Obama Rejects Argument Keystone Will Add Jobs, Cut Fuel Cost

[IDemo]

Source: Business Week

President Barack Obama offered his clearest critique of the case for the Keystone XL pipeline, signaling a confrontation with Republicans as they try to force approval of the project starting today.

“Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else,” the president said today during a visit to Yangon, Myanmar. “It doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices.”

The statement repeats a main point used by opponents of the project, including former hedge fund manager and now Democratic fundraiser

Supporters argue the project will create jobs and that the oil is likely to stay in the U.S. and reduce the price of gasoline for consumers.

Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-11-14/obama-rejects-arguments-keystone-will-add-jobs-cut-pump-prices

[nykym]

1. WOW

just wow.

[randr]

2. Infrastructure improvement should be on the table

We have thousands of miles of outdated and deteriorating pipe lines currently in use. A project to upgrade this infrastructure would create far more jobs than the currently proposed XL line. It would also more efficiently deliver energy to our market rather than allowing our remaining fossil fuels to be sold on the world market.
I am an avid supporter of renewable technologies, I even live in a mostly solar powered home, but it is beyond my understanding why this is solution is not on the table. Then again no one is talking about fixing our interstate highway systems either which leads me to think it is really not all about jobs and energy independence.

[Old Codger]

3. For Christ's sake

If the plan was intended to help lower gas prices in the US and create jobs in the US the pipeline would go to some refineries not to a point of departure. Freeking idiots that can believe ths propaganda are the reason we are going out our democratic/freedom phase and entering into our corporate/slavery phase.

[jmowreader]

56. It does go to refineries

Unfortunately, they refine only for export. You think France wants them refining asphalt into diesel in France?

[itsrobert]

58. that is a good point

The US will get all the pollution, and none of the benefit.

[jmowreader]

64. We'll get higher gas prices

It's almost impossible to permit the kind of refinery needed for bitumen. The last one was finished in 1977. Since there's only so much capacity to handle this oil, we will effectively closing several refineries. When refiners go of line, gas gets expensive.

Nothing says they won't eventually be able to ramrod a new refinery through, but short-term Keystone will raise gas prices.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Interestingly ...

Michael McKenna, a Republican energy strategist and president of MWR Strategies in Midlothian, Virginia, said he believes Obama won’t allow the pipeline to be built.

“I don’t know how he could be any clearer,” he said.

Those that support the pipeline, recognize what President Obama has been doing/saying regarding the project; but DUers do not ... much like CCPI and a whole host of DU swings and misses.

[rhett o rick]

13. Of course DU'ers didn't recognize what was up. This is the first time he has made his stand

clear. Why didn't he make this stand long before this? It wasn't long ago he said he was going to let it "play out". I think had he made this stand 6 months ago, Democratic candidates could have used it in their campaigns.

And are you suggesting you know where he stands on the CCPI? Enlighten us if you do.

[Martin Eden]

24. Why didn't he make this stand long before this?

Political advisors probabaly insisted opposing Keystone would hurt Dems in the midterms.

Personally, I think not standing on principle hurt Dems the most.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Probably ...

But do you deny that "standing on principles" and opposing Keystone would have hurt oil state Democrats?

[Martin Eden]

70. That depends ...

... do the citizens of "oil states" really have anything substantial to gain from Keystone? Perhaps a gulf state with refineries and a port to ship the tar sands product would stand to gain some permanent jobs, but for the most part I think the political harm to Dem candidates who oppose Keystone is the false narrative that the pipeline equates to a significant number of jobs and lower gas prices & less dependency on foreign oil in the US.

IMO one of the biggest problems in the Democratic Party is an inability or unwillingness to cut through the false narratives and take a strong stand on good policy. A determined effort to move away from dirty fossil fuels like tar sands and coal towards green energy technologies will be good for the economic health of our country and the health of its people -- and is absolutely necessary for an environmentally sustainable future.

I think the question that needs to be asked is whether it's wise to sacrifice essential policy for the dubious benefit to a few candidates in oil & coal states. If those candidates decide to break from the party platform on energy policy that is their prerogative, but I think a much greater benefit for the electoral fortunes of Democratic candidates nationwide is to take a strong stand on good policy that is necessary for a healthy future.

Let's remember that voters (especially young people) stayed away in droves this election, largely because they saw little to vote FOR. The key to victory and to much needed progress is for the Democratic Party to take a strong stand for the long term interests of the vast majority of citizens and to make that convincingly clear through words and deeds.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Here's the "problem" with you statement ...

you ask:

do the citizens of "oil states" really have anything substantial to gain from Keystone?

Then, you state:

A determined effort to move away from dirty fossil fuels like tar sands and coal towards green energy technologies will be good for the economic health of our country and the health of its people -- and is absolutely necessary for an environmentally sustainable future.

The problem is, the oil state electorate's economy is based on dirty fossil fuels ... so, Yes, they believe that they have everything to gain from Keystone ... just as Kentuckians and West Virginians oppose measures/vote against those that will hamper the coal industry, i.e., their wallets, even as we/they know coal is damaging the environment. And that is understandable, as my ability to eat, today, is more important than the environmental harm that manifests/affects me, tomorrow.

Let's remember that voters (especially young people) stayed away in droves this election, largely because they saw little to vote FOR

That proposition is dubious, at best ... If the youth didn't come out to support job creation, reduced college payments, increases in the minimum wage, paycheck fairness, and all the other things Democrats have proposed, and republicans are on record opposing, it is not the "vote FOR" proposition that kept them home.

[Martin Eden]

77. I disagree

First of all, my question regarding Keystone is whether it would really achieve what its proponents claim -- not whether voters in a small handful of states "believe" it will. If voters believe a false narrative, I think it's better to work at dispelling that narrative than to tacitly accept it.

The above is in the context of the specific issue of the Keystone pipeline, which looks to be of minimal economic value to the everage voter (even in oil states).

The larger picture of moving away from dirty fossil fuels is in a broader context of economic strategy in the energy sector. I think moving towards green technologies and the jobs that will produce should include incentives and/or tax breaks that would bring many of these jobs to state economies that currently have some dpendency on fossil fuels.

IMO what is indisputable is the absolute necessity of transitioning away from dirty fossil fuels towards green energy technologies. Sacrificing the future for short term political expediency is a terrible mistake with long term catastrophic consequences. Making a better & healthier future a major plank of the Democratic platform I believe will result in greater electoral success.

Finally, I disagree with your last paragraph. Though some Dems have indeed proposed those things, the long term drift towards Third Way Neoliberal policies has not only left many older Democrats like myself very dissatisfied but has also created the perception (with plenty of help from GOP lies and corporate media) that neither party works in the interests of average Americans. Young people in general are far from convinced their votes will make a difference, and I'm pretty sure the folks who took to the streets in the Occupy Movement are also dissatisfied with today's Democratic Party and leadership.

I am in no way advocating to anyone not to vote. I went to my polling place and darkened every oval next to a D. The Republicans and their agenda are a real catastrophe. But I think it is extremely apparent the low voter turnout (especially among young people) has a lot to do with the real and perceived shortcomings of the Democratic Party.

[rhett o rick]

95. Please clarify this statement, "Yes, they believe that they have everything to gain from Keystone ."

Seems to me that the oil products from the Canadian oil would be in competition with oil from oil production states.

Why would the people in oil production states favor the pipeline?

This issue is a good example of where people see that both parties stand together.

[RufusTFirefly]

72. "I strongly believe in closing the barn door."

Sorry if that's too obscure. Think about it..

[Martin Eden]

75. Horse's Asses

That's all that that could be seen after they galloped away.

[rhett o rick]

78. That very well could be and I agree with you about standing on principle should

never be wrong.

[Recursion]

92. 65% of Americans favor the pipeline

Generally it's best not to do something 65% of Americans disapprove of right before an election.

[Martin Eden]

93. Much of that 65% is based on a false narrative

... that the pipeline will be a job creator and lower the price of gas while making America more energy independent.

One of the biggest failures of the Democratic Party stems from its inability or unwillingness to destroy those false narratives. This goes hand in hand with what is perhaps their biggest failure -- to build a compelling narrative and message of their own based on facts and good policy. 63.4% of voters stayed home, and many of those saw nothing to vote FOR.

[rhett o rick]

94. I'd be interested in seeing the source of that statistic. nm

[Recursion]

96. An ABC/Washington Post poll from March

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1159a4Keystone.pdf

Meanwhile Pew finds 49% of Democrats support it against 38% opposed.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/06/democrats-find-themselves-divided-on-keystone-pipeline/

[rhett o rick]

97. Thank you. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since the public has been told up to this point by

the Corp-Media that it will provide jobs and reduce gas prices. Too bad the Democratic Party didn't make a big deal how false that is.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. Why didn't he make this stand long before this? ...

Because he was trying to protect the Senate! Tell me how Democrats in oil states could have campaigned on his shutting down Keystone.

I know political calculations means nothing to folks not in the political sphere; but, it means everything to those in politics ... and the sooner we learn that, the sooner we will stop criticizing clearly political moves, and start winning the elections we need to make our vision come to be.

And are you suggesting you know where he stands on the CCPI? Enlighten us if you do.

I know that he did with the pipeline, the same thing he did with the CCPI ... he took it off the republican's menu by offering what anyone versed in politics knew the republicans couldn't accept. In the case of the pipeline, he took it off the menu by sandbagging the issue.

I know ... I know ... How dare people in the political sphere play politics!

[rhett o rick]

79. I don't mind his "playing politics" if it benefits the people. I am not convinced this did.

And saying that people aren't smart enough about politics to ask questions is ridiculous. Seems you are saying he is playing 8th dimensional chess and we should just sit down and shut up. I think we are missing the concept of democracy.

Why would oil states care about the Keystone pipeline? It is intended to carry Canadian oil across our country to Texas ports to be shipped to China.

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. But rhett ...

you are not asking questions ... You (and others) are stating, over and over again, your speculation as fact and claiming that is what democracy is about.

Why would oil states care about the Keystone pipeline? It is intended to carry Canadian oil across our country to Texas ports to be shipped to China.

Because the people in the state believe the narrative that it will benefit them. And it would ... in the very short time frame, i.e., the couple hundred temporary construction jobs to build the pipeline.

[Cha]

91. From 350.com(anti-pipeline) on the President's Stand in 2012..

This is from Jan 2012

"While Obama will certainly continue to face criticism, environmentalists and many Democrats cheered the decision.

"The knock on Barack Obama from many quarters has been that he's too conciliatory," said Bill McKibben, who heads the anti-pipeline group 350.com. "But here, in the face of a naked political threat from Big Oil to exact huge political consequences, he's stood up strong."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-01-18/obama-rejects-keystone-pipeline/52655762/1

From 350.com yesterday..

November 13, 2014

KXL Veto a Strong Move

"In response to news reports that President Obama will veto any Congressional legislation forcing approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, 350.org Executive Director May Boeve issued the following statement:

“It’s good to see the White House drawing a line in the sand on Keystone, and standing up for our climate. President Obama is right to veto politically-driven legislation that undermines the State Department’s independent review process, and increases our reliance on fossil fuels. We’ll continue to support President Obama to stand up to Big Oil and reject Keystone XL once and for all.”

http://350.org/press-release/kxl-veto-a-strong-move/

I like this Bill McKibben and 350.com.. they are respectful and don't sit around whining but are out there on the front lines with positive re-Enforcement! Working Against the pipeline..

Obama Doubles Down On Immigration, Keystone Pipeline~On the Road with Aung San Kyl in Myanmar
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5818670

[Voice for Peace]

34. Surely he knows it's a Koch profit project, and little more.

This is making me jump up and down and sing.

[Fearless]

35. Oh yes offering CCPI as a bargaining chip is totally a red herring

[Half-Century Man]

47. I don't know.

Lately my opinion has swung a bit.
While I don't know his actual motivations about offering something like CCPI; I can see some real political mileage for the Democrats in future elections.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

82. The problem is too many people think they're smarter and more politically savvy than

the president. And they continue to be proven wrong.

You were proven wrong yet again. And yes, that's hilarious!

[Fearless]

87. Proven wrong!?

My statement is he offered it up for grabs. He did offer it up as a bargaining chip. Fact.

So where was I proven wrong exactly??

[GoneFishin]

5. Now that's the guy I thought I voted for.

[Faux pas]

6. Kickin'

[heaven05]

7. I hope Barack Obama

starts kicking some RW ass. I hope he gives back what he's received the last six years.

[Voice for Peace]

38. He deserves some fun. He's so far beyond them in intelligence humor and common sense.

Surely he has seen them clearly after six years.
I'd love to see him having some fun with the rest of
his time -- on behalf of the good of all, of course.

[heaven05]

66. yes, yes!

[ReRe]

46. Amen!

"Whip it. Whip it good!" (Channeling DEVO today )

[heaven05]

67. great music!

"whip it".

[ReRe]

68. Seriously.

It was really a great motivational tune. We really can "whip it."

[heaven05]

69. I am hoping so.

yet loyal forces are running in the face of the RW steamroller. Peace? Possible? I presume that's the right track in thing in this thread. I've got to pull some music...done....listening now...."no one gets away"......

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. So why is it being promoted as such a good thing?

Seriously. I don't know what the plus side of it is.

It sounds like letting your neighbor use your yard anytime they want without any benefit to you.

[Historic NY]

12. Winner winner Chicken dinner...

[RufusTFirefly]

14. It's worse than that.

Letting your neighbor use your yard at anytime without any benefit to you at least has some altruistic advantages. It's nice to share. But in this case, your neighbor is doing things on your yard that will make him money that he doesn't plan to share and that run a very serious risk of destroying your yard altogether and a long-term possibility of making your entire neighborhood uninhabitable.

In short: It's insane.

[deurbano]

28. Yes.

[daleo]

52. There are many U.S. Corporations that would stand to gain

It is much more complicated than Canada vs U.S.

[RufusTFirefly]

71. Totally agree. I didn't mean to imply otherwise

The losers, however, will be the People and the Planet.

[ozone_man]

84. And destroying his yard too, whether he cares or not,

and the world's yard. We have to look beyond our borders, as we are one earth. There's lots to be environmentally and financially concerned about with this project.

[RufusTFirefly]

85. Yes. Absolutely!

Borders are meaningless when it comes to widespread environmental devastation.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

17. FTM ... follow the money. This is energy companies buying voices in Congress ...

... to help them make money worldwide.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[SmittynMo]

9. Forgive my stupidity

Last edited Fri Nov 14, 2014, 05:28 PM - Edit history (1)

I have not kept up on the pipeline issues, and I am opposed to it. I have several questions, stupid as they may be.

So, we're taking oil from Canada so they can get it to a seaport for shipping, right?

I'm sure this will create some jobs building it, and maybe a few maintaining it. I wouldn't think this would be a large number. So much for creating jobs!! Most will be temporary. And what about the truckers that are currently moving the oil to a seaport? I see a loss of jobs there.

And what does the US get for being so nice?

So, let's say it's now built. What happens if?
The pipeline blows a leak. How many people are reserved to take care of a massive oil spill in our heartland? Who pays for cleanup and property damage? Just imagine a large leak goes undetected for a while. You live 10 miles from the pipeline. Next thing you know, your streets and water supply are filled with crude oil? What do you do with that 300K house you just bought?

I say it's not worth the risk, nor money we can make from this. To me, it's a no brainer.

And so much for clean energy.


Added later: Bernie and I agree.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025817350

[staggerleem]

27. It also travels over the main source of water for the heartland ...

... the Ogalala aquifer. So if the INEVITABLE leak should happen near the aquifer, it could be game over for most of our midwestern farms.

[SmittynMo]

45. Game over

It's not "IF" it will happen, it's "WHEN". It may take 4 years. May take 100. May never. YOU never know.

So again, why pass this and take the risk?

[Bragi]

10. Comment from a Canadian

Please understand that the oil-company backers of the tar sands up here in Canada have been unable to convince Canadians to let them build the infrastructure they want to ship their dirty oil abroad. This is why our oil-patch, Alberta-based governing party supports sending our dirty oil through the US via KXL for shipment abroad.

My view is that we should leave this oil in the ground until every bit of cleaner oil has been used up. If that ends up being "never" because renewables and carbon restrictions make this kind of carbon-intensive oil uneconomic, then that's absolutely fine with me, the world will be a better place, and so will Canada.

So, I hope the President vetoes whatever approvals big oil and the GOP push through Congress on the KXL.

[underpants]

21. Thank you

I am usually pretty good at figuring what part of the story/equation is missing from our "news" stories. That completes this one for me.

I did see just yesterday here that on 10/14/14 another pipeline going west through Canada WAS approved.

[Bragi]

30. A west-to-east pipeline was approved BY HARPER

The pro-oil Harper conservative government approved in principle (I think) the reversal of an existing east-west gas pipeline so it could move tar sands oil west to east, for shipment abroad.

This pipeline proposal is now going through required regulatory review. There is significant opposition from First Nations aboriginal groups, environmentalists, and other groups up here.

There is also some support, mostly due to government-created confusion, because this would be a way for Canadians to get access to our own oil out west for our own use, which is not what this proposed pipeline is really intended to do, which is to export the oil.

Chances are this reversed pipeline will never be built. If it is built, it won't be for a long time.

[underpants]

44. Thanks again

We don't really have any Canadian smilies but this is close it has a red davenport

[Bragi]

76. Hah! Good one /nt

[LiberalLovinLug]

39. Our Conservative asshole-in-chief gave his approval

The oil baron federal government gave approval for the Northern Gateway pipeline. This was predictable. That was the story you probably heard. But individual provinces must also approve. And here in British Columbia they will have a tough time convincing a majority of us to allow it through our untouched rain forests, not to mention the increased oil tanker traffic through our waters.

Meanwhile Enbridge run ads all day saying how wonderful it all will be, the feds muzzle their own scientists, and pass new laws making it illegal for non-profit environmental groups to speak anything that the Cons in office deem "political", their interpretation.

[Martin Eden]

25. "... the world will be a better place, and so will Canada."

Yep.

[LiberalLovinLug]

26. Exactly right

[daleo]

54. Sums up my opinions too

[Roland99]

11. Oh, this will create jobs alright! Let's be very clear on that!

The Koch(suckers) will need lots more people to count up their gross profits!

[jmowreader]

61. The computer they have can do that already

The jobs they create will be ones you don't want: guys to drive up and down the pipeline looking for leaks, hazwopers, people to drive truckloads of bottled water...also, the pipeline will be the world's biggest terrorist target, so we'll also need a National Guard Delta Force to kill guys attacking it.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

15. “It doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices.”

This needs to be repeated over and over and over by every Democrat in Washington, in front of every microphone, on the House and Senate floor ... hell, they should be using it as a hallway greeting every time they pass someone in the hall.

[staggerleem]

31. The policy that is CURRENTLY decreasing our gas prices ...

... is called "doing Saudi Arabia's dirty work in Syria".

[DesertDiamond]

16. The claim that they will charge us less at the pump based on Keystone is effing hilarious.

[ReRe]

49. It's the same concept...

... they used to hoodwink the masses during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq... they led the public to believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

[jillan]

18. TG! I was seriously thinking of getting on a plane to protest this thing.

And with my family circumstances, not an easy thing to do.

[corkhead]

19. They just haven't told us that the jobs created will be construction workers

building dikes along all of our coastlines.

[staggerleem]

33. It's very likely ...

... that those jobs will be "created" whether we build the pipeline or not! They'll just become necessary sooner if we do.

[shenmue]

20. See?

He can do stuff.

[ReRe]

50. Yes, he CAN! n/t

[staggerleem]

22. Supporters of the pipeline project ...

... either think that the rest of us are quite stupid, or they are, themselves.

There are HUGE refineries for domestic oil products in North Dakota, the first state the pipe goes through, and as close to the Canadian tar pits as one can get in the US. same goes for many other states along the pipeline's path. So if this oil is to be used HERE, then WHY does the unrefined sludge have to travel all the way to the Gulf of Mexico?

So it can be SHIPPED OVERSEAS, that's why!

[Iliyah]

36. I'll go with the first part of your 1st sentence

exhibit a - 2014 mid-term elections

[GitRDun]

23. YES!!!!

FINALLY! Someone IN POWER finally makes an intelligent observation about Keystone.

There is no compelling American interest to assume all that risk.

Beautiful

[Blanks]

29. It does make it a little clearer why the Koch brothers advertise...

On TV without trying to sell any actual products. They're buying news stories favorable to the pipeline.

Good investment on their part. Not so good for the rest of us.

[staggerleem]

40. OF COURSE!

Do you REALLY think that the recitation of a medication's possible side effects that we are subjected to dozens of times a day is actually supposed to SELL PILLS? No, my friend, the purpose of those ads is ALSO to buy media influence.

I've recently noticed Koch Industries ads during the Daily Show. I suspect that for as long as that continues, there'll be no more Koch-Bashing on Comedy Central.

[tclambert]

59. Jon Stewart introduced the new sponsor here:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/avy6xw/democalypse-2014---south-by-south-mess--ad-of-brothers

[Blanks]

60. Did you see John Stewart lambast them?

[Iliyah]

32. Destroying America's backyards, the economy, voter suppression, health care, women's rights,

civil rights, education, et al, is the GOP way. Trust me on this, impeachment, shutting down the government, law suits, propaganda, changing election rules, will always be top priority for the party of greed.

He will veto the bill, the GOPers have already started the impeachment proceeding. Working for all America is not the GOP way.

[Divernan]

37. Pipeline, post construction jobs: 35 permanent; 15 temps.

As far as new jobs go, the State Department estimates the operation of the pipeline will only create 35 permanent, full-time jobs and 15 temporary contractors. The full-time workers would be "required for annual operations, including routine inspections, maintenance and repair." Some would work in a Nebraska field office.

The lack of many full-time positions makes sense, given that the project is to build a pipeline so that tar sands can travel without the need of rail cars or ships. The State Department figures construction would require around 10,400 seasonal workers for stretches that would last either four or eight months. This works out to 3,900 "average annual" jobs over one year of construction, or 1,950 jobs each year if the project takes two years to finish. Construction work would be spread over four states, Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas, though most workers would be specialized and need to be brought in from outside those states, the report notes.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/11/anna-kooiman/fox-news-host-keystone-pipeline-would-create-tens-/

[staggerleem]

41. "most workers would be specialized and need to be brought in from outside those states"

Like, from CANADA?

[jmowreader]

74. Probably from Texas

The problem facing the GOP: their claimed benefits - energy independence and thousands of new jobs - are demonstrably false. The Democrats' claimed problems - added CO2 in the environment from exploiting the tar sands plays, having to get rid of all the sand after the bitumen is extracted, most of the "thousands of jobs" will last one summer, we'll be spending $10 billion to create fifty permanent jobs - are demonstrably true.

[Mr. Mustard]

48. Holy Crap! Truth to OIL Industry?

Hell just froze over.

Thanks President Obama.

[randys1]

51. Who are cons so intent on helping the Canadian GOVERNMENT

and Canadian business people to sell Canadian oil to everybody BUT Americans?

I thought cons hated government and foreigners?

[TxVietVet]

53. Obama is Correct.

The jobs the pipeline will created have probably all but gone. Most of the pipeline runs through the US from the Canadian border to Nederland, Port Arthur, and Houston area in Texas. The oil WILL go on the worldwide oil market. It won't reduce fuel costs here UNLESS US companies buy it very CHEAP which I don't see happening. It will only BENEFIT Canada.

The final stage of the pipeline will create a few construction jobs. The whole project, when completed, may create 20 to 50 jobs but that's a big "maybe".

I want to know why Canada didn't run the pipeline to either their Pacific or Atlantic ports. Probably because they knew they could get it done CHEAPER by going through the US and if they needed property, the project could seize it through "eminent domain".

The pipeline came through here in the last two summers and is complete except for small sections.

[daleo]

55. Within Canada, there is a lot of opposition to pipelines

A line going to the west coast through BC is on the drawing board, but there is a lot of opposition by BC residents, aboriginal and otherwise. The same is true of lines to the Maritime provinces, via eastern Canada.

Many of the companies in the Canadian oil patch are actually US based, so much of the push for the Keystone line is really from big US corporations. Many Canadians are extremely leery about the project, but the governments, backed by big oil money at lobbying hard for it.

[ZombieHorde]

57. K&R&NT

[florida08]

62. well the President

does understand about climate change and is working hard to get world consensus. Am glad he has a strong advocate like Tom Steyer to help. President O would lose all credibility for advocating sludge be moved over precious aquifers and ruin private wells. We've already seen that with fracking. Not to mention Trans Canada trying to use eminent domain to acquire private property of those in it's way.

Seems he is passionate about holding the line so good on him. Will it be enough to stop them from circumventing? Depends. TC seem to think they don't need anyone's permission and if the right judges have been secured they won't. One judge has already ruled in their favor. It will take strong cajones to push this back.


http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/transcanada-seeks-to-use-eminent-domain-to-seize-private-property-for-keystone-xl/question-4209959/?link=ibaf&q=canadian%20company%20tried%20to%20imminate%20domain%20americans%20land

[florida08]

63. but it can be done if enough noise is made

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. Nice to see he lives in reality.

[sendero]

80. Good for Obama...

.... KXL is a joke, providing almost no benefit to America but tons of risk.

The US has paid the environmental price for its own oil production, let Canada do the same.

[ozone_man]

83. He desrves credit for standing up to this.

Don't give in on this Obama!

[blkmusclmachine]

86. Obama Rejects Argument Keystone Will Add Jobs, Cut Fuel Cost ...

... and then signs onto it anyway.

You KNOW he'll do it!

The only question is, what will be his lame excuse this time???

"The mean ol' Republicans made me do it! They cut me a rotten 'deal' and I just HAD to take it!"

[Eridenus]

88. Keystone XL doesn't exist anymore.

once again, Canada has approved an alternate pipeline to move their tar sands - and it's west-east all-Canadian pipeline.

I know for a fact that Keystone XL will _NOT_ generate one net job. So it's not even worth funding.

[Cha]

89. Oh good.. I reported on this in GD.. hadn't seen anything about it. Glad it's in LBN

thanks IDemo!

And, thank you President Obama!

[freshwest]

90. In which Obama shows the GOP the third finger so the whole world can see it...

Obama has been warning us about this for years:

(From August 2014) In Leaked Tape Mitch McConnell Admits The Koch Brothers Are Running The GOP

In a leaked audio tape of the Koch brothers top secret June 2014 retreat, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) not only admitted that the Republicans would be lost without the Kochs, and revealed who the real power is in the GOP...

Published on Aug 26, 2014

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's remarks on "Free Speech: Defending First Amendment Rights" at the Koch brothers' summer seminar in Dana Point, CA.

The main topic of his speech was Citizens United, and how the wealthy and corporations should control our elections. In the process of praising Citizens United, McConnell described how the Koch infested Supreme Court has opened the door to conservative billionaires buying the government, “And we’ve had a series of cases since then that I’ve filed amicus briefs in and had lawyers arguing in. We now have, I think, the most free and open system we’ve had in modern times. The Supreme Court allowed all of you to participate in the process in a variety of different ways. You can give to the candidate of your choice. You can give to Americans for Prosperity, or something else, a variety of different ways to push back against the party of government. It has nothing to do with overly political speech.”

The little part at the end where McConnell states that the billionaire dollars have nothing to do with overt political speech was a total lie. The Koch money is about buying and electing the candidates who will carry out the conservative billionaire agenda...

The GOP is a Koch organized and funded operation. The Kochs set the agenda, and if Republicans take back the Senate, the American people will have given control of the Congress to the Koch brothers.

THE REST:

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/27/leaked-audio-tape-mitch-mcconnell-admits-koch-brothers-running-republican-party.html

to Triana:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025750067

Corporations are People
Money equals Speech
Pepperspray is a Vegetable

VAFFANCULO REPUBBLICANI !!!

~ Tx4obama