General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFrom The New Yorker: Playing Pipeline Politics (Will Obama approve Keystone?)
During times like thesea still-fragile economy; unemployment persistently, unacceptably high; the prospect of a midterm election with dynamics that work against the Democratsthe environment always takes the hit. Thats just the way things are. Put up against their jobs and their retirement accounts, or the jobs and retirement accounts of their friends and family, its hard to convince people that they really should care about some trees somewhere, or, say, an impending catastrophe with consequences including but hardly limited to drought, fires, devastating storms, and melting ice and rising seas. As a species, were just not that good at seeing the long-term consequences of our actions, much less caring about them, especially when we have more immediate concerns.
Given all that, it was no easy thing, what President Obama had to do over the past few days: walk into the home of important people who care very much about environmental issues, explain the political reality to them as gently as possible, and then relieve them and a hundred of their guests of a few thousand dollars.
<snip>
There was one word Obama didnt say, at least not in his public remarks: Keystone. He didnt need to. The fundraiser at which he was speaking was held at the home of Tom Steyer, a hedge-fund billionaire who has lately turned his attention and considerable resources toward fighting against approval of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and those politicians who support it. Most recently, Steyer has gotten himself involved in the special election to replace John Kerry in the Senate, taking sides in the Democratic primary against Representative Stephen Lynch because of his position on Keystone.
Obama and his Administrationtechnically, the State Department has final sayhave a few months left before they have to announce a decision. But the early signs point toward approval: a draft economic-impact analysis, put together by State and released last month, said that the pipeline wouldnt contribute to climate change in any significant way. (Not helping environmentalists case on this is that the tar sands that would be the source of oil transported through Keystone are likely to be developed with or without the pipeline; the oil would just be exported by a different method.) And though the pipeline would not lead to the tens of thousands of new jobs that supporters claimeven the company that wants to build it, TransCanada, admits it would directly employ about six thousand five hundred people a year for two years of construction, and then only a few dozen after thatits hard to argue against any new jobs right now, and Republicans will make that task much tougher by citing the inflated estimates. That the Democrats allies in organized labor favor the pipeline doesnt help, either.
<snip>
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/playing-pipeline-politics.html?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)this deal has been signed,sealed,and delivered...ya he`s their man.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'll be giddily shocked if he nixes it.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)They can employ a multitude of folks to attempt to clean up the mess from the future oil spills.
Wow what a great way to add jobs to the economy. Then of course there is the lasting health problems from working in the environment of spills. That will help the fat cat insurance companies.
What a way to go!
Autumn
(44,762 posts)Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)he can't disappoint his buddies
Broward
(1,976 posts)Whose politics is he worried about? Dems in 2014? If that's the case, then why would he propose
cutting SS benefits?