Susan Rice Owns $300,000 in TransCanada Stock (Keystone XL Developer)

[wtmusic]

"Susan Rice, the candidate believed to be favored by President Obama to become the next Secretary of State, holds significant investments in more than a dozen Canadian oil companies and banks that would stand to benefit from expansion of the North American tar sands industry and construction of the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline. If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice’s first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project.

Rice's financial holdings could raise questions about her status as a neutral decision maker. The current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Rice owns stock valued between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada, the company seeking a federal permit to transport tar sands crude 1,700 miles to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, crossing fragile Midwest ecosystems and the largest freshwater aquifer in North America.

Beyond that, according to financial disclosure reports, about a third of Rice’s personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related energy industries north of the 49th parallel -- including companies with poor environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil. Rice and her husband own at least $1.25 million worth of stock in four of Canada’s eight leading oil producers, as ranked by Forbes magazine. That includes Enbridge, which spilled more than a million gallons of toxic bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010 -- the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history."

http://www.onearth.org/article/susan-rice-obama-secretary-state-tar-sands-finances

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Don't you think ...

She will divest herself of these interest, prior to gaining the SoS post?

That IS what ethical people do ... and we have no reason to believe that Ms. Rice is ethically challenged.

[wtmusic]

2. I hope so. I think she is eminently qualified to be SOS

but it will be hard for me to accept if she has that much stake in something so enviornmentally damaging.

Along with her other oil holdings, that's a lot of divestiture.

[NoOneMan]

4. "we have no reason to believe that Ms. Rice is ethically challenged"

Aside from the fact that she is profiting off of the sixth extinction? None at all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Do you own a mutual fund ...

or a retirement plan that is invested in the market?

Nevermind ...

[NoOneMan]

6. No

Not that my generation will be able to retire anyway....

I do have a real ethical issue with "investment". The entire notion of exploited labor/energy doesn't rest well with me. The irony is that while offering people the ability to exploit other people's labor, their own returns are never generally greater than the amount of labor that is exploited from them (by the owners of their own employment). If anything, these plans merely keep people pacified and delusional about the state of the economy.

Yes, its good to have a plan or savings. I just don't think the plan that is "right" for me should be based on exploitation of labor or the environment.

At this point, whatever makes you happy works for me though. "Greenness" or even liberalness isn't an attribute that does much more than self-edification

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. So ...

I'll assume that any "plan or savings" will be parked in your mattress, freezer, or a hole in the backyard.

Reality Time:

The entire economy is inter-connected ... even for those of your generation.

[NoOneMan]

8. I understand that

Another reason I want to cut my ties as much as possible from the entire economy, financially and emotionally (and as far as this issue is concerned, despite my snark, I am beyond ambivalent--being angry is as absurd as promoting her because she has a "D" next to her name).


Its the only answer that makes sense.

[jonthebru]

26. Its the only answer that makes sense.

to you.
See you later.

[wtmusic]

9. Most mutual funds have hundreds of individual stocks

so if she stands to make $300-600K on Transcanada alone the entire investment would be worth tens of millions.

Whatever - if she doesn't dump it, it presents a serious conflict of interest and Obama should find someone else.

[wordpix]

30. I agree if it's a conflict of interest, O should find someone else

She needs to dump the stocks before I'd be happy with her now. Otherwise, she's a great candidate, but this is too big a conflict

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Politics ...

make for strange bedfellows, as progressives attack Democrats with gop smear tactics.

[wtmusic]

10. Please explain what's progressive about Keystone XL

and, for that matter, the people who are investing in it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. I think you misunderstand ...

The progressive part are those that oppose the pipeline.

[wtmusic]

12. I do.

Pointing out a conflict of interest, and a big one, is hardly a smear.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. POTENTIAL CONFLICT ...

it is not a conflict until a person is in the position to influence. Ms. Rice is not in the position to influence the pipeline decision ... anymore than anyone else in the administration.

The potential of conflict is removed when she divests her interests, just as all other have been required to do.

The smear is a pre-emptive, though imo - premature - stick against Ms. Rice's nomination.

[wtmusic]

14. She's already in a position to influence decisions on the pipeline

and possibly has.

Don't you think a divestiture should happen prior to considering her nomination?

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. As a UN Ambassador? Well ...

maybe, though I doubt it.

Don't you think a divestiture should happen prior to considering her nomination?

Not necessarily; but I would include it a condition of my putting her name forward for SoS.

[FogerRox]

16. Boehner and John Kerry invest in tar sands companies

But Boehner gets campaign donations from the companies hes invested in......

[wtmusic]

17. I probably invest in tar sands companies

through mutual funds, but 1/3 of her net worth? That's a hell of an incentive to push the proposal through.

[FogerRox]

19. 1/3rd? I dont think so

Shes worth between 20 & 40 million. Between Enbridge and TransCanada she has probably no more than 2 million invested.

Mutual fu8nds are one thing with Boehner and Kerry I'm talking direct investment in companies like Devon Energy.

[Nihil]

20. That's what the OP article says ...

> Beyond that, according to financial disclosure reports, about a third of Rice’s
> personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related
> energy industries north of the 49th parallel -- including companies with poor
> environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil.

He didn't say "1/3rd of her net work in Enbridge & TransCanada" but what he DID say
is valid.

[Nihil]

21. I think you also misunderstand ...

... if you think that supporting the pipeline or fossil fuel extraction - most especially tar sands - is
in any way something to be admired or defended except by people with the Republican "profit above
all else" mindset.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. That's not what I've said ...

I'm talking about whether investing in companies that stand to profit from the pipe line, prior to nomination, should be a disqualifier for the post of SoS, because of the potential for conflict. I have not taken a position regarding the pipeline, itself.

[Nihil]

24. Why yes, yes you have.

> I have not taken a position regarding the pipeline, itself.

By actively defending someone who will profit from the pipeline (in addition to all of the other profits,
present & past, from fossil fuel extraction & transportation) then yes, you *have* taken a position.

That was obvious from the point where you accused environmentalists of using "GOP smear tactics".

(BTW, the GOP would not use her "wealth from destruction" aspect as an attack as that is completely
in line with their own beliefs & actions.)

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. okay ...

[CRH]

22. GOP smear tactics, excuse me, ...

Isn't this an Environment and Energy group? Wouldn't a group be obliged to point out that tar sands, is the one of dirtiest forms of energy. That it is not only dirty when it is burned, but and environmental nightmare when it is extracted? Would an environmental group be obliged to point out, the investment does not represent a last ditch strategy to energy independence, but is a commercial venture to position hydrocarbons at a southern port, to sell on the global market to the highest bidder? That such an investment provides support and capital to an industry that is subsidized to continue to create the largest threat to modern civilization, CO2 pollution. Wouldn't an environment & energy group be obliged to point out that a Secretary of State travels the world representing foremost, the US economy, and should be advancing stated goals of clean energy, containing GHG pollution, finding a solution to our ever warming climate.

If those are GOP smear tactics, I think the democratic tent needs to expand, if those are GOP smear tactics, I think your politics are radically partisan; and empty of reason, if you want your grand children to live out a normal life span.

I think maybe you have stumbled into the wrong group, perhaps the exhilaration of the GD forum is more appropriate.

[frylock]

27. *crickets*

prolly busy trying to figure a way to work in the race card.

[CRH]

29. Yep still crikets, I must have bad breath! n/t

[limpyhobbler]

18. sickening

[MADem]

28. She'd have to recuse herself--it's not even an issue.

Like Ashcroft did, when he was laid out on the hospital bed after a difficult gall bladder operation.

He just didn't have standing.

She shouldn't, either. She'll have to step to the side and leave it to an underling.

[wordpix]

31. she cannot recuse herself every time Keystone/Canada rears its head, and it will

it's our neighbor to the north and bound to come up again and again.

She should sell the tar sands?oil stocks and invest in solar/wind/biomass

[MADem]

32. Sure she can. It's not the job of the SECSTATE to deal with that shit every minute of every day.

And besides, ENERGY or INTERIOR would be more involved in these things than STATE.

Not every interaction between governments has STATE as lead dog--many don't.

[wordpix]

33. State IS involved b/c Keystone involves a Canada-US pipeline route

State Dept is the agency that is involved in the negotiating part, what can DOE or Interior say about Canada's shale oil besides "We'll take it" ?

[MADem]

34. It's a "thumbs up/thumbs down" call--and Rice can recuse--she doesn't have to be the one to make

that call. Once the decision is made to go forward with the project (or not), the role of State is automated.

A treaty is crafted, and that's pretty much the end of that, if they move forward--I wouldn't anticipate any gross treaty violations coming out of Canada that have to be dealt with on a regular basis. If they say no, Canada finds a way to export their product to Russia or China without crossing US borders, and State has no role at all.

It's not like it is an ongoing thing that will color every day of her term. She can recuse--or the decision to go forward (or not) can be made before she even shows up. Keystone is not a deal breaker for her--but if she goes down at all, I really think she needs to take McCain and Graham Cracker with her.