Why are Obama and the democrats so opposed to the Keystone Pipeline?

I'm actually pretty skeptical that any elected Republican or administrator from any party has earnestly disputed the concept of eminent domain: regardless of the intended use, or particularly to the point that it's part of their platform or philosophy. This specific instrument has way too much utility and precedent to be up for a significant amount of debate.

 

http://thehill.com/opinion/letters/229561-eminent-domain-fine-and-dandy-for-keystone-obsessed-gop


After the famous Kelo eminent domain case in 2004, House Republicans passed a bill that made it clear “farmland owners need to have long-term certainty regarding their property rights in order to make the investment decisions to commit land to these uses.” The bill went on to say, “the use of eminent domain to take farmland and other rural property for economic development threatens liberty, rural economies, and the economy of the United States.”

 

I'm saying the objective is to stop Keystone from being built, and arguments like environmental impact, eminent domain, or Canadian profits are a pretext for achieving that end.

As in, even if it was an American company, and eminent domain was prohibited, and there were no negative environmental impact studies, Obama would still oppose it.

 

So... are concerns about it not being an American company, concerns about eminent domain, and concerns about negative environmental impact studies valid concerns? And if they are, would the GOP still push for the pipeline? And are any justifications for their support a pretext for achieving an end?

 

I don't think anyone is against profit, openly or secretly.

Facilitating the exploitation of the Tar Sands because they are dirty and inefficient, exposing the US to risks while avoiding US taxes and extending eminent domain to a foreign private corporation are pretty straight forward reasons in and of themselves.

Knowing it creates few jobs while the giant PR firms and lobbyist lie about it, knowing its a route to avoid US taxation, knowing it actually reduces the crude available to Mid-west refiners raising prices to farmers, supporting it just makes you a toadie.

 

The difference is between "how do we address these concerns so we can build the pipeline" vs. "what reasons can we come up with to stop the pipeline from being built".

The Canadian company thing is not a concern, lots of foreign companies have US operations.

Environmental impact is another excuse, we have thousands of miles of pipeline already, doesn't hurt anyone.

Eminent domain is always a valid concern, but hardly unique to Keystone.

 

Major no disrespect but my question still hasn't been answered HOW does this pipeline help America.Please if someone can explain how this is good for America.

 

I think Obama misplayed this one (from where I sit -- he and the EPA probably know more about the whole situation, so I'm sure there's probably a good reason he isn't doing what I think he should do). I think, after slowing the approval process, he should have come back with a finding that this, that and the other environmental concerns require concessions x, y, and z from the company to offset. In so doing, he could have made the construction a net positive for the environment and baked them in such that the next Administration can't just reverse course. Meanwhile, the extra costs of the concessions would reduce the IRR of the project, making it less likely to succeed in the long run. As it is, it looks like he'll have delayed the project somewhat, though tar sands oil still gets produced, and then the next president will let it go through.

 

How do you measure benefit in this context?

 

Your third (dis)qualifier is dubious, extremists resent commercial primacy but Democrats are not anti-infrastructure.

 

Man will there be any oil,jobs ect.. for Americans that's how small example of how i measure will this be a benefit for America.

 

It's a fight between two rich assholes that went public.

 

Globalization is good for America. Why do you reject globalization?

 

Not once did i reject globalization i simply asked a question that has yet to be answered.

 

Do your homework, son.

 

So by your homework link there is no real benefit to building this pipeline the 3900 construction job will most likely go to undocumented the other 39 no real benefit.

 

that's like a smoker saying "i can get cancer even if i don't smoke".