It the pollutants were toxic to human or animal life, I'd agree. But it's c02, which is completely unregulated in every aspect so if we want to use that as a reason to stop this pipeline, than we need to all start driving electric cars too. The fight against c02 increases and global warming has been lost a while ago. The rate we dump Co2 into the atmosphere is increasing significantly every year. There's no turning back. We're going to have a runaway positive feedback loop and it's time we start preparing for the consequences of that. I don't disagree that this probably won't create a ton of jobs and probably only benefits oil companies. But that's not a reason to stop building it if it doesn't involve tax payer dollars. As long as It's no more a threat to the environment as existing pipelines which seems to be the case, I just don't see enough reason to fight this. I think the fight against this is more symbolic and political than actually about the environment. I think Obama should trade this for immigration reform.
I'm not sure he has much political capital though, he's a lame duck president at this point. If he denies it, they can force him to veto it, use it against Democrats in the next election, and then push it through when he's gone.
They may never get that chance. The electoral map doesn't favor Republicans getting the White House in 2016. Hilary will be tough to beat. I think Republicans would budge if Obama offered to not veto this if they let him have immigration reform especially since it would help Republicans with the Latino vote which they badly need.
Putting aside what it'll do or not do to the planet, I'm against the pipeline if we aren't going to collect taxes on the exports. Now maybe I missed the memo, but does the "tax free" bit include other places in Texas, like the ship channel, or is this a "favor" we're doing for Canada? Like having the damn thing end up at the one spot on the Gulf Coast that is tax free? Sounds like the American taxpayer is getting the shaft.
I guess it's worth noting this wouldn't be the first international pipeline, but I won't pretend to know how those are priced, especially on a case-by-case regulatory basis. I'd guess the tax would eat into the trading margins and reduce pipeline transport value, but I know FERC adds all kinds of surcharges to gas lines like GTI, ACA and some states like Kansas tax gas in underground storage.
The fact that this pipeline is being built using eminent domain laws while providing no benefits to the American people is troubling. It shows that corporate interests can buy the political action it needs for the sake of profits. I don't argue that one day the US won't eventually need Alberta Tar Sand oil but it is silly to facilitate it's use in competition with US domestic production now. It keeps oil prices low artificially low compared with it's environmental costs, promotes consumption and stifles the development of renewables. It would be much more conservative to save the dirty oil until it's the only source left when hopefully we won't be just burning it but mostly using it in plastics and feed stocks etc. that get more value out of it for it's environmental costs. XL is by Corporate Canada and for Corporate Canada and that's fine for them to make their own decisions but we don't need to bend over to help them to our own detriment. (silly aside* remember the only two countries that will actually benefit from global climate change will be Canada and Russia)
Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/06/p...ision-rejection-kerry/index.html?eref=edition
Doesn't even matter. Big Oil wasn't going to be building anything for a while. Oil too soooo cheap. Trading under $44 a barrel today.
60% of US-produced coal is surface mined - similar to how some of the tar sands oil is produced. Most coal mining occurs on national government land. This is clearly a political shot at a particular industry and a particular geographic area of the U.S. Further evidence that the fight against global warming is entirely political and pure bull****.
Uhh no. There is far more oil in the greater 48 than anticipated and it isn't expected for prices to go up much over the next 5 years. Reality hit, it wasn't as economically viable over the next 5 years as expected.
I'm curious which geographic area of the US is taking the shot/being helped? I do agree this was a political call, but don't see how it negates climate change theories -- other than that this really won't have much of an impact beyond a symbolic statement.
Ummm, no. This started in 2011 in the wake of the Arab Spring when oil was $100+ per barrel, and it has been opposed on environmental grounds - not economic.
Big Oil isn't even interested in tar sand refining anymore they couldn't care less or would have pushed Obama to lay off. The only folks really butt hurt about this are the Canadians. My guess is Obama asked Chevron and Co if they really cared and they said no. He gave them the Arctic and they didn't want it anymore either.
I'd say it's political but it's still about climate change. Given the notoriety of the pipeline, it'd have hurt the Administration's credibility and bargaining position on an international agreement on climate change. I'm surprised TransCanada held out this long. It was obvious a long time ago that Obama was going to slow-roll this thing for his entire tenure and then kill it in the end. I'm not sure what TransCanada was hoping would transpire that could change the outcome. Maybe be staying the course, they make it a priority for the next Republican president, if we ever get another one. I also like the last-ditch effort by the company to have the application suspended. If it had been, a Republican president could have quickly approved it after re-instatement. Now, they'll probably have to re-apply and go through another vetting process with public comment periods and all.
