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

No the reason is that it is just another step to burn more carbon and ending civilization and the human race. It is a particularly carbon intensive fuel.

Eminent domain, Canada, Gulf Coast, Indian profits or no profits is all irrelevant.

The refusal to believe this is just another conservative refusal to believe science or at best to cherry pick the very few almost all fossil fuel funded scientists who disagree.

Why they won't believe 99% of scientists is probably due to various reasons.

1)Conservatives think 99% of scientists have a liberal bias because they are highly educated. Many resent them as intellectuals.

2) The media the conservatives consume is particularly biased by funding from the fossil fuel industry who publish the one in hundred of two hundred scientists who say there is no problem, so why not make a buck on the pipeline and continue with business as usual.

3) Since they probably realize that market solutions subservient to maximizing fossil fuel industry profits each quarter can't cope with these man made changes. They are threatened and have a psychological need to deny rather than change their near religious belief in unfettered markets and hatred of government and especially government regulation.

4) Some of the more religious ones may believe they will be raptured before this becomes a problem so who cares and besides it might be God's plan to end the world which they see as imminent.

5) In addition like everyone else conservatives hate to believe what the scientists are saying as it will lead to a lot of changes. All of us are worried about perhaps doing without cars, AC, McMansions, airline flights, Chilean fruit shipped in during the winter and lots of things many of us enjoy now.

 

How the heck do you draw that conclusion about the construction workers? How large a gain in jobs would you insist upon for an individual pipeline to be of meaningful benefit to the US?

 

You honestly think isolationism is a good thing?

 

how about more than 35 permanent jobs...

the biggest hold up is these oil companies do not want to take financial responsibility if an accident (aka oil spill) takes place.

they want the govt (aka tax payers) to pay the tab.

how on earth is that reasonable?

the pipeline is a joke.. it won't create jobs, it's a gargantuan environmental risk, and it won't lower gas prices.

 

More slowly, which is better for everyone but Transcanada. I wouldn't be against using tar sand oil for durable products, especially when oil really become scarce in say, 50 years. But to compete against more efficient sources, just to burn it seems dumb.

It's like using your high interest credit card to go out to eat.

 

Check most of the crews doing construction then you'll see my point .39 jobs is it worth the risk to the environment.

 

No of course not but how does asking a question about the benefit for America mean isolation.

 

I don't get the Canadian profits argument at all. Sure, they are headquartered in Calgary, so probably a lot of their best paid executives are Canadians. But, its stock is traded on the NYSE. Most of its investors are US institutions and ultimately (rich) US citizens. It has issued a lot of bonds bought by American investors. If Transcanada prospers, it buoys the US economy, not just (or even primarily) the Canadian economy. Those are international profits, but primarily US profits simply because Americans dominate the NYSE. The only tangible way in which its Canadianess is a factor is that they pay more taxes to the Canadian govt than they do to the US govt.

 

From your comments above it is clear what is your true intent: concern troll.

 

This is my most major concern.
Accidents. The Risk. The Cost

Rocket River

 

Putting aside the fact that pipelines are far safer than alternate means of crude oil transportation (rail, truck), that pipeline delivery is far cheaper, and there are far fewer accidents involved with pipelines versus other forms of transportation... and also putting aside the fact that our country is already criss-crossed with pipelines and thousands of miles of additional pipelines are under construction as we speak...

It's not the government's role to do a financial and risk assessment of projects for private enterprises. Government is involved here because the pipeline originates in Canada.

 

Here's an article on potential spills: http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/?p=13488

After reading that I don't know any better than before who would pay if there's a spill, unfortunately. Common sense would say the company pays. The BP disaster would make it look like the company would pay. They might not pay into the oil spill liability trust fund, but it looks like there are other mechanisms to make them pay for spills. My suspicion is that the question of liability is another red herring.

 

I don't think Federal government get involved anytime a non-US private company do business in the US.

I think it has to do with crossing the US border, crossing multiple states and taking land from people, maybe from Indian Tribal lands also.

It is the government role to do risk and other assessments in this case.

 

You couldn't be more wrong . I asked a question this has nothing to do with trolling what you think my concern is totally wrong so let me spell it out for you as i have asked before is there a real benefit for America by extending this pipeline.

 

liability is a red herring? i've heard it all....

i think this quote sums up the hold up:

once again the GOP demonstrates they are nothing but corporate shills.

 

Trump taking it to Obama's Legacy.

 

Is this a "win" for America, or simply a "win" for those more interested in the previous President's "legacy"?

 

definitely not a win for the environment, as described clearly in the proceeding pages, tar sand oil is inefficient and dirty. I'm not a green peace warrior, we need most all sources of energy that we can use including oil and gas but not this ****.

 

Not a surprise. Immature response to an immature President. Because THAT is why this action is important, to "take it to Obama's legacy."

Sad!

 

yea cause that's what i said . good grief.