll that found 59 percent supported its construction.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/keystone-xl-poll_n_4919025.html
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Deliberately so, by our Koch-run media.
The public at large will not benefit. It will further degrade the environment, which we can ill afford to do.
brooklynite
(94,728 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So there's that. They could always do it that way. Like they do with virtually everything that people actually want.
arthritisR_US
(7,292 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We want politicians to do what "the people" want ... except when the people want something we don't want.
SunSeeker
(51,698 posts)Has any poll asked respondents if they are aware KXL will only move CANADIAN oil?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)That might affect the results. Just saying.
arthritisR_US
(7,292 posts)destined for American consumption you are misinformed.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)added to the thousands of miles of pipelines we already have?
I just don't get why this one has become the Last Stand of Liberalism.
FSogol
(45,526 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)this:
Robert Reich asks question about Keystone Pipeline.
"Question: Whos the largest foreign lease owner in Canada's oil sands region of Alberta, Canada?
Answer: Koch Industries, which holds leases on 1.1 million acres -- an area nearly the size of Delaware -- capable of producing tens of thousands of barrels of the region's thick brand of crude oil in the next few years. The Keystone XL pipeline will lower transportation costs for all oil sands producers, bolstering the Kochs profit margins. Do you think this might explain why Republicans (as well as some Democrats like Louisana Senator Mary Landrieu) are so eager to have the pipeline approved?"
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Some would say that is hypocritical!
rpannier
(24,338 posts)Throw in the word people after some and I know where I've heard that before
The thing is going to built over the most important aquifer in the United States. That's what makes this pipeline a bigger issue
Support for it has been built on a series of lies. My favorite two being the jobs created, if not the here the pipeline will be built to Vancouver. Both of which (along with many others) have been debunked. It will not create massive jobs and it will not get built west, because it's too expensive to build through the Rocky Mountains and it would have to be built through First Nations land and most of the councils will not let them.
30-40 years ago people thought it would be safe to dump crap into the deep wells in places like California and now with the drought conditions and water shortages, that water is being drilled into and that water is not not safe for people.
As to the other pipelines being built, they are not relevant to the conversation. Each project stands on its own merit, not on the merit of some other project. Some are safer than others. This particular one has a lot of potential for disaster that if it occurs cannot be undone easily and the consequences could be massive.
In this day of less regulation being the mantra of the Republicans it's even more dangerous.
It's not hypocritical to oppose this pipeline and be okay with another one built somewhere else (despite what some would say).
I would argue it's intellectually weak to say if you don't oppose all or most of the pipelines then you shouldn't be opposing this one
joshdawg
(2,651 posts)Thanks.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)is his schtick
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)And the trains -- which have a safety record of blowing up neighborhoods and derailing into important tributaries -- don't run over it now. '
Did you miss the part where they're already there? Did you not LOOK at the map above?
As the price rises (and it will), the stuff is going to flow. One way or the other -- trains or pipes. And pipes are safer. And more trains from a lack of pipe will only make the number of accidents increase.
rpannier
(24,338 posts)And the map provides no context
It doesn't say when they were built
It doesn't say who built them
Were they built by a company like Keystone who had 25 moil spills in the US and Canada in their first year of operation (2010)?
Do those pipelines carry tar sands oil?
Does it say how much oil is piped through each of those every year?
It contains no analysis of any kind. It just says here are the oil pipelines.
The Enbridge Pipeline dumped 800,000 gallons of tar sands crude into the Kalamazoo River and the Exxon Mobile pipeline spilled 420,000 gallons into the Yellowstone River -- Does the map include that information?
Does the map include any information on the safety record of each pipeline?
Your analysis of their safety is not included in the map and it's the responsibility of the person who posted the map to show that it's relevant in this instance.
To claim that opponents of the pipeline treat it as religion when supporters would use a map that provides no proof of its relevance.
In conclusion, I could provide a map of High Security Prisons around the country and argue that its safe to build one across the street from an elementary school because there are so many. And, like with the map, provide no analysis as the potential risks and leave out safety completely.
There are thousands of prisons/pipelines, they're going to be built anyway, opposition is almost a religion... etc
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)Our nation's rolling stock and infrastructure are a joke. And they're getting older. And they're being used more. Which leads to data like this: More oil spilled from trains in 2013 than in previous 4 decades, federal data show
Oh, and blowing up a small town is preferable?
Lac-Mégantic rail disaster
More people died in one day from an oil train than from all transmission line accidents in 20 years. One. Day.
In conclusion, pipes are cheaper, more reliable and less likely to kill off whole towns. And there are NO alternatives to pipelines other than 50- to 100-year-old railroads. Unless we all go back to the horse and buggy tomorrow.
If you have a better idea, please share.
cally
(21,596 posts)because rail transport is better for the environment than trucks. Saying our rail lines are old is the point. We have a public policy of subsidizing oil and gas and highways which harms us. Upgrading our aging infrastructure is needed.
I just traveled in France on rails. World of difference. Fast, efficient, smooth, and relatively cheap compared to driving.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)You know there haven't been new rail lines built in this county for decades, right?
Besides, pipes are cheaper to build and maintain. And they kill fewer people. Personally, I'd be more pissed if they built a rail line through my neighborhood to haul crude oil than a pipeline. Not a huge fan of either, but if given the choice between rail and pipe -- which we are being given, since the oil will flow -- I think a new pipe is better than an old rail line.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)That's the real problem with the pipeline-- Koch's make more money.
Well, they're going to make money no matter what we do or don't do. And then they will die and the world still goes on about its business.
The better place to put our energy and feeble demands might be in finding ways to reduce our dependence on oil.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)We do not get any money, only the Koch brothers get paid for refining it. They pay their workers shit. Trans Canada will use their own crews to build it and will take the lowest bid from US companies to work as diggers. Low bidders do not incorporate the safety equipment needed to prevent spills, oil companies do not go the extra mile to insure the land is safe-they do not care. Canadians voted to disallow the oil to go to their coast. Why do we have to carry Canada's dirty oil? Why continue oil recovery at all when wind and solar are better. If we subsidized clean energy like we do oil, we wouldn't need oil at all. There is enough plastic in the world to carry on, and vasaline is corrosive.Synthetic oil is strong for lubing equipment. Why carry on with the farce of oil?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Namely, a bunch of contaminated water being dumped in the LA wetlands.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)The good people of the Golden Triangle would loudly object to your geographical skills.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)even understand how to clean it up if there is a leak. And while they are telling us that they have the latest in new safe technology - I do not believe them. That is what they told us about the BP Gulf spill also. Those of us who live around and above that aquifer want it preserved.
We do not want to destroy one of our greatest natural resources so an oil company in Canada and the Koch brothers can get richer by transporting someone else's oil to the Gulf to be sold on the world market to the highest bidder.
They are also lying to us about how many jobs will be created. I have a pipeline a mile from my home. About 50 workers spent one summer here and the only workers we have seen since came to fix a leak.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)MatthewStLouis
(904 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)which we're already depleting faster than any oil will get to it. By the time the damn pipe is built it could be dry.
OK, probably not, but it's not going to last for long and no one seemed to care about depletion, or the other pipelines crossing the Ollagalla, until this one came up.
I'm not friends with the Koch's either, but there are bigger problems in that area than one more pipeline.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)depleting the waters. Yes, there are bigger problems but this is one we can do something about.
One of the big issues is the continued use of fossil fuels instead of using money to move toward alternatives. I think you can divide the two groups along this line just as much as about the safety of the aquifer. It is not just one issue. There is seldom any issue that is.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Fair point indeed, considering thousands of kids are starving in America day after day, and some are laser focused a pipeline, when it appears, thousand of feet of existing pipelines are across the U.S.A.
rpannier
(24,338 posts)As I said in another post on this topic, other pipelines have nothing to do with this one.
In fact, you can readily argue, that not opposing all of them, shows a little more thought went into the opposition.
Each pipeline should stand on its own merits as far as safety goes and necessity goes.
This project is built over the most important aquifer in the United States. A disaster over the aquifer is likely unfixable, and even if it were, the economic and environmental damage would likely be huge and long lasting.
In the 70's and 80's, crap was dumped into the deepest wells in California, with the belief that any damage would be non-existent. Now, with the severe drought conditions, that water is being pumped into and it's unsafe.
The argument is over the Keystone Pipeline, not the other ones. Some maybe safer than others, and/or have less potential for long term disaster than this one does. The project has been sold on a pack of lies: the pipeline will not get built to British Columbia, it's too expensive and it would have to go through First Nation lands, which most of the First Nation councils oppose. And, again, even if they didn't, building through the Rocky Mountains would be a financial loser.
It also will not create the amount of jobs its supporters have claimed. And even when that figure is shown to them, they just ignore it.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)of pipelines already working (that map is only the big ones) is irrelevant?
Maybe you have a specific objection to the petition to have thinner steel in some sections? Maybe you think this one will be less safe than all the other ones working without spilling or damaging?
But, do you have specifics? It's not a bad thing to take extra steps for safety when experts disagree, but just how many expert hydrologists actually say there will be damage if there is a spill in that small stretch over a small corner of the aquifer.
And how many engineers have put together damage assessments and calculated the probablitlites of a spill?
"Oh the smallest chance is too big" you say. Well, that could be said about any major project.
I don't see any compelling economic or logistic reason for this pipeline, but neither do I see any compelling reason to stop it.
Of course, if you just hate the Koch brothers, that could be cause enough...
rpannier
(24,338 posts)Where did I mention the Koch Brothers?
NOWHERE
Decent arguments die when you throwout shit that wasn't said or even inferred in my argument
I guess it's easier for you to take the low road
arthritisR_US
(7,292 posts)am from Canada, living in Calgary and disgusted by this assault on the environment and people's property and well being.
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)dirty oil. The pipeline will join the other hundreds or thousands under my community here on the Texas Gulf coast. This refinery already dumps tons and tons of pollution into OUR environment! Let Canada do it!
IronLionZion
(45,528 posts)they can't make the case for it. Go ahead, ask them how they calculated their numbers and who benefits.
They just spun it out of nothing, so they can have something to run against. Those dirty hippies are killing your jobs is like how Obama's going to get your guns and turn you gay. It appeals to a certain type of voter during election season.
2naSalit
(86,779 posts)not at all okay with that. And I am not okay with the whole political system we now have either.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)just about everywhere I've been lately.
2naSalit
(86,779 posts)I spoke to my local legislative candidate who lost his race last week. We both are not happy about the "talking points" employed by many in our party and the whole government in general.
It's sad, and one of the big problems is that civics is no longer taught in schools so that citizens understand their role in this allegedly representative government. In fact, it sucks.
But cheer up, democracies seem to fade away after about two centuries.
whathehell
(29,090 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)(in this case, the environmentalists) comprises the best strategy for strengthening the Party and (at least theoretically) subsequently advancing progressive causes.
The last 20 years have demonstrated the bankruptcy of that strategy, but here we are...
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,886 posts)Menendez and Booker for my Senators.
They know better than to vote for this.
FarPoint
(12,437 posts)Uhmmmm No, not one vote by a Democratic Congress member PLEASE!
jwirr
(39,215 posts)ISUGRADIA
(2,571 posts)Waltz, Peterson and Nolan
jwirr
(39,215 posts)strong union.
Maineman
(854 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)malaise
(269,157 posts)Rec
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)"Cuz dem policies are always different and preferable to republicans!"
closeupready
(29,503 posts)and they can account for that vote as they wish, but no, I would not be okay with it.
My reps are voting against, IIRC, so there's that.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Ugly predictability from the familiar Third Way talking point machine.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025767160
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)There's a thread right now basically saying if you're against the pipeline you're for hazmat truck accidents. Like you said, predictable and ugly.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)They've been doing this for a long time now. It is so transparent and predictable. Imagine that lying bunch going door to door for GOTV. No damn wonder Democrats lost so much in this last election. Shysters, verbally abusive jerks, and cold-hearted obviously conservative lying snobs representing the party is no way to win. And now, here we are.
Marr
(20,317 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Fuck, how low will they go? I can't believe this thread full of authoritarians in the truest sense of the word, trying to justify something so harmful. For what? Isn't Obama supposed to veto it? Why are the talking points foaming the runway already out?
DU, you have jumped the shark!
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I'm pretty f&%kin' far from OK.
wavesofeuphoria
(525 posts)Kudos for the Pulp Fiction reference
madashelltoo
(1,699 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,319 posts)I say remember how gas prices came down when they built the Alaska pipeline? Yeah, neither do I.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)They have to have permits approved to refine that tar sands crap/sludge.
vlyons
(10,252 posts)Peee Uuuuu
on point
(2,506 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)on point
(2,506 posts)Our society has limited investment potential. We need to see to it that we de-invest from carbon and invest in alternatives. If the pipeline seems like a good deal to private people then incentives are all wrong. I suggest a HEAVY import tax and a HEAVY per mile transport tax to help them get it straight.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Congress and Obama vetoes.
I'm also bookmarking to remind DU that not all Democrats are liberal and those non-liberals stood in the way of adopting Medicare for All or universal health care; they also rejected a public option.
Bottom line: We can blame Obama all we want, but it is those Democrats who resisted these progressive policies. I will never forget those weeks I spent calling the offices of Blue Dog Democrats--and even many so-called moderate Democrats--who were rejecting a public option outright. Well, if they were rejecting the public option, what makes us think they'd support universal health care?
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)"Democratic" Party. We do not march to the same tune unlike the GOP. Most Senate Dems will vote against it but a few will vote for it. As frustrating as it is, I'm glad I belong to a party that believes in Democracy. Like it or not, and for pete sakes not all of the Democratic congress voted for it. Damn.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)and it turned out that I couldn't even support the final mark myself.
Gah...The whole situation makes me sick.
Fla Dem
(23,744 posts)ybbor
(1,555 posts)TNNurse
(6,929 posts)Was I clear?
CanonRay
(14,113 posts)and we should kick their collective asses out of office.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I am not okay with Democrats voting for the pipeline.
irisblue
(33,023 posts)The Ogallala aquifer is too vitally important to trust that a pipeline will not eventually leak and contaminate it. And my (good) Senator Sherrod Brown and idiot troll Senator Portman and Rep Joyce Beatty will be getting phone calls and letters from me on this.
hamsterjill
(15,224 posts)Because there is not agreement on this subject. That's not a condemnation, but merely an observation.
I am against the Keystone Pipeline being built. Yes, there are other pipelines. Yes, I want the Koch Brothers to suffer in just about any way possible. If they are successful, that only gives them more money to use against Democratic candidates. For me personally however, the devastation to habitat and wild life is a great factor to be against the pipeline.
But mostly, I want oil dependence to become a thing of the past. I want the focus to be on renewable energy. If we keep building pipelines, there is less emphasis placed on changing the way we drive.
MatthewStLouis
(904 posts)The temporary American jobs, the oil jobs for Canadians, and the oil profits for the Koch brothers aren't worth the likely billions and billions of dollars worth of environmental disaster waiting to happen. Let 'em pump it across Canada.
Remember the crass saying "you don't sh_t where you eat".
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)how can we keep track?
I hope the young people can start a new party that makes sense and really represents the people. The Congress are bejilionaires who don't give five fucks if society and this nation cave as long as they have their bank accounts and private enclaves.
What can you do but tell them off and hope for better from better, more ethical people in a brand new people's party?
Imagine if all the people who didn't vote, voted instead for a REAL party, not just the US Olympics Legal Team for corporations that our political parties have become?
ffr
(22,671 posts)The first one falls under 'representation.' They represent their state's interests and that of the public inside their state. So yes, they could very well support whatever it is that their constituents are in favor of.
The second question is certainly not, but that's based on 'opinion.' The Keystone Pipeline is a shortsighted destructive project.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Thast won't keep it from happening.
It only proves that all of the Republicans and about half the Democrats should be booted from office. Our representatives simply no longer represent us.
MatthewStLouis
(904 posts)Just those pictures alone should make sane people take pause.
H2O Man
(73,605 posts)I consider any vote in support of Keystone (or hydrofracking) to be a betrayal of the ethical standards for democrats.
Recommended.
trueblue2007
(17,238 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Since there have been so many accidents or to go ahead with the pipe line. The crude is still going to the refineries on the gulf coast so the method of transportation could be questioned. I realize environmentists has concerns but where are their concerns on shipping by rail.
The stories if the number of jobs created is questionable, becoming free from foreign oil will not be realized by USA in cutting fuel cost.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Through a pipeline?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)and buggy. Oh, this would require more fossil fuels which would really be good for the environment. Foot power could overtake again.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Like driving, flying,etc, I need to arrive faster. All who wants to live and use other means of transportation, go for it. Oh, it means living off the grid.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Sounds good, don't think all vehicles will be electric within the next five years. Solar sounded very good 20 years ago but you got the same bunch fighting solar who wants to keep oil based files in vehicles.
I have not been for the pipeline but they are still transporting the crude on rail and by truck, this isn't as safe as a pipeline so if I am really concerned about the environment I go with safer method of transportation.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Burning it will cause lots of cancers, respiratory illness, drinking water contamination, and may well be the death Nell for civilization due to global warming. Also, there will be serious devastation to wildlife and the environs surrounding the tar pits.
You charge electric vehicles with wind energy (cheapest way to produce electricity, save natural gas, or hydro), and solar, and hydro.
It costs 1/10 - 1/3 the amount per mile to drive electric vs gasoline!
I give you flying though.... No good alternative there that I know of.
democrank
(11,104 posts)Absolutely not
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Not Congress's
Not the president's.
1monster
(11,012 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)If a congressperson voted as a liberal 99% of the time but, for some unfathomable reason, was under intense local pressure to vote for this, I could at least accept it. If a liberal felt that kind of pressure, any conservative alternative would vote for it in a heartbeat and would not support any of the liberal causes.
In reality, there is no reason for there to be any intense local pressure to approve it, since it does no locality any good.
rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)And any one of them that does vote for it, they will be campaigned against by every single climate activist... and those ranks are growing daily.
And in addition, their vote on that will be historically noted - if they are concerned about a legacy to show their grand kids, that sure as hell won't be something they will ever be proud of...
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)I won't care if some Dems in vulnerable districts are allowed to vote for it.
That's politics.
shallwechat
(13 posts)From what I understand, it will create few permanent jobs besides those in Louisiana (i guess), usa takes all risk in pipeline spills.
onecaliberal
(32,895 posts)williesgirl
(4,033 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,714 posts)I see a trend here.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)A huge majority of the country supports it. It's not important enough issue to draw battle lines like abortion or marriage equality or other issues that have been in the focal point of politics recently. Ultimately, I do think Obama should veto it - but he can afford to take the hit.
Martin Eden
(12,875 posts)For the most part they have tacitly accepted the false narrative that the pipeline is a job creator and will lower gas prices while making America more energy independent. It simply isn't true.
The real winning issue here for a Party willing to make it a major platform is moving away from dirty fossil fuels and towards sustainable energy technologies that are better for our economy and absolutely imperative for the health of our people and our planet's ecosystems.
The importance of this issue goes far beyond a few races that might hinge on the pipeline issue among voters who believe the false narrative. We may have a very difficult time persuading some of them, but I think there is a tremendous opportunity to attract a big chunk of the 63.4% who stayed home in the recent election.
Marr
(20,317 posts)project is enormous profits for the already enormously rich.
It amazes me that some see this as just another political sports event, and their opinion is based solely on what it means for their fucking team.
Moreover, how is public opinion being shaped? Are there thoughtful, in-depth investigations into the ramifications of the pipeline in between splashy stories about the Kardashians and celebrity baby bumps?
I seriously doubt it.
We are going to be undone by our own shallowness, conformity, and incuriosity.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)especially your last sentence
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)But Dems are pretty divided on it. 43% support it. 45% oppose it according to a recent Pew poll.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)The amount of support you gain is offset by the potential support lost either way. At least among Democrats.
I think they do know, and they don't give a flying fuck.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)how disappointing
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)onethatcares
(16,185 posts)and it is sure to break at one time or other, I will tell my reps "I told you so" in big letters.
they have bought into the jobs at any cost bullshit and they do nothing but piss me off anymore.
florida08
(4,106 posts)Extraction of tar sands emits three times more planet-warming carbon dioxide than conventional crude oil,
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/06/220248/rail-carries-canadian-crude-while.html#storylink=cpy
And hell no I don't want anyone voting for it but money trumps everything. I despise that a foreign entity can come in here and with eminent domain take whatever they hell they want including private family lands, destroy their drinking water with no redress or recoup. Most of all I absolutely abhor those with no skin in the game make a comment like...it's not in my back yard so why should I care? What the fuck is wrong with this country??
but then I am reminded daily that Congress doesn't really give a damn what I think. I feel like I'm shouting at the wind to stop blowing.
No no no
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)It will be a mark against any Congress critter that votes for it, and a makr for any one who votes for it.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)bury Landrieu under it!
IronLionZion
(45,528 posts)Keystone XL would run mostly through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska.
Plus not enough people realize that the Keystone pipeline already exists. They want to build another pipeline (XL) across a shorter route, to apparently replace the one they just built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline
LeftInTX
(25,555 posts)That's a load of fuuueeeyy
And conservatives are pushing this to the Nth degree....
There aren't going to be any jobs from this, except to build the shorter pipeline. The refineries are already guaranteed of getting their oil.
IronLionZion
(45,528 posts)and they found more oil than expected so they need a bigger shorter pipe. Anyone who reads up on it will quickly realize there are many other bottlenecks in the system, like the oil ends up in massive storage tanks since the refineries can't refine it fast enough.
These assholes mainly spun pure bullshit into a political issue. The truth is that Koch industries stands to profit handsomely from the new pipeline and associated business, and pipelines don't create many jobs, and a lot of people depend on the Ogalalla aquifer for their drinking water so it's just idiotic to route an oil pipeline over it.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,093 posts)tenderfoot
(8,438 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Obama put it exactly right - the Keystone Pipeline is about a foreign company building across OUR land, to sell their oil to other foreign countries.
Why the hell should we put OUR land at risk for THAT??
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Anyone that votes for this climate-killing project needs to get the fuck out of the party.
bhikkhu
(10,724 posts)keeping in mind:
one more pipeline isn't going to change things.
For the most part, we build pipelines to make the transportation of crude more efficient. The argument against them is, effectively, to keep the transportation of oil inefficient. Its a difficult argument to really get behind, as the main thrust of most energy conservation goals is to make our use of oil more efficient, and clean.
An argument I've heard is that if all of the extractable oil sands were burned it would lead to an increase of .5 degrees in global temperature. But this is if all of it were burned. I've read in the past that only 5% or so was under development.
Triana
(22,666 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)As Obama explained, it won't really increase the number of American jobs or benefit Americans in any way. The risk of serious environmental damage to our precious water resources is not worth it.
Kath1
(4,309 posts)Bad for the environment and does nothing for energy prices.
djean111
(14,255 posts)much as winning, so why bother having an opinion, right?
Anyway, the pipeline pales against the TPP. With the TPP and other Investor State-enabling "trade" agreements,, the Keystone folks can sue us and either put in the pipeline or take our tax money in lieu of expected profits.
So I will be watching who is for and against it. The TPP is something that will keep me from ever being okay with Hillary. And the TPP is bigger than a whole her of glitter-shitting ponies.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Traitors to our party and our planet, butmost of all, traitors to each and every decent person.
ms liberty
(8,597 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)I've never had a problem with this pipeline. The extracted petroleum is going to be consumed somewhere on this planet, and there's nothing that's going to stop that. May as well have some American jobs out of it.
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)An oil pipeline runs less than 2 miles from our place. In the past 10 years I have probably given 60 seconds thought about it.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)and it's <2 miles from our place so probably.
Maineman
(854 posts)Expand your horizons beyond the quadratic formula.
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)for the advice!
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... who will be wanting to try and create a big oil spill in the midwest and screw up our big water aquifer there. The ONLY people benefitting from this POS are the Koch brothers and other rich people invested in it!
Senators representing people and not big money need to JUST SAY NO UNEQUIVOCALLY!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,192 posts)That's if my one of my Senators vote for it. I'm from Washington State so I pretty much doubt they will. None of the Democratic Congressman from my state did.
Rhiannon12866
(206,016 posts)glinda
(14,807 posts)I am not even getting into the argument about "they need to move the oil that people use". No NO NO No and NO!
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)No. Leave it in the ground.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)John Barrow (Ga), Sanford Bishop (Ga.), Robert Brady (Pa.), James Clyburn (S.C.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Mike Doyle (Pa.), Al Green (Texas), Gene Green (Texas), Ruben Hinojosa (Texas), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Dan Lipinski (Ill.), Dave Loebsack (Iowa), Sean Maloney (N.Y.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Patrick Murphy (Fla.), Ricard Nolan (Minn.), Donald Norcross (N.J.), Bill Owens (N.Y.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Nich Rahall (W.Va.), Cedric Richmond (La.), David Scott (Ga.), Terri Sewell (Ala.), Albio Sires (N.J.), Bennie Thompson (Miss.), Marc Veasey (Texas), Filemon Vela (Texas) and Tim Walz (Minn.).
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I respect the argument that says we shouldn't have one more threat to our environment, even if there are already so many threats currently in place, since it will not benefit those who are most at risk. I think that is a good argument.
Not even.
IdiocracyTheNewNorm
(97 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)The only thing that concerns us voters is that our team "won". What happens after that? Mind your own business until it is time to vote for a "D" again.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)I've called all of mine-One Senator (Dem) said "Oh hell No" and the other "Dem reserves position statement until later" and that one got an ass-chewing for failing to define his position in a timely manner before he votes to allow constituents to weigh in...and in a Stunning move-the one blue dog voted NO....
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... would be better off without the neocons who have infiltrated for the last 35 years.
The upstream excuse that there are already numerous pipelines is a sorry bit of logic. It is like saying a hundred persons have been shot for no good reason, so why is it a big deal if a couple more are shot?
Investment in the carbon industry needs to stop. Invest in solar, wind, energy efficiency, etc.
Energy is one issue among many, all based on corporate control of a democracy on life support.
We must work to change the system -- like elections based on votes rather than money.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)obietiger
(500 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)joshdawg
(2,651 posts)HELL NO!
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)I'm kind of shocked at how many people on this thread seem to be ok with it. It's one of the many projects that privatize the profits while socializing the costs. That seems un-democratic to me.
Yes a lot of pipelines already exist. Just because those battles have been lost doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)I hate to have these horrible thoughts but there it
is; I do. I wish ill upon those who poison our planet.
May all of those who vote for this pipeline wake up
sick to death from the poisons they so love. May they
have flammable bath water, and inexplicable pox.
They think a little poison here, a little poison there,
no big deal because AMERICA! Yet a sizable portion of
humanity currently is ill from these toxins. Many have
lived their whole lives with environmentally caused,
crippling autoimmune disorders, cancers, and brain
disorders manifesting as mental illness.
Just as soldiers in Vietnam knew the agent orange
had made them sick -- these commercial poisons are
increasingly implicated in cancers, hormone dysfunction,
miscarriages and birth defects, autism spectrum, CFIDS
et al. And that's only the human population. All the
creatures who depend in the wild on air land and water..
poisoned. This can not go on.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)elzenmahn
(904 posts)...the only jobs might come from construction of the pipeline itself. Afterward, only a fraction might stay behind for maintenance. Also, does the US or any of her states get anything in the way of royalties or anything else for having foreign tar sands byproduct transported across our country's interior?
This whole thing stinks - on so many different levels.
turbinetree
(24,720 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)Just look at the confused, addled comments of some on this thread. For example, the Koch Bros just spent a fortune to defeat Obama and the Democrats and some morons, yeah morons, are ready to reward them for it. Forgive and forget. Idiots.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Just saw that on Facebook:
cally
(21,596 posts)and against oil and gas industries.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)classykaren
(769 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)about our support or what we want and that has been for more than a decade now.
Stainless
(718 posts)Thom Hartmann had a cost benefit analysis on his program before the election. The benefit for the Koch suckers was mind boggling. Spend 50 cents to make a hundred dollars was the equivalent ratio! The sad part is that no one pays any attention to this.
SunSeeker
(51,698 posts)But don't hold your breath for the MSM to do it.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)China and India are complaining energy costs are making it too expensive to do business there.
They wanted to send the oil to Vancouver across Rockies. The stupidity of that plan plus fact that Vancouver has no real refining ability killed it. For a brief time they said from Vancouver it could go to Ferndale - deep water, and at least one refinery. But they would need to build more.
From Houston it will go to China and India to fuel the economy created by shipping all of our jobs there. China has already signed a deal for Russian gas, now they get our crude oil as well. Texas (Houston) is already most polluted state in nation and they have near zero regulations and labor law enforcement.
Ironically, it will lead to higher energy costs here.
Democrats, like Republicans, just want money from Wall Street. Both parties will continue to fuck us over as long as Wall Street pays them to do it.
In the meantime, write to your Democratic representative and ask them why they are giving people another reason to not vote for Democrats. Republicans will get the credit for forcing Democrats to give up their principals. In the end, it will help Republicans more than Democrats.
Thanks to spineless unprincipled Democratic leadership 3rd way and "centrists" for continuing to fuck over the middle class.
G_j
(40,370 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)ecstatic
(32,731 posts)We should be transitioning away from oil, not digging in deeper.
That being said, we're still heavily reliant on oil. I would need to see a comparison analysis of the safety of transporting oil cross country by train/truck vs. the safety of traveling through pipeline to make a truly informed decision.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Oh wait,...we do.
The Sierra Club.
http://content.sierraclub.org/beyondoil/keystone-xl
Damn shame they're considered to be "Liberal" because the DC Villagers feel it's okay to point and laugh at them.
WestCoasterDude
(21 posts)No f*#^ing way!
Faux pas
(14,690 posts)So many reasons:
The Ogallala Aquifer-Why take a chance at ruining the water source of so many States. (He who owns the water owns the world)
It's a Canadian Company-They wont' be responsible for any clean up or compensating farmers or anyone if the damn thing blows.
It's Canadian oil-Seems to me that it's Canada's problem to transport where it needs to go.
People over profit-Should ALWAYS be the test of any projects here.
Etc, etc, etc.
kiranon
(1,727 posts)precious resource this country has. Reroute the pipelline to not cross any part of the aquifer. And, the Democrats need to get immigration reform passed in return.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)But it would not be worth not voting simply because the didn't do what I want them to do on this issue, just like many other things I would like to see, such as universal health care, more regulation on Wall Street, etc. Other things, like making sure a republican president will not be replacing members of the Supreme Court, are much more important when it's time to vote.
Piedras
(247 posts)Nor do I support fracking. I live in a currently drought stricken area of California. I think we should strongly support conservation and renewable resources. We need to protect clean water sources. I do not want to further enrich the Koch's, and their ilk, and their polluting businesses.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)enact the Ryan budget, separate food assistance from the farm bill, abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, privatize Social Security, open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage, move U.S. immigration policy further toward harsh and cruel treatment of immigrant families, etc. etc.?
I oppose the Keystone. It goes against my environmental ethics. It encourages the incredibly destructive practice of oil sands mining. It put even more pressure and risk on the already severely compromised environment in the Mississippi delta and the Gulf of Mexico. It prolongs our dependence on fossil fuel and delays our transition to saner alternatives.
The Democratic Party is by necessity a big tent and not everyone agrees on every question.
But I'll take a red state, Blue Dog, Democrat over any Republican every time. Winning control over congress is hugely important. Even a conservative democrat caucuses with the Democrats.
still_one
(92,396 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Corporate Democrats pretend to share liberal outrage at corporate policies enacted by Republicans, but conveniently omit their complicity and parallel betrayals. We have united oligarchy now, not gridlocked democracy. You wrote with indignation:
Are you okay with GOP congress voting to repeal the ACA, enact the Ryan budget, separate food assistance from the farm bill, abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, privatize Social Security, open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage, move U.S. immigration policy further toward harsh and cruel treatment of immigrant families, etc. etc.?
But let's be honest about the corporate Dems' actual record:1. Are you okay with GOP congress voting to repeal the ACA,
Oh, please. No way the ACA gets repealed. It is a corporate plan written by the insurance companies, and the mandate (which was the salivated-after goal in the first place) is already reaping the bloodsucking middlemen profits beyond their wildest dreams. No WAY the corporatists allow it to be overturned. Look instead for more "loopholes" like the one The Obama administration *already* carved out in order to help the companies shift even more costs to patients."Why Health Insurance Shareholders Are Loving Obamacare"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025517310
Aetna Health Insurance will double Revenues to $100 billion by 2020 thanks to Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014670789
ObamaCare Enriches The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/10/01/obamacare-enriches-only-the-health-insurance-giants-and-their-shareholders/
So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%.
Obama administration quietly approves new Obamacare loophole benefiting insurance companies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100249702982. enact the Ryan budget
We *already* watched the Obama administration and corporate Democrats collude with corporate Republicans during the debt ceiling Kabuki to demand austerity *even more severe than Paul Ryan originally asked for.* That was the POINT of Obama's putting Social Security on the table! ...So they could slash in the way they did and get cover for it by saying, "Well, at least they didn't cut Social Security! Let me repeat: Corporate Democrats sought austerity *greater* than that originally sought by Paul Ryan:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023791304#post143. separate food assistance from the farm bill.Ahem, you sure are trying hard not to notice that Obama just signed *another* round of food stamp cuts *AND* a farm bill based on "pension smoothing."
Feb 2014: President Obama signs $8.7 billion food stamp cut into law | MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-signs-food-stamp-cut
Democrats Accept More Cuts in Food Stamp Program | BillMoyers.com
http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/28/democrats-accept-more-cuts-in-food-stamp-program/4. open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling,And Obama sells off the Gulf of Mexico for the same reason, PLUS expands drilling and fracking, PLUS advocates privatizing the Tennessee Valley authority, PLUS is pushing to enact the most serious threats to the environment in recent memory: the TPP and the TISA. Psst: You CANNOT get on your high horse and claim to care about and be protecting the environment while pushing these devastating trade deals that cede our ability to use our own LAWS to protect against environmental abuse by corporations.5. amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage
Sure took Obama a good while to evolve on gay marriage. And corporatists on both sides of the aisle will continue to cynically use important issues of human rights as wedges to keep the people divided and unable to unite against the bipartisan corporate economic, war, and police state agenda that both corporate parties are using to loot and exploit us.6. move U.S. immigration policy further toward harsh and cruel treatment of immigrant families
And double that comment on using and abusing immigrants! We have been waiting for SIX years for Obama to take a stand on this issue, and we were just devastated in the *second* midterm elections of his presidency because corporate Dems colluded with Republicans by not pushing these issues and instead sending out "Accept Doom" emails through the DCCC and deliberately insulting the base in online campaigns. Meanwhile, Obama has continued arbitrary quotas *in his own 2015 budget* for private prison beds and is aggressively expanding private prisons that overwhelmingly house immigrants and people of color.
What an ugly charade corporate Democrats' denial of their actual record and agenda is. What a vicious corporate oligarchy pretending to be a democracy. What pathetic Third Way corporate talking points, when the actual relentless advocacy of corporate policy by corporate Democrats, in collusion with corporate Republicans, is so clear and in our faces.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)I never had the energy to respond to such a nonsensical response.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)that one is still a Democrat is so nonsensical here on Democratic Underground.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I know I've been posting all over the place to ignore the Third Way talking points when they're repeated here (and honestly I am still trying to do it most of the time), but sometimes the messaging is so brazenly hypocritical and insulting to anyone who's followed recent history that IMO it's worth exposing it point by point, if only to underscore what we are really dealing with in this corporate infiltration of the party. It has to end, because it's killing not just the party, but human beings and democracy itself.
Thanks for an excellent thread. A LOT of good stuff here.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)It sounds like you've made a complete break with the Democratic Party and with anyone who would dare to suggest that for all it's faults and disagreements, they still support the Party's overall electoral success.
You know, the Democratic Party? The party of Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Ron Wyden, Alan Grayson, Kieth Elliston, Sheldon Whitehouse, Raul Grijalva, Chris Murphy, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tammy Baldwin, Jan Schakowsky, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley, Barbara Lee?
You can shove your false and idiotic "third way" accusation right up your ass. I'm a Democrat. What the fuck are you?
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I gave my insult-free opinion on the OP in an earlier reply. Woo me responded with insults. That's context.
I said I oppose the Keystone pipeline for ethical reasons, and I said I will always support a Democrat over Republican.
Do you have anything of substance to say, or are you just wandering randomly into conversations with nothing to add?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thanks for pointing that out.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It is literally paperwork at this point.
IronLionZion
(45,528 posts)third way is more corporate-friendly and most are liberal on social issues like choice and gay marriage.
Blue dogs tend to be social conservatives but hold traditionally liberal views on issues like social security, medicare, minimum wage, infrastructure spending, education, unions, etc.
Marr
(20,317 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)I am disappointed that Nolan voted in favor of this. I suppose the next thing will be support of the Enbridge pipeline. I'm getting sick of this shit.
still_one
(92,396 posts)craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)femmocrat
(28,394 posts)Democrats voting to override the veto would be considered traitors to me.
herding cats
(19,567 posts)We're currently facing the failures of some of our older pipelines in the US and seeing tragic results. We obviously can't be trusted to be responsible when it comes to things such as this. Since we're not going to be gaining anything from this, but we will be accepting the all the risks associated with the pipeline not to mention the added carbon being created by expediting the amount of tar sands to get to the refineries, I'm a firm no.
For the sake of our future generations, I'm not OK with the Keystone Pipeline being finished. I don't approve of any votes to approve its completion by Democrats I've supported.
I have a question, if our current senate does pass it, and it doesn't have enough votes to override a pocket veto is it dead, or can it just be brought back up as a new order of business by the incoming Republican Congress next year?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)strongly union oriented Democrats in Congress may very well vote for it.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)on facts and right over wrong.
Old Nick
(468 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)trading the lives of others for their political and monetary gains.