The veto went through because a great number of people who care put a lot of effort into letting their voices be heard and their concerns be known. It is well worth understanding, knowing and making note of this. In any case, he did the right thing.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
This is it. After years of pushing, President Obama could make his final decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline literally any day now.
Last week a group of movement leaders, artists and musicians put together a [1]Unity Letter to the President with a simple, powerful message: we will stand together against any attempt to approve the pipeline. Signers included Naomi Klein, Willie Nelson, Neil Young, Julianne Moore, Robert Reich and so many more.
This is the time for unity. The letter is below -- can you add your name to show the President that this movement will not waver in our demand that he do the right thing and reject the pipeline? [2]Click here to co-sign the No Keystone XL Unity Letter.
Thanks for all you've done. We're closer than ever.
Duncan
Here's the letter:
Dear Mr. President,
The long and worthy fight over the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is at an end, and the time for a decision draws near. We appreciate your pending veto of the congressional bill, and we fully support an outright rejection of the permit. We have followed the question of Keystone XL's impact for many years, and those years have clarified a few key points.
First, most of those who care about this project oppose it, and with an intensity matched by few issues in recent time. Beginning with Tribal Nations and with farmers and ranchers, the opposition spread over time to climate scientists, college students, moms, financial experts, many trade unionists, renewable energy proponents, nurses, artists and an ever-growing swath of the general population. A historic number of them were arrested for this cause; millions wrote public comments, or emailed their elected officials; everyone engaged in public dialogue in precisely the fashion you have asked. Everyday people have stood up to the money on the other side, and done so with civility, firmness, creativity and passion.
Second, it's now clearer than ever that the tar sands pose an incredible risk to the health and safety of our families and a livable planet. As a major study in Nature last month confirmed, a serious effort to control global warming must keep the `dirtiest oil in the world' safely underground. Keystone XL must be evaluated not just as a pipeline but as part of the tar sands industry's plans for rapid and reckless expansion. As you have stated, the climate impacts of major infrastructure projects are a matter of national -- and international -- interest. Rejecting Keystone XL is the kind of the principled choice leaders need to make. There is no way to reconcile this pipeline with a serious climate policy.
Third, the arguments for this pipeline--never strong--have disappeared on closer examination. It is not a potent job-creating tool, nor a route to American energy independence; tar sands expansion is not inevitable; and the sheer number of leaks and spills means a tar sands pipeline would pose a clear danger to public health. It is, instead, a classic boondoggle, whose only beneficiaries will be a handful of rich oil companies while our families take on all the risk.
Many of the choices that define a presidency come by accident or chance -- some storm or crisis that demands a quick response. But this one is firmly in your control. Climate change will be a defining issue of this century. Rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline will powerfully demonstrate your commitment to stopping the rising of the oceans, set the stage for further climate action and build a legacy worth sharing.
In unity,
Willie Nelson, Musician Mark Ruffalo, Actor Neil Young, Musician U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Julianne Moore, Actress Naomi Klein, Author Alec Baldwin, Actor U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva Robert Redford, Actor Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor Rev. Jim Wallis, Preacher Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network Bill McKibben, 350.org Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska Thom Yorke, Radiohead Michael Brune, Sierra Club Melina Laboucan-Massimo, Lubicon Cree First Nation James Hansen, Climate Scientist Randy Thompson, Nebraska Rancher and many more
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I fail to see the correlation between a pipeline and increased GHG emissions. Please enlighten me. Maybe the focus should be on REAL GHG emitters like coal. China spews 4.34 Billion tonnes of C02 into our atmosphere, the U.S. is responsible for 1.9 Billion tonnes as well from the coal industry alone while the oilsands contribute only 3.3 million tonnes of C02 which is only 0.15% of all GHG emissions world wide. Stopping KXL only forces Canada to ship the product elsewhere which isn't very good for North America as a whole.
Also, to follow musicians and actors is historically flawed. I tend to listen to people who actually know the truth not follow blindly because it is the trendy thing to do.
13 oil fields in California alone have higher GHG emissions than the oilsands. Why don't we protest those producers? I'll tell you why. It's because Canada is an easy target. It's too hard to protest the coal industry in the U.S. and China.
I wonder how many of the people who are against the oil sands realise just how small an impact the oilsands have on the overall GHG emissions world wide. Just look on Google Earth to see how small the area is compared to the rest of Alberta and Canada.
Canada is the ONLY top 5 oil supplier to the U.S. that has GHG emissions regulations in place and Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to pass climate change legislation. Since 2007 it has also provided funding for 51 innovative clean energy technology projects. So why all the hate? Because the likes of Alec Baldwin, Mark Ruffalo and Neil Young say so? SMH
I fail to see the correlation between a pipeline and increased GHG emissions. Please enlighten me. Maybe the focus should be on REAL GHG emitters like coal. China spews 4.34 Billion tonnes of C02 into our atmosphere, the U.S. is responsible for 1.9 Billion tonnes as well from the coal industry alone while the oilsands contribute only 3.3 million tonnes of C02 which is only 0.15% of all GHG emissions world wide. Stopping KXL only forces Canada to ship the product elsewhere which isn't very good for North America as a whole.
Also, to follow musicians and actors is historically flawed. I tend to listen to people who actually know the truth not follow blindly because it is the trendy thing to do.
13 oil fields in California alone have higher GHG emissions than the oilsands. Why don't we protest those producers? I'll tell you why. It's because Canada is an easy target. It's too hard to protest the coal industry in the U.S. and China.
I wonder how many of the people who are against the oil sands realise just how small an impact the oilsands have on the overall GHG emissions world wide. Just look on Google Earth to see how small the area is compared to the rest of Alberta and Canada.
Canada is the ONLY top 5 oil supplier to the U.S. that has GHG emissions regulations in place and Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to pass climate change legislation. Since 2007 it has also provided funding for 51 innovative clean energy technology projects. So why all the hate? Because the likes of Alec Baldwin, Mark Ruffalo and Neil Young say so? SMH
No hate. Where did that come from?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Until this country goes after those companies who pollute with seeming impunity in regards to leaks, breaks etc from the existing infrastructure, how about you fine folks build your own refineries and pipe that shit and pollute your own country. Deal?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
seems nobody remembers the BP spill in the gulf. imagine if that had happened on land.
Exactly!
It happens on land everytime a train carrying oil crashes. Put it in a pipe instead. It is an absolute no brainer. The BP oil spill was a problem because it was under water.
Bummer! Yet another incident that exemplifies the need to do more to refurbish our rail system. We are not up to speed with that. Want to help? If in the west, look into join RailPac (or your regional organizations) :
But even that is putting the cart in front of the horse. This incident is yet another factor in why we need to cut our dependence on oil. It doesn't matter if your going to move 90 million barrels of oil per day worldwide by ship, rail, pipeline or truck oil, it's gonna spill. Not to mention what happens when worldwide, 3,570,000,000 gallons of oil are burned every day! Is that fucking insane or what?
And also, in any case, making these kinds of decisions sure as hell should be made using our brains.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
seems nobody remembers the BP spill in the gulf. imagine if that had happened on land.
Exactly!
It happens on land everytime a train carrying oil crashes. Put it in a pipe instead. It is an absolute no brainer. The BP oil spill was a problem because it was under water.
Another BP Gulf spill would never be possible because of automatic shut offs and built in sensors that are installed on pipelines, not to mention the countless regulatory bodies and technologies that are in place to ensure minimal contamination in the unlikely event of a spill. Secondly, the BP spill was located at the source which made it extremely difficult to stop. This would be impossible because the oil that would be shipped in the KXL pipeline is already in the ground, that's why its called oil SAND. They remove the sand and ship the oil in a controlled manner.
I'm not sure if you know it or not, but there are already thousands of miles of pipe in the ground. One more pipe which further secures North America's energy independence would not only create jobs but it would be better for the environment.
B.lux, I agree with your sentiment of looking elsewhere for renewable energy but I think your idealistic view of how the world should work is far off. While the pursuit of the utopia in which you seek would be great, it is far from realistic, at least today. It is good to discuss those ideals but we are at least 20-30 years away from the technologies you allude to. We need to secure our future by keeping North American energy in North America. I think you would agree that shipping oil overseas is far more detrimental to the environment as well . Stopping KXL only forces Canada's hand in making the choice to export to other countries like China that much easier. I fail to see how this is a good thing.
"it's now clearer than ever that the tar sands pose an incredible risk to the health and safety of our families and a livable planet. As a major study in Nature last month confirmed, a serious effort to control global warming must keep the `dirtiest oil in the world' safely underground".
That doesn't sound like Love to me. I would rather have sand in the oil I consume than the blood of our soldiers.
BTW the "dirty oil" label has been taken off the table by the European Union. Just more propaganda I guess. But its okay because they're not saying anything against the coal industry. I guess that is somehow cleaner energy? And don't get me started on fracking. The United States will be Swiss cheese in a few years. Sinkhole anyone? I hope you guys have headlamps, you're going to need 'em. SMH
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"it's now clearer than ever that the tar sands pose an incredible risk to the health and safety of our families and a livable planet. As a major study in Nature last month confirmed, a serious effort to control global warming must keep the `dirtiest oil in the world' safely underground".
That doesn't sound like Love to me. I would rather have sand in the oil I consume than the blood of our soldiers.
BTW the "dirty oil" label has been taken off the table by the European Union. Just more propaganda I guess. But its okay because they're not saying anything against the coal industry. I guess that is somehow cleaner energy? And don't get me started on fracking. The United States will be Swiss cheese in a few years. Sinkhole anyone? I hope you guys have headlamps, you're going to need 'em. SMH
Interesting that you imply my post is hateful yet I'm here to offer constructive ideas. Opposing the proliferation of the dirtiest oil in the world and working to find cleaner energy alternatives is absolutely about love- love of the planet that sustains us. And love of my godchildren, love for my step kids nieces, nephews, grand nieces and nephews, love for all the generations of kids that come after me and the hope that they will live in a world that will remain hospitable to them.
And thank you for acknowledging my idealistic out look in your other post. The thing is though, my idealism is merely a means to get as close to the ends as possible. It does not mean that I believe utopia is possible. You denigrate what I say by making such an assumption.
Where did you get the idea that I support fracking or shipping oil overseas?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Does this sound like a President who wants to approve Keystone XL to you?
Seriously, check this out:
He get's it. It puzzles me that not everyone understands these most basic, elemental concepts. Thank you, Mr. President.
What puzzles me is how the people against the pipeline don't have all of the facts by now. There is a lot of misinformation out there.This veto will have zero effect of minimizing GHG and climate change. The Alberta Oilfield is not a significant contributor to GHG and climate change. The oilsands are run mostly by American companies as well, (Devon Energy, EXXON/Imperial Oil, Cenovus, Conoco Phillips), so to say that it will only crate jobs for Canadians is false. A fair number of the workforce in Alberta's oilfield are American workers. There aren't enough jobs in the states and too many jobs in Canada for Canadians to fill them. Those companies are expanding with or without the KXL. Like I said, all this does is weaken the continent and delay the inevitable. The president is wrong about the oil being shipped to foreign markets from the gulf by way of KXL, his veto only ensures it. Most of Alberta oil will stay in the states WHEN the pipeline is finished (most don't know that is 40% complete BTW). There is only a section of proposed pipeline running between Alberta and Steele City left to build. Canada will just focus on building pipelines to the East and West coast instead until it is given the green light.
All in all, not a very smart move for a very smart man. I like president Obama, as I'm sure most Canadians do but this is a slap in the face to your closest ally, neighbour and trading partner.
As I've stated before, if he was really concerned with climate change then why doesn't he shut down the real polluters like the coal industry?
But that would mean pissing off a lot of, already pissed off Americans.
Does this sound like a President who wants to approve Keystone XL to you?
Seriously, check this out:
He get's it. It puzzles me that not everyone understands these most basic, elemental concepts. Thank you, Mr. President.
What puzzles me is how the people against the pipeline don't have all of the facts by now. There is a lot of misinformation out there.This veto will have zero effect of minimizing GHG and climate change. The Alberta Oilfield is not a significant contributor to GHG and climate change. The oilsands are run mostly by American companies as well, (Devon Energy, EXXON/Imperial Oil, Cenovus, Conoco Phillips), so to say that it will only crate jobs for Canadians is false. A fair number of the workforce in Alberta's oilfield are American workers. There aren't enough jobs in the states and too many jobs in Canada for Canadians to fill them. Those companies are expanding with or without the KXL. Like I said, all this does is weaken the continent and delay the inevitable. The president is wrong about the oil being shipped to foreign markets from the gulf by way of KXL, his veto only ensures it. Most of Alberta oil will stay in the states WHEN the pipeline is finished (most don't know that is 40% complete BTW). There is only a section of proposed pipeline running between Alberta and Steele City left to build. Canada will just focus on building pipelines to the East and West coast instead until it is given the green light.
All in all, not a very smart move for a very smart man. I like president Obama, as I'm sure most Canadians do but this is a slap in the face to your closest ally, neighbour and trading partner.
As I've stated before, if he was really concerned with climate change then why doesn't he shut down the real polluters like the coal industry?
But that would mean pissing off a lot of, already pissed off Americans.
I agree, Bennyorr4, most of the coal plants have to go too. You seem to understand the significance of the impact of carbon in the atmosphere on the earth's climate and yet you tell me my "idealistic view of how the world should work is far off" and that "we are at least 20-30 years away from the technologies you allude to". I hate to be the one to say this, but in 20 or 30 years I will probably be dead (but the good news there is my carbon footprint will be miniscule!) and you who are younger (at least I assume you are, sorry if I'm wrong) will be the ones dealing with the harshest of the consequences of a changed climate. So you see, my "idealism" has little affect on my own benefit. I don't make these suggestions expecting my world to get better-- but maybe yours will. I'm always surprised when I hear younger people take a rather cavalier viewpoint of such dire matters. I guess the best I can say is good luck with all that and don't forget to floss.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Some see oil rail accidents as evidence that points to the need for more oil pipelines. Yet data from the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) shows that oil trains may spill more frequently, yet pipelines spill more oil when they do spill. From 2004 to 2012, pipelines spilled three times the oil that oil trains did over the same period.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Some see oil rail accidents as evidence that points to the need for more oil pipelines. Yet data from the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) shows that oil trains may spill more frequently, yet pipelines spill more oil when they do spill. From 2004 to 2012, pipelines spilled three times the oil that oil trains did over the same period.
neither is ideal...
Having read similar to the bold above, I've wanted to point this out but couldn't find the data and I try not to make statements I cannot back. Besides which, the U.S. has been very lax in doing what could be done to revitalize our rail system to improve safety. And to do so makes perfectly good sense since rail is the most energy efficient way to move people and goods (and this I have provided backing evidence for a number of times).
And yes, Mickey, neither is ideal. Using less oil and thus moving less oil is closer to idea.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
This just in from 350.org
Friends,
This is it. After years of pushing, President Obama could make his final
decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline literally any day now.
Last week a group of movement leaders, artists and musicians put together
a [1]Unity Letter to the President with a simple, powerful message: we
will stand together against any attempt to approve the pipeline. Signers
included Naomi Klein, Willie Nelson, Neil Young, Julianne Moore, Robert
Reich and so many more.
This is the time for unity. The letter is below -- can you add your name
to show the President that this movement will not waver in our demand that
he do the right thing and reject the pipeline? [2]Click here to co-sign
the No Keystone XL Unity Letter.
Thanks for all you've done. We're closer than ever.
Duncan
Here's the letter:
Dear Mr. President,
The long and worthy fight over the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is at an
end, and the time for a decision draws near. We appreciate your pending
veto of the congressional bill, and we fully support an outright rejection
of the permit. We have followed the question of Keystone XL's impact for
many years, and those years have clarified a few key points.
First, most of those who care about this project oppose it, and with an
intensity matched by few issues in recent time. Beginning with Tribal
Nations and with farmers and ranchers, the opposition spread over time to
climate scientists, college students, moms, financial experts, many trade
unionists, renewable energy proponents, nurses, artists and an
ever-growing swath of the general population. A historic number of them
were arrested for this cause; millions wrote public comments, or emailed
their elected officials; everyone engaged in public dialogue in precisely
the fashion you have asked. Everyday people have stood up to the money on
the other side, and done so with civility, firmness, creativity and
passion.
Second, it's now clearer than ever that the tar sands pose an incredible
risk to the health and safety of our families and a livable planet. As a
major study in Nature last month confirmed, a serious effort to control
global warming must keep the `dirtiest oil in the world' safely
underground. Keystone XL must be evaluated not just as a pipeline but as
part of the tar sands industry's plans for rapid and reckless expansion.
As you have stated, the climate impacts of major infrastructure projects
are a matter of national -- and international -- interest. Rejecting
Keystone XL is the kind of the principled choice leaders need to make.
There is no way to reconcile this pipeline with a serious climate policy.
Third, the arguments for this pipeline--never strong--have disappeared on
closer examination. It is not a potent job-creating tool, nor a route to
American energy independence; tar sands expansion is not inevitable; and
the sheer number of leaks and spills means a tar sands pipeline would pose
a clear danger to public health. It is, instead, a classic boondoggle,
whose only beneficiaries will be a handful of rich oil companies while our
families take on all the risk.
Many of the choices that define a presidency come by accident or chance --
some storm or crisis that demands a quick response. But this one is firmly
in your control. Climate change will be a defining issue of this century.
Rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline will powerfully demonstrate your
commitment to stopping the rising of the oceans, set the stage for further
climate action and build a legacy worth sharing.
In unity,
Willie Nelson, Musician
Mark Ruffalo, Actor
Neil Young, Musician
U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Julianne Moore, Actress
Naomi Klein, Author
Alec Baldwin, Actor
U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva
Robert Redford, Actor
Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor
Rev. Jim Wallis, Preacher
Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network
Bill McKibben, 350.org
Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska
Thom Yorke, Radiohead
Michael Brune, Sierra Club
Melina Laboucan-Massimo, Lubicon Cree First Nation
James Hansen, Climate Scientist
Randy Thompson, Nebraska Rancher
and many more
Also, to follow musicians and actors is historically flawed. I tend to listen to people who actually know the truth not follow blindly because it is the trendy thing to do.
13 oil fields in California alone have higher GHG emissions than the oilsands. Why don't we protest those producers? I'll tell you why. It's because Canada is an easy target. It's too hard to protest the coal industry in the U.S. and China.
I wonder how many of the people who are against the oil sands realise just how small an impact the oilsands have on the overall GHG emissions world wide. Just look on Google Earth to see how small the area is compared to the rest of Alberta and Canada.
Canada is the ONLY top 5 oil supplier to the U.S. that has GHG emissions regulations in place and Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to pass climate change legislation. Since 2007 it has also provided funding for 51 innovative clean energy technology projects. So why all the hate? Because the likes of Alec Baldwin, Mark Ruffalo and Neil Young say so? SMH
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://m.thonline.com/mobile_new/news/breaking/article_fb191072-c373-11e4-9c86-9bc87b7364e4.html
http://www.railpac.org/
or NARP:
http://www.narprail.org/
But even that is putting the cart in front of the horse. This incident is yet another factor in why we need to cut our dependence on oil. It doesn't matter if your going to move 90 million barrels of oil per day worldwide by ship, rail, pipeline or truck oil, it's gonna spill. Not to mention what happens when worldwide, 3,570,000,000 gallons of oil are burned every day! Is that fucking insane or what?
And also, in any case, making these kinds of decisions sure as hell should be made using our brains.
Another BP Gulf spill would never be possible because of automatic shut offs and built in sensors that are installed on pipelines, not to mention the countless regulatory bodies and technologies that are in place to ensure minimal contamination in the unlikely event of a spill. Secondly, the BP spill was located at the source which made it extremely difficult to stop. This would be impossible because the oil that would be shipped in the KXL pipeline is already in the ground, that's why its called oil SAND. They remove the sand and ship the oil in a controlled manner.
I'm not sure if you know it or not, but there are already thousands of miles of pipe in the ground. One more pipe which further secures North America's energy independence would not only create jobs but it would be better for the environment.
B.lux, I agree with your sentiment of looking elsewhere for renewable energy but I think your idealistic view of how the world should work is far off. While the pursuit of the utopia in which you seek would be great, it is far from realistic, at least today. It is good to discuss those ideals but we are at least 20-30 years away from the technologies you allude to. We need to secure our future by keeping North American energy in North America. I think you would agree that shipping oil overseas is far more detrimental to the environment as well . Stopping KXL only forces Canada's hand in making the choice to export to other countries like China that much easier. I fail to see how this is a good thing.
"it's now clearer than ever that the tar sands pose an incredible
risk to the health and safety of our families and a livable planet. As a
major study in Nature last month confirmed, a serious effort to control
global warming must keep the `dirtiest oil in the world' safely
underground".
That doesn't sound like Love to me. I would rather have sand in the oil I consume than the blood of our soldiers.
BTW the "dirty oil" label has been taken off the table by the European Union. Just more propaganda I guess. But its okay because they're not saying anything against the coal industry. I guess that is somehow cleaner energy? And don't get me started on fracking. The United States will be Swiss cheese in a few years. Sinkhole anyone? I hope you guys have headlamps, you're going to need 'em. SMH
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadian-oilsands-avoid-dirty-oil-label-after-eu-vote-1.2876072
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
risk to the health and safety of our families and a livable planet. As a
major study in Nature last month confirmed, a serious effort to control
global warming must keep the `dirtiest oil in the world' safely
underground".
That doesn't sound like Love to me. I would rather have sand in the oil I consume than the blood of our soldiers.
BTW the "dirty oil" label has been taken off the table by the European Union. Just more propaganda I guess. But its okay because they're not saying anything against the coal industry. I guess that is somehow cleaner energy? And don't get me started on fracking. The United States will be Swiss cheese in a few years. Sinkhole anyone? I hope you guys have headlamps, you're going to need 'em. SMH
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadian-oilsands-avoid-dirty-oil-label-after-eu-vote-1.2876072
Interesting that you imply my post is hateful yet I'm here to offer constructive ideas. Opposing the proliferation of the dirtiest oil in the world and working to find cleaner energy alternatives is absolutely about love- love of the planet that sustains us. And love of my godchildren, love for my step kids nieces, nephews, grand nieces and nephews, love for all the generations of kids that come after me and the hope that they will live in a world that will remain hospitable to them.
And thank you for acknowledging my idealistic out look in your other post. The thing is though, my idealism is merely a means to get as close to the ends as possible. It does not mean that I believe utopia is possible. You denigrate what I say by making such an assumption.
Where did you get the idea that I support fracking or shipping oil overseas?
Does this sound like a President who wants to approve Keystone XL to you?
Seriously, check this out:
He has vetoed it but not made a final determination.
What puzzles me is how the people against the pipeline don't have all of the facts by now. There is a lot of misinformation out there.This veto will have zero effect of minimizing GHG and climate change. The Alberta Oilfield is not a significant contributor to GHG and climate change. The oilsands are run mostly by American companies as well, (Devon Energy, EXXON/Imperial Oil, Cenovus, Conoco Phillips), so to say that it will only crate jobs for Canadians is false. A fair number of the workforce in Alberta's oilfield are American workers. There aren't enough jobs in the states and too many jobs in Canada for Canadians to fill them. Those companies are expanding with or without the KXL. Like I said, all this does is weaken the continent and delay the inevitable. The president is wrong about the oil being shipped to foreign markets from the gulf by way of KXL, his veto only ensures it. Most of Alberta oil will stay in the states WHEN the pipeline is finished (most don't know that is 40% complete BTW). There is only a section of proposed pipeline running between Alberta and Steele City left to build. Canada will just focus on building pipelines to the East and West coast instead until it is given the green light.
All in all, not a very smart move for a very smart man. I like president Obama, as I'm sure most Canadians do but this is a slap in the face to your closest ally, neighbour and trading partner.
As I've stated before, if he was really concerned with climate change then why doesn't he shut down the real polluters like the coal industry?
But that would mean pissing off a lot of, already pissed off Americans.
from the final paragraph of this article.....
Some see oil rail accidents as evidence that points to the need for more oil pipelines. Yet data from the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) shows that oil trains may spill more frequently, yet pipelines spill more oil when they do spill. From 2004 to 2012, pipelines spilled three times the oil that oil trains did over the same period.
neither is ideal...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
And yes, Mickey, neither is ideal. Using less oil and thus moving less oil is closer to idea.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/t-boone-pickens-apologizes-to-canadians-for-keystone-1.2995915
Oh, gee, somebody forgot to tell T. Boone that Canada is not part of the United States. Ooops. Haha!
But then, that oil was never slated to be consumed in U.S. markets anyway so, hey, no apology necessary, Booney!