President Obama Has Rejected the Pipeline Again!

Obama has correctly seen that there are arguments on both sides of this issue and, because environmental impact studies take time, is not able to get all information in the 60 days Congress gave him to decide. In order not to hold up progress on other things, he released a denial. Agree with him or not, the willingness to not 'dangle' folks for a couple months when a decision could not be made then either takes courage in this 'blame game' political climate.

They have been studying it for 3 years. He is playing politics, he will serve the capitalists again, just as soon as he's re-elected. That's why he is saying, later. How blind can you be, think about it!

Yeah, the lobbying group for it has been studying it, get a clue. This pipeline is game over for GW, whether you believe in that or not, and a serious threat to the aquifer you get almost all your bread, corn, and animal feed from. Screw that up and high gas prices will be the least of your problems. Its institution means higher prices, not lower, as well, since the reason they want it is to be able to export oil that is now causing a glut in the markets in the midwest, and keeping their prices down.

Do you see the Romney ad, Ron?

It isn't politics, Char. It is a very complicated series of decisions regarding what is/are the least offensive outcome(s).

Just an example of what happens when you play with ground water (and this pipeline plays with the Ogalala reservoir), in the Denver area they tried draining/redirecting ground water. Denver began experiencing earthquakes. They stopped, the earthquakes stopped.

Leakage from a pipeline like this into a vital water supply would carry over multiple states affecting agriculture and ground stability. Remember, this passes several known seismic areas.

How about alternative, renewable energy jobs?

Yeah, its all over Gather these days.

What do you mean alternative energy jobs? What do you mean Debra?

Ron, I think the chances of a leak of a scale to damage the aquifer is almost non existent since it is on the surface, where we can fix it, stop it easily.

Actually, it will affect our prices. In the causes for wanting it, they specifically said their purpose was to export enough of their oil that it will relieve the glut of it in the Midwest markets that have been holding their prices down. It means higher, not lower prices, period, and anyone saying it will lower our prices is lying their little asses off.

Char, that is extremely naive. The flow of oil planned for this pipeline could easily do major damage before they even know they have a leak. If it is sited over the sand hills, it will access the aquifer before anyone can try to stop it, either.

Well it just seems like pressure sensors along the way could pick it up immediately.

You speak like you think that there is someone ready and waiting to repair it every five miles or something. There are miles upon miles on its planned route that are near no towns, near hardly any people at all. You can drive in the sandhills forever, and never see a house, a town or anything else, except antelope, cayotes, range cattle, and rattlesnakes. I lived there, and you are misguided.

Yet, designed into the plan should be sensors with automatic shutdown, and emergency response plans that make it a VERY small spill. Probably less than what occurs in nature if handled nd monitored properly. We aren't leaving anything unmonitored anymore, Ron. Even the rilroads.

You need to read Vultures Picnic, Char.

"...alternative, renewable energy jobs? "
isnt that like saying we wiklkl get energy from the little green men of mars?
alternative, renewable energy, is a nice catch phrase, but where is it?
everything that has been tried (so far) has failed to be affordable without billions of subsidies from the government - in other words - we pay a lot more than the utility bill shows.
turbines seem great and are ec-friendly - umless you are a flying creature. and once they kill off huge popultations of bats, vultures, ducks, geese etc what do we do about the explosion of population of mosquitoes, rats, and other varmin - what about all the rotting carcases that are not coonsumed?

ron,
so you are saying that a huge glut of oil exists, that is hpolding the price dfown?
where exactly is the price down?
and how can more supply raise the price?
sounds like sesame street economics!
few too many splinters in the windmills of your mind ........

And citing the railroads is particularly interesting, since I worked for them all my life. What you think is controlled was, until Bush came in and pretty much changed all the safeguards. If people knew how that enterprise is run, they would not sleep well anywhere near a track.

Isn't deregulation a wonderful thing? It created the neglect of all our infrastructure too!

I don't know how long you have been our of the railroad system, but they have upgraded it. Thank you del for the comment. kneed all the help I can get.

Char, I have many friends still working in the industry, and you are FOS, BSing your way through this whole debate

ron,
so you are saying that a huge glut of oil exists, that is hpolding the price dfown?
where exactly is the price down?
and how can more supply raise the price?
sounds like sesame street economics!
few too many splinters in the windmills of your mind ........

Ok Splinter brain, perhaps you ought to do one ounde of reseach before putting your fat mouth in gear -

By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.
TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”

And where in there does it specify that the cost benefit is ONLY coming from the Midwest, to come up with that BILLIONS NUMBER. Cheap Canadian Crude is this sludge. So, Midwestern refineries are refining this stuff already? Is that what you are saying??

And when they talk about PaddII, the Midwest, they are talking about refineries located there, but the gas they produce is shipped all over this country, so the lower cost is not strictly regional in effect

Question is, is that a lighter crude, or what?

There are different grades of crude coming out of there, Char, and one of the reasons they want access to the refineries on the gulf coast is that many down there can better handle the really bad sludge. I wish people would inform themselves before trotting off in support of whatever their favorite corporate rubber stamp blog tells them.

Well, there was areason I asked you that. So, there are 2 types, 2 supplies. How will it push prices up, not down?

"What do you mean alternative energy jobs?"

Actually, the term is "renewable" - not "alternative". There are any number of sources, showing job growth in renewable energy fields - irrespective of the economic situation. Here are a couple:

Green Jobs Are Real: German and American Solar Industry Both Employ More People Than U.S. Steel Production

Clean Energy Investment Rises to $260 Billion, Boosted by Solar

And the President's spokesman just said the new route isn't ready!

Char, read what they, themselves, said there.

"Well it just seems like pressure sensors along the way could pick it up immediately."

Montana Landowners Push for Cleanup of Exxon Oil Pipeline Leak

Canadian Oil Sands – ExxonMobil (2012)

So a spill happened. Where were the requirements to fix it? I wrote contracts for a long time, and the number one rule is, you agree on EVERYTHING while you are still in love. They should have absolute requirements or sue for failure to perform, fine for spill, something that would bite enough to make them do it. That is where the protection is. If the consequences were bad enough, it wouldn't have even happened! They would have made sure.

If it goes where they planned it, no contract is going to fix it, ever, besides, the oil industries record of actually fixing the environment they damage is not so damned good, it is often just not possible to undo what greed has done

If they don't make it so onerous to spill that they make sure it don't happen, then shame on them.

There is no such thing as spill proof, with this oil. One more time, this is not normal oil

Why can't they make the pipe strong enough, safe enough?

Char, with respect, are you kidding? Please point to any pipeline in use that does not have leaks!

For every question that begins with the query 'why don't they', the answer is 'money'.

Char--before you pass judgement on any aspect of the design features, land acquisition problems, potential environmental impacts...talk to an engineer about the 'real life' applications required to build this thing. I work with environmental engineers and plan to have a 'educate me' conversation tomorrow on this very subject.

The last I heard is that seismic tremors have become much worse, even being felt as far as the New Madrid fault, which runs under the Mississippi River. Do we really want to jeopardize the entire U.S. commerce system as we know it and have the TWO North American continents?

If every design criteria you mentioned (sensors every few feet; pipe so thick it won't break--which is not possible to build, by the way) was implemented, the cost of the project would exceed the total of all financial assets of the U.S. government and all U.S. citizens combined--and the time required to build it would mean that three generations would pass before it was complete--and let's not forget that with the speed of technology these days, the beginning of the project would be completely obsolete and requiring replacement before the 'final phase' was complete.

I am coming to think maybe we are going to have 2 American continents no matter what we do. I think we are in the changing of the poles, and an increasingly active seismic period because of it. So, no matter what we do, it is going to be rough. The Bible says it will be like a woman in labor. The earth is going to bear the new age, and the pain will get worse and worse and closer and closer together. You know Jesus told them there were riches like men had never known in the ground near the Tigris and the Euohrates, but it seems to me he used some ancient name for them. And that was the pil, but they could have dug all their lives and wouldn't have understood, because it was not the right time. Now is the time. That is what I believe.

Regardless of that, I have always thought we should chose energy independence. That's the main reason I think we should find a way to make the pipeline work, but it should be safe. NOT cheap and dangerous.

Darn iPad, pil up there s/b oil. I can't see the whole comment before I enter, and it auto corrects in the weirdest ways.

*facepalm*

Char, I hope we do end up with 2 Americas. We can put lib/progs on one and conservatives on the other....and see which group survives.

I think we know. ;-)

I wonder how long it would take you to let business pollute half of America, making your half uninhabitable.....

Not as long as it will take you to run your car with a windmill. ;>
Seriously, do you really think we just don't care? Do you not believe there are responsible ways to use fossil fuels?

The paradigm is that as oil gets scarcer, and they have to go after oil like these tar sands oils, that use a lot of energy just to extract, and pose a threat, just transporting it, the truth will be that there are less and less ways to use it responsibly. This one is not what I would call responsible, in any event. That is a given. It is also finite, and we will, there is no choice, in the end, have to switch over to renewable technologies, and I see that as what should be our paradigm now, not later, when we will have no choice but to purchase the equipment from a foreign country. We are, by going down this dead end road, that will only enrich the fossil fuel industries, at our expense, going to do more and more harm to our country, both economically and environmentally. I do not understand the logic of continuing to weaken ourselves, while enabling others, especially when the people we enable are our most likely future adversary, it is madness. But what else is new, off shoring, oil dependency, the ruination of our country environmentally with fracking, and tar sands extraction (yes, there are some in the process of being developed in Utah), just because we cant, and this is largely with the fossil fuel industries massive financing, get past the tons of propaganda out there each day. Madness.

If the day comes there is no food in your town because we can't get any, I want you to think back to this day! The truck won't be showing up, and you will think, wow, we could have had THAT oil...

The day may com when you can get to the store and the food can get to the store, and you wont be able to afford any of the food in it, if this goes through.

Lol, sorry, but I think if it gets here, I will get some. They won't send it so people starve. it will be rationed.

There are already people that cant afford the prices now, but of course, if you think you can afford to have all our gain and meat shipped in from other countries, then I suppose you wouldn't mind

That's ridiculous. Nothing is going to cause that short of Yellowstone going off, and I don't think the pipeline would matter in that event.

Why would we do that, ship it in?

That is not ridiculous, it is what you are contemplating.

You contaminate the ogallala aquifer, you destroy the very base of the supply of grain, feed, and meat that feeds this nation and a few others, as well.

Shipping in beef and wheat and corn to the USA?

If you cant grow grain, you cant raise meat, and you will have to get it from somewhere that isn't contaminated, or starve. Production in other areas of the US is miniscule compared to the midwest, and much of it, elsewhere, relies on grain and feed grown here.

It's been happening for years! This stuff is grown in foreign countries for pennies on the dollar. They can use DDT, Monsanto herbicides, and polluted sewer water to water the crops. Then the icing on the cake, Most of the crap has little or NO inspection or testing! They have been screwing us for years!

How do you figure that pipeline is going to cause that dire an effect?

I know that about the foreign food guys. I think everything should be marked, "product of..." or not be sold here!

The Ogallala aquifer runs under most of Nebraska (which is bad enough, the corn grown in Nebraska is a major part of our supply, and the beef industry is huge there), and important parts of South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, Char.

So one spill will stop all production? I think that is ludicrous. Absolutely absurd. There are 25,ooo miles of pipeline there now. Seems to have survived so far.

One spill is not the Paradigm, Char, you need to familiarize yourself with what tar sands crude is. A similar pipeline to what is planned has had 12 incidents in one year of operation. The Yellowstone river spill back n June or July is thought to be the result of tar sands oil that had been routed by Exxon through their existing pipeline. Along with heavy metals, carcinogens, and poisons, tar sands oils contain highly corrosive elements and abrasive elements that make it an accident on the way to happen.

"The Yellowstone river spill back n June or July is thought to be the result of tar sands oil that had been routed by Exxon through their existing pipeline."

http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/02/16/11Groups urge stronger U.S. standards for oil sands pipelines

"There are 25,ooo miles of pipeline there now. Seems to have survived so far."

Just because you don't see the spills reported, doesn't mean they don't happen.

World’s Oil Spill List

The people affected directly are - what? - collateral damage?

I don't understand conservatives' (do you believe in actually conserving anything?) allegiance to pollution. Do you not realize that these interests are not in your interest? It costs more in the long run to use polluting sources of energy.

Your link doesnt work, but this one will

Yes, see my comment above. I think when they get permit, they should have to agree to very harsh penalties and expensive cleanup and restoration. Obama let those guys SO off the hook in Fl. All those chemicals poured into our shellfish beds. Not really cleaned off beaches right. They should be made to fix it when they are careless, which they were! I just believe if the penalty is more they will do it better!

There is no technology that can restore a wrecked ecosystem. Prince William Sound (Exxon Valdez) proves that much. Some things just shouldn't be done in the first place. And we are still allowing single hull tankers into our waters, all these years later. It will not be until 2015 that we wont, provided they cant change the law again, which I wouldn't bet on....

They better get it done. The problem is, we don't own the ships.

The reason is double hulls cost more money to build, and the oil lobby has fought it all the way.

"The problem is, we don't own the ships."

The problems is, we're addicted to oil. Even w. acknowledged that. We better start thinking about rehab.

It is past time....

Rehab, LOL.

Is it true that the pipeline would take the oil to a tax free zone?

Yes

So, we wouldn't get any export duties?

I forgot to mention up there above somewhere that not only is tar sands oil full of poisons and corrosive and abrasives, it has to be pumped at a much higher pressure to get it to flow through the pipe. This is an entirely different question than can a regular pipeline be maintained safely. Apparently no, Char.

The higher pressure is a concern! I am aggravated if we get no duties from any exports processed by us. I understood those duty free areas to be among Canada, Mexico, and the US. If the gas produced is sold to China from our ports, we should get revenue. This should be used to offset our import costs on oil, or fuel. I still think, for energy security, we should find a way to do it, NOW. With all the turmoil in the ME, we need to have an alternate plan. This pipeline would be that, for up to 8% of our imports.

Dont worry Char, the Saudis are virtually tied to us by the ankles, and anything that happens will not result in them shutting off the spigot, we are their safety system.

I guess they proved that when they wouldn't even let us refuel on the base we built for them?

Give me specifics, I remember something about that, but it has been too long ago to remember.

OK, we switched to discussing this at the bottom of the comments on this article, I guess.

OMG, A Romney ad on MY page, this is all wrong!

Btw, NOBODY has watched the videos, yet. There is a surprise in there, and if you don't watch it, I'll know and you will miss something. ;-)

lol good one, Char ;-)

Glad you like it Matthew.

Sorry. I can't watch newt without barfing.

Loved the bonus. :)

No, alternate versions of reality make this liberal sick. You get to have your own opinions, but you don't get to have your own facts.

"Truth makes liberals sick."

You're confusing truth with arrogance.

Hey, if you've got it, flaunt it! Newt is the only one who has already fixed this kind of mess before, twice! The others can only hope to figure it out. Newt is right, the facts show, it is a no brainer. Like it or not, he IS the right person for the job, and if you want someone who knows how to fix it, and does what he says, Newt is the one!

Fix as in shutting the government down over a seating slight on airforce one, Char? He didn't fix anything, he made it worse. The atmosphere of animosity between parties literally began under his leadership, get real.

That is not true. He worked with the Dems enough to get things done and the Repubs were furious. he did get the budgets thru, the cuts as needed.

Char, Gingrich is one of the main reasons why I became politically active. I got tired of being insulted in my own living room each night on the news by that giant gasbag. Before that time, Republicans and Democrats were rivals, granted, but they worked together to make this country work, and Newt had a major part in ending that, get real. He had a major role in the brinkmanship we see all too often today, that has broken government entirely.

I did watch the vidoes. The second one doesn't go with the first one and Newt doesn't get to finish his 3 points in the first one. Was this just a test to see if we looked at them?

Not really, I should edit it. The second was a different link with a new ad I was thinking of posting. The first one is cut by CNN, I haven't seen the other points either, he just said this a couple hrs ago. I will edit and put the real link for the debate on the topic. Sorry, I just thought it was funny all these nasty comments were made, and nobody watched the videos, obviously, or they would have asked the questions you asked. Thanks for actually watching it!

why is newt suprised at something being "stunningly stupid"?
apparantly his expectations for this admin, are incredibly too high!
i have come to expect nothing more from any of the last 5 or 6 presidents we have had!
that way, when one of them actuially does something smart - i am pleassantly surprised, instead of angry at 99.99% of the things they do!

Lol, He was trying to find a more PC word, but he just couldn't. He really doesn't do PC very well.

stupid is as stupid does lol.

I guess it did look a bit contrived!

Tell your children when they are hungry that Uncle Obama is feeding the enviroment, first.

Love that one, Carol. he just doesn't care about jobs, he LIKES people to be dependent, I think.

there is one job he is concerned with - and only one.
lawd knows he isnt qualified to be anything - he could be 9999 weeker if he loses this one.

Yes, we can be glad, he can't run again.

True - he won't be able to run for a third term.

Sure seems that way.

Good one, Carol.

"...the left would have him be king for life...."

Actually, the left ain't real thrilled with him. Still, (I repeat) he won't be able to run for a third term.

The left is, in a lot of cases, just as sick of Obama as you are. What you have not done, is put up a better alternative. Your only reasonably sane candidate is now out of the race, and I have no choice but to hold my nose and vote for Obama, unless someone else runs a viable third party effort.

"Your only reasonably sane candidate is now out of the race...."

If you're not in the far-right cult, you're referred to as "the left". I'm assuming you're referring to Huntsman - and I might have looked at him as a reasonable alternative to Obama, as well. If I say so myself, that sound kind of moderate.

Yes, Huntsman is who I meant. He was being pushed toward crazy by those on the right, too, but I had a hope he might lead a little saner than what he had had to endorse, of late.

This morning, it was reported Huntsman is back on the campaign trail. He is campaigning for NEWT! He sees clearly, he is the best man for the job.

He sees clearly that Newt has promised him something if he wins......

Thank you for shairing with Watching The Wind Blow By

Thank you Sandy, how are you doing?

wonder how much fuel leaks when you combine all train, car, truck, boat and plane accidents - since there are hundreds of thousands more of them a year than there are spills by an oil company - i can think of only 4 big spills in my lifetime.
were they horrendous? you betcha.
does anyone actually think, that oil companies do not take every precaution available?
they are in business, after all, to make money - and paying huge fines, compensatory damages, and clean up costs, sure make a dent in their profits.
that is as retarded as saying banks wanted to make loans to people that could not pay them back.
or that mcdonalds loses money on every sale, but make up for it in volumne! (buy a bigger truck!).
and again - as i said above - i read the pipeline was re-routed around the aquafier a good 6 or 8 months ago.
so how is it still a threat - is the aquafier going to magically reach out thousands of miles from where it is and be spoiled via osmosis?
is this aquafier controlled by the same being that gave jack his magic beans?
did termites invade their wooden teeth?
wonder if some of you folks need velcro shoes?

Del do they have the right of ways?

Considering the total lack of research into a problem you have done here, I can see why you think the things you do.

I asked him, it was news to me. I heard they do NOT have the RoW.

ron,
you must have been looking in the nirror when you mentioned lack of research.
the video that plays on cnn - immediately after the one listed above is this http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2012/01/18/nr-ali-keystone-explainer.cnn
even tho the guy is against the pipeline - in the first 30 seconds Ali Veshi says 'the pipeline was going to be re-routed anyway"
as to right of way - as if that has ever stopped th government from doing what they want - under emminant domain.
i did my research ron - and yes i heard it 6 to 8 months ago - stop listening only to romper room, and do your own research.

First, Gather makes putting up links almost moron proof, you should attempt it, though I doubt your success at doing so, and second, noting that it was probably inevitable, considering the ill considered route first planned, as Ali Veshi did there, is noting what the end result of the present process will be, not that there was another alternative route planned at that time, but nice try. I would probably try to save face, too, if I had said something as boneheaded as you did, and got some of my own insulting scorn back for my own, too. You will find that I give what I get, and if ridicule is what you want, all you have to do is say so. Have a nice day, moron.

you were the one that suggested I had not done research - and you provided no links - guess it was not moron-proof enough for you?
and if you had bothered to click on the cnn link in this post, the very next one (that plays automatically - double-secret moron proof) is the cnn video i did indeed reference - and as he said - they already planned to re-route it - didnt say they might they should, they possible - HE said already.
and no - you do not ever 'dish out what you get' - you start with insults, and then are insulted when you get insults back.
you are the one that started all of this with me - once again, as you have done in tha past - being insulting, degrading, and disparaging - then getting angry when some of your crap splashes back on you.
you are an insulting person.
i did not address anything you said, untill you jumped me first with comments that insinuated that i had done no research, and that i have no knowledge.
i would appreciate it, if you would keep your mean spirited, obnoxious remarks away from me.
if not - I will again respond in kind.
dont want none? dont start none !
I will waste no further time on this thread with a wanna-be bully that thinks they can insult people to win a debate, when they have no facts, and get away with it.

Bull Pucky, and I quote -

sounds like sesame street economics!
few too many splinters in the windmills of your mind

That was our first contact here, Del.

Now, I looked at your video, twice, before, and I just looked at it again, and what the man is saying is that they were going to have to reroute it, anyway, from the start, because the chosen route is entirely too sensitive environmentally, not that they had chosen and submitted a new route. Your giant Einstein brain has failed you entirely at comprehending that fact, apparently. Don't expect me to give you credit for doing research, either, if this is the extent of your effort to inform yourself about the subject, one CNN clip, and even then you cant understand it, apparently. In point of fact, your own arrogance, which I guess you don't even notice, and think you should be totally excused for, if you do, anyway, has been the cause of all of the conflicts we have had, and usually over some BS idea you know what the hell you are talking about when you don't, just like this time. If you are right, and they had submitted another route at the time that CNN program aired, show me the proof, Del. You have misunderstood what the man was saying, and no alternate route was suggested, as I told you before. Ill leave you with your own advice- dont want none? dont start none ! and leave it at that, for now.

I also find it kind of funny you had to use a clip from January 18th, 2012 to prove "i read the pipeline was re-routed around the aquafier a good 6 or 8 months ago."

To try to get to the bottom of your misconceptions, though, perhaps you read that Nebraska had nixed their proposed original route through the most sensitive part of the state, which they did, and that has now been resolved, but even that does not reroute it around the aquifer, but around more environmentally sensitive parts of it, and that happened on November 22, not 6 or 8 months ago. "On November 10, 2011, TransCanada stated they have spoken with the U.S. Department of State and will have conversations to discuss next steps. TransCanada pointed out fourteen different routes for Keystone XL were being studied, eight that impacted Nebraska." No one new route has been settled on, or submitted fr approval yet, that I have heard of.

Barry is a typical Liberal.

Talks about Jobs and than panders to the radical base by nixing the opportunity in his hand. If he wins in November, the pipeline will be a front line issue and he will approve it. Just confirms the fact that Liberals aren't interested in America, only interested in power. Barry sent just another clear message that we must defeat this interloper in November.

What he is trying to do is pick another fight with Congress, demand things he knows they will NOT pass, deny them things everyone knows are good for the economy, but call THEM the obstructionists. Very slick, but not honorable. I despise this method of playing politics before caring about the country. Newt at his worst would never do this! NEVER!

Joe, did you watch the videos?

Oh blow, Joe, lol.

Klauthammer was just on and he said if they interrupt our supply from the middle east we will really be sorry, and pipelines are everywhere, over 25000 miles on top of the ogawaala or whatever the name is now. Ron, I think you are exaggerating.

You don't know the fundamentals on this Char, this is not normal oil

And what, exactly, did you think Krauthammer would say. He apparently hasn't investigated where this oil will go, and it is not here, in the first place.

NO RON'. You miss the main point. Why make them set it up to go to China, instead of here. A continental source in times of shortage or war.

They want to, Char, it is not something we are forcing on them, they want to eliminate a major part of their production from US markets in order to raise our prices here, what do you not get about that....

And I want a way to get oil if they won't give us ME crude!

Exactly! On top of that, The oil companies used the EPA to get rid of nearly all moms and pop gas stations by the EPA requiring the use of a newer style of underground tanks at an exorbitant cost! Even if you just had new tanks put in! Then they used the EPA to shut down most refineries choking us down to a precious few for all of our fuel needs. Most states had multiple refineries that took care of their own needs! Now they can create false shortages!

Nothing free or competitive about it, is there?

I think you are confused on a couple of points, there.

Then let me add this. Alaska oil pipeline January leak in the pipeline that released about 13,326 gallons of oil at the North Slope pump station. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/0212/Alaska-oil-pipeline-has-safety-and-environmental-risks

If that was going to be about a billion a spill it wouldn't have happened. they would have maintained it.

Yeah, get that through congress, lol. Newt would not go for that one, either.

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha ......... Now that's a load!

"President Obama Has Rejected the Pipeline Again!"

Good!

Not really, even the unions are mad about this! Like kid no says above, one more reason to vote him OUT!

Temporary jobs, and a lot less of them than most throw around figures on, and permanent environmental damage is not a good trade.

That kind of short-term focus (temporary jobs vs. permanent environmental damage - not to mention the "collateral damage") is one of the reasons we are in the shape we're in. People need to get beyond personal, short-term interest, and begin looking at the national interest.

Char. Do you have stock in exxon?

I don't have stock in GM. I have a large investment in the Chevy Volt - I own one.

Btw, Boehner has stock in exxon and bp.

Do you?

Steve, I don't have anything. Even the iPod is borrowed.

"Green Jobs Are Real: German and American Solar Industry Both Employ More People Than U.S. Steel Production"

A little slight of hand by the global warmists....what the figures actually are;

"With roughly 93,500 direct and indirect jobs, the American solar industry now employs about 9,200 more workers than the U.S. steel production sector,"

"A couple words of caution: These figures are comparing solar manufacturing, sales and installation to steel production alone. If one were to factor in products made from steel, the industry would be up around 160,000 workers."

"Clean Energy Investment Rises to $260 Billion, Boosted by Solar"

And the other side of the story:

"Last year’s growth was the slowest since 2009, when the financial crisis curbed lending to companies of all kinds and investment in renewable energy grew 1 percent. Spending bounced back in 2010, expanding 31 percent to $247 billion, New Energy Finance said."

But the 2010 bounce was impressive and what was it that encouraged such growth? It was an oversupply of solar panels that dropped the cost which made it more affordable to invest in solar....and where did thid glut of solar panels come from?

Mostly China,
"Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China"

"GAOLONG, China -- The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn't believe what happened. Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word."
This article was posted in 2008, the following was posted just this last fall;

"China solar panel factory shut after protests"

"Some 500 villagers staged a three-day protest following the death of large numbers of fish in a local river."

This is what has been providing us cheap solar panels....This is what the global warmists ignore when they laud the growth of alternative energies around the planet.

They want to prohibit a fossil fuel pipeline because of the possibility of pollution....as their desire for alternative energies causes untold damage from pollution in another country!

HYPOCRITES!

It only cost us a couple of trillion to raise it by 247 billion.

Yes, and when the oil runs out, China, not us, will be the ones to benefit from it. Perhaps it would be better if we didn't keep going down a dead end road, with fossil fuels, and did what the Chinese are, in a country where the EPA prevents such pollution of our world.

"Perhaps it would be better if we didn't keep going down a dead end road, with fossil fuels...."

Yet, "conservatives" seem wed to that exact notion.

"Steve, I don't have anything. Even the iPod is borrowed."

So..., Char, you really have no reason to be wedded to polluting sources of energy - except for it being a political preference?

"...and where did thid glut of solar panels come from?//Mostly China."

Yep. China. And that was a big reason for Solyndra going belly-up. China is heavily subsidizing solar energy. The U.S. is heavily subsidizing fossils. Taking the long-view, renewables are the better bet. I don't see China sending it's army across the globe to keep solar panel shipping lines open. I don't see Iran threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormuz to block shipping lines for solar panels.

"HYPOCRITES!"

No one condones the kind of pollution you've cited (if true). That's just you protesting your own strawman. I think you're going to have to present alot more data re: the pollution from solar energy before you're going to be able to make a case that solar energy is anywhere close to the centuries of pollution produced by fossil fuels.

"...when the oil runs out, China, not us, will be the ones to benefit from it."

There is no mistake - China is moving to dominate the renewable energy markets. In the meantime, the right-wing in the U.S. is pushing continuing dependency on foreign oil. Canada might be a preferable pusher to the Saudis - but oil addiction is still oil addiction. It won't make any difference to whom we are bleeding $1billion/day. We're still bleeding.

And while we are doing it, we have made the Chinese strong, and steadily weaken ourselves. All this free market crap has a definite dark side. We won world war two primarily because we had manufacturing industries in place, and easily convertible to war production. We literally out produced our enemies, and that was the major reason we triumphed in that endevour. Where are those manufacturing industries, today? China, our most likely future adversary, that is where. . . .

Which is why we need new manufacturing, Made in the USA tags again. Get our stuff together. hard to do when the NLRB will only let them work where they can't make any money.

BS, that is not true, that factory is now up and running, but the US worker deserves some protection against unscrupulous management, whose only intent is to dis-empower them, entirely, and we went through this crap before.

Well, we finally found something we agree on, I'm shocked.

But they do not treat them as equals, they have favored trading status with us.

"No one condones the kind of pollution you've cited (if true)."

You didn't read the articles Steve?

No one condones it but since it advances alternative energies....It's worth it to sacrifice a few Chinese peasants for the greater good, cutting down rainforests is deplorable but if it produces biofuels advancing the use of alternative energies then it's O.K..

I've been watching this hypocrisy of the progressive environmentalists for years.

Even now you will not condemn the pollution, you conditionalize your response with "if true" as if your denial gives you the right to ignore it.

You are right Dan, and so am I. There is a reason they are letting them actually produce the solar panels elsewhere. I read that production in itself is a very nasty business, and the Chinese are in actuality polluting their own citizens food supply to make them, because of the need to keep the price low enough to capture the industry.

Steve is right, no one condones this, and I sure as hell know I don't, but there are ways it can be done right, and without polluting the environment, but that costs more, and China puts a low value on life. We should be subsidizing green energy in this country, like China sure as hell is, and putting a tariff on imports. There are your manufacturing jobs of the future.... If you think this problem is bad, investigate the reclamation of precious metals from all your discarded computers and peripheral cards over there.

"No one condones it but since it advances alternative energies....It's worth it to sacrifice a few Chinese peasants for the greater good, cutting down rainforests is deplorable but if it produces biofuels advancing the use of alternative energies then it's O.K.."

Dan. Chinese industries of all kinds are famous for this kind of pollution - not just solar. Such is the deregulated "competitive" arena. Ever wonder how many American "peasants" have been "sacrificed" for corporate profits? This is nothing new - especially when it comes to fossil industries in the U.S.

"Even now you will not condemn the pollution...."

Sure I will, Dan. So does China - or didn't you read your own links?

"I've been watching this hypocrisy of the progressive environmentalists for years."

What you've been doing is inventing "this hypocrisy of progressive environmentalists for years". E.g., linking "progressive" and "environmentalists" in the first place. I certainly have posted and linked many times evidence of (true) conservative and republican "environmentalists". Most republicans, at one time, understood that environmental protection benefits them too. How did that ever change?

"There is a reason they are letting them actually produce the solar panels elsewhere."

The real reason is that the fossil industies dominate both political parties, and there is no real commitment to producing them here. The solar industry here is well aware of the environmental issues in producing solar panels - I'm not so sure that's the case in China. But that can be said for any industry in China. Remember those school kids, who were killed in an earthquake, due to shoddy construction of schools a few years ago?

"We should be subsidizing green energy in this country, like China sure as hell is, and putting a tariff on imports. There are your manufacturing jobs of the future...."

Instead, we're subsidizing Iran's nuclear progress via our oil dependency. Of course, China is too.

At any rate, there are more U.S. jobs installing solar panels and equipment than there ever will be associated with the keystone pipeline. What exactly IS the right-wing's allegiance to fossil fuels?

Probably when the environmentalists became extreme. Extreme like, raiding Ca co-ops to arrest them for trading raw milk. For growing their own food, stupid things like that. Then there was the EPA writing, or trying to write a reg to declare dust a pollutant to stop a farmer from plowing his field.

Do you understand why milk needs to be pasteurized, Char? You still keep citing that dust case, I would sure like you to point me toward it, so I can look it up. I can imagine though. When I lived in Alliance, Nebraska, there was a beet field across from the train yard I worked at, to the west. Whenever he plowed his field, you couldn't breath, or see, cause the wind never stops out there, nothing to stop it. It was almost as bad on into town. We had to wear goggles and wet handkerchiefs to keep working through that. I think the city finally bought that guy out, but if he wouldn't sell, what then. I can easily imagine a town calling in the EPA for that kind of problem.

This was a similar situation, but in an area with water restrictions. The stupid EPA wanted them to use the precious water to wet down his fields and the farmer told them they were crazy, so they threatened to fine him for polluting with the dust.

"The EPA Wants To Regulate Dust! THIS IS NO JOKE!!!"

Nonexistent Farm Dust EPA proposals Maybe now you can see what I mean. This is classic.

So one of the most aggressive environmental organizations writes an article that says that the EPA isn't going to regulate farm dust.....Not posting anything in the article that actually shows that the EPA is not going to regulate farm dust.
BTW the NRDC would most likely love to have the EPA regulate farm dust to lessen the amount of land farms use.

You have got to get over this idea that the people you listen to, work for you, they do not, Democrat or Republican, they workfor one segment or the other of corporate America.

Dan, you cant prove a negative, that is the old "When are you going to stop beating your wife" routine. There were no proposed standards for farm dust, and if there were none, you cant present them, obviously. They noted there that the head of the EPA had testified before congress that there were no proposed standards to do any such thing, though, and that can be checked out, for yourself.

By the way, the article says there was not controversy on the standards re evaluated under Bush, but in investigating, I found out there was some, though not as much as for this time around, using this same fraudulent approach, and I guess you think that farms all over America have had to stop operating because of it in the last six years.... As I understand it the ‘‘Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011’’ they introduced would have blocked the EPA from regulating particulate matter from smokestacks and coal plants, not just the farm dust they were using for cover, something we have been doing since the Reagan years, at least, to eliminate acid rain, pollution and other problems. This was a backdoor attempt to gut the clean air act, and my own congressman's complicity in it is easy to understand, since the Republicans in my state have been getting a load of cash from a company that wants to build several coal fired plants in my state, something that was blocked under the previous administration.

Fairy Dust

I was watching FNC this morning,and a news item on the Crawler said the owner of the pipeline has applied for a new permit;The spokesman for the company said they weren't surprised by the President's decision.

Is it the one to route it to their own coast?

I searched for the word 'tax' on this page and didn't find it once. You all do realize that the Republicans added a rider to this bill that created an additional short-term tax cut, right? One that we still cannot afford to pay for. So it was the unfunded tax cut that was rejected more than the pipeline. But, rather than be honest about their intentions, this has become about a relative handful of temporary jobs rather than the cost of the tax cuts that we can't afford that would continue to hang around our necks.

Seriously, folks. We cannot afford to pay for additional tax cuts in the years to come (since that will simply add to the deficit/debt) until/unless we cut Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security/ or the Military. Any additional tax cuts without that action is reckless and irresponsible. And it is that irresponsibility that is what President Obama was really getting at.

Aja,
History shows us that tax cuts (in general) increase revenues and tax increases (in general) reduces tax revenues.
This is a fact that can be verified by reviewing the federal tax receipts (which I have done in the past) and correlating them with when tax cuts were made and tax increases were implemented.
Nearly every time a tax cut was put into effect the following year there was a slight dip in tax revenues then the following years there was a sharp rise in tax receipts, with tax increases the opposite happened there was a sharp increase in tax revenues the next year but the following years there was a gradual drop off in tax receipts.

Dan, That works to a point, but the inverse reaction also falls on a bell curve. The problem we have is all the investment money is stuck offshore. That is the tax policy we need to address. RE: Laffer curve, we could tax the wealthy more. I agree with that, we need more revenue, and the economy is too bad to ask more from the poor and middle class, and corps don't pay taxes, they just bury it in the prod, services. We don't need to add to inflation there. We are in a pickle.

"Dan, That works to a point,"

Nope Aja,
It's pretty much consistent.

"The problem we have is all the investment money is stuck offshore."

And you base that on what evidence?

We are at about the optimum level of taxes right now.

The problem with taxing the rich more - is that as it always has - revenue will go down, and unempolyment will increase - because more money will be invested in production overseas.
exporting jobs is not the problem - it is the result of the problem.
increasing taxes to raise revenue, is like an abused spouse taking pain killers so the beatings wont bother them.
taking even more income from the poor and middle class, by killing domestic jobs helps no one.
have you never read atlas shrugged?
whle i disagree with a large part of ayn rands politics - the book is revealing of human nature, and reactions to a government suffocating growth.