Reminder: KeystoneXL would have only created 35 full time jobs.....

[Playinghardball]

[marym625]

1. I don't understand why those jobs

Aren't more important than the environment. Or stealing land from people. Just makes no sense. 35 people could have full time jobs. Hey, some of them might even be the people that would have lost their homes.

[madville]

6. Shipping by rail is probably better

They estimate moving the oil by rail will average about 10 derailments/spills a year. But those will be isolated and the railroads are already in place. Plus it will create many additional railroad jobs that have a strong union and good retirement.

[marym625]

10. I hope you know I was kidding

I should use the sarcasm thing.

What would be even better, we invest in more renewable energy. We have to stop raping our land, destroying the water, polluting everything. It just isn't worth it.

[former9thward]

2. Are construction workers not real workers?

Every month Obama takes credit for the job numbers which include hundreds of thousands of construction jobs. Should those numbers exclude construction jobs? We will have to adjust the unemployment rate up quite a bit.

[HereSince1628]

3. I think if the jobs involved were expressed in employment hours

it would be obvious that this isn't a project that rises to such importance that eminent domain should be invoked to overcome property owners in Nebraska.

If the calculus was carbon units of pollution facilitated vs employment hours it would have a terrible ratio

[former9thward]

5. That could be said about ANY construction project.

Society generally makes priorities.

[HereSince1628]

7. yep, very FEW projects rise to the level of invoking government seizure of private lands

Construction jobs are supported by many projects...jobs come, they get completed and to keep employment going must be replaced by other jobs.

My old man was a master carpenter. I think I understand the transient nature of construction jobs.

But construction jobs involved aren't all that significant. The fracking in the Dakota's created construction jobs that SWAMP the impact of Keystone.

[madville]

4. I'm trying to think of a permanent construction project

All construction jobs are "temporary" jobs that last as long as the project is under construction. Then they move on to the next project, a construction worker, welder, pipefitter, etc works on hundreds of different projects during their career.

So if we pass a "shovel ready" jobs bill for bridges and road construction, those jobs aren't real jobs?

I've never understood this opposition.

[marym625]

11. That is the number of permanent, full time jobs

After it's built.

[Travis_0004]

13. Yes. I get that, but temp construction jobs are important to.

Was the american recovery and reinvestment act a waste because it created 0 full time jobs.

[marym625]

14. yes, of course they are important

But I don't think they're as important as making sure this pipeline expansion doesn't happen. The risks are too great ,the loss to people in terms of land, and the fact it's a private company, from another country, that would reap most of the benefit.

[Skidmore]

8. But it would have bought a whole lot of legislators at both

federal and state level and in two countries. This is a blow to the Koch brothers.

[Politicalboi]

9. But thousands of

Clean up jobs. Just think of all those lost jobs.

[marym625]

12. Ha!

[dilby]

15. Well this map certainly explains why they thought they could build it.

It would run down the part of the country that nobody gives a shit about, I am pretty amazed they had any opposition since the only states that seem to matter in this country are ones that actually touch the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans, all the others are just filler.