General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsVan Jones: Keystone XL would be ‘the Obama Pipeline’
By Lisa Hymas
Activist and former White House adviser Van Jones came out swinging against the Keystone XL pipeline Friday night on CNN, warning that if its approved it would be a big black mark on President Obamas legacy. His comments came a few hours after the State Department released a draft environmental impact statement finding that the proposed pipeline wouldnt have excessive environmental or climate effects. Jones:
What happens if youve got the Obama Pipeline now its the Obama Pipeline and it leaks? His legacy could be the worst oil disaster in American farmland history.
If after he gave that speech for his inauguration, the first thing he does is approve a pipeline bringing tar sands through America the first thing that pipeline runs over is the credibility of the president on his climate policy.
The Obama Tar-Sands Pipeline should not the legacy of the president that gave that speech.
Watch the whole segment:
<...>
http://grist.org/news/van-jones-keystone-xl-would-be-the-obama-pipeline/
For 35 jobs: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022447961
blm
(112,920 posts)Had it turned over AFTER you left State Dept to avoid being seen signing the deal you wanted, eh Hillary? Dem primary voters wouldn't have made 2016 easy for you with Keystone deal hung around your neck, eh Hillary?
Obama will end up paying a high price, but, destroying Kerry's legacy on environmental issues will keep Hillary smiling for years to come.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)That crude is going to refineries somewhere. Period.
If a pipeline is built (and it is nearly complete) then huge savings in CO2 emissions are realized compared to trucking the crude.
This is a classic extreme enviro cluster fuck.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If a pipeline is built (and it is nearly complete) then huge savings in CO2 emissions are realized compared to trucking the crude. "
...not what the report indicates. In fact, it makes a convoluted argument that amounts to: sure the pipeline is worse, but not much worse than rail, even admitting a more extensive risk for spillage from the pipeline.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2448462
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)As strongly pro-environmental as I am, I find the opposition to XL laughable.
"As strongly pro-environmental as I am, I find the opposition to XL laughable."
...some "strongly pro-environmental" people aren't laughing.
Keystone XL: Cynicism on the Potomac
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/01/1190897/-Keystone-XL-Cynicism-on-the-Potomac
Tell President Obama: Reject Keystone XL!
https://secure.sierraclub.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=10451
<...>
"To say that say the tar sands have little climate impact is an absurdity. The total carbon in tar sands exceeds that in all oil burned in human history," says James Hansen, who directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/01/keystone-pipeline-obama-state-department/1957539/
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The Canandians are deeply committed to completing the exploitation of the tar sands and are seemingly oblivious to the resulting environmental disaster.
Once that crude is out of the sand, that is where the XL debate picks up, and every objective analysis I have read states clearly that the pipeline is the best option.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The Canandians are deeply committed to completing the exploitation of the tar sands and are seemingly oblivious to the resulting environmental disaster.
Once that crude is out of the sand, that is where the XL debate picks up, and every objective analysis I have read states clearly that the pipeline is the best option. "
...I understand your point? Who cares if the Canadians are "oblivious" to the environmental disaster? It's the Obama administration's decision that will determine the environmental risk to Americans. The pipeline will be carrying that dirty oil so the debate is already underway.
Can you point to some of the "objective analysis" that "states clearly that the pipeline is the best option" (for Americans, the United States, who)?
The State Dept. review certainly doesn't fall into that category as it makes a very inconclusive, flawed and weak case.
Keystone: 35 permanent jobs?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022447961
Keystone XL Report by U.S. Avoids Conclusion, Angering Opponents
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-01/keystone-xl-environmental-report-said-to-be-issued-today-by-u-s-.html