http://ricomsmith77.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
ricomsmith77.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2014-11-14 03:44 pm
ricomsmith77.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2014-11-14 03:44 pm
Entry tags:
"The Obama Keystone Pipe Dream: Why Building It Will Be A Nightmare"
Originally posted by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ricomsmith77 at "The Obama Keystone Pipe Dream: Why Building It Will Be A Nightmare"
ricomsmith77 at "The Obama Keystone Pipe Dream: Why Building It Will Be A Nightmare"Earlier today, the U.S. House of "so-called" Representatives passed legislation for building the controversial Keystone Pipeline....an oil pipeline system that carries dirty crude oil sands from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
It runs from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada to refineries in Illinois and the Gulf Coast of Texas, also to oil tank farms and oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition to the synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen from the oil sands of Canada, it also carries light crude oil from the Williston Basin region in Montana and North Dakota.
Approval for the controversial pipeline, which easily passed the House by a 252-161 vote, comes as Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana battles runoff challenger Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy, who sponsored the House bill. Both candidates are taking credit for influencing the Keystone vote, which is popular in the oil-producing state they represent. Now the bill moves to the Senate, which is still under Democratic control until January, for a vote. If it passes there, then it heads to the President's desk for his signature.
But will he sign it?
The problem with this pipeline is that the oil that it will carry has been proven to be unsafe for the environment, due to the consistancy of the oil sands. The main issues are the risk of oil spills along the pipeline, which would traverse highly sensitive terrain, and 17% higher greenhouse gas emissions from the extraction of oil sands compared to extraction of conventional oil. Environmentalists have consistantly been warning Washington DC of the dangers this pipeline could create, but the Republicans and members of the Oil Industry argues that it would help create more jobs and would bring down the costs of energy here in the U.S.
But that simply isn't true.
Building the pipeline will create jobs in the U.S., but not as many as the supporters have claimed, and only for a year or two. The U.S. State Department estimates that 42,100 jobs would be added during construction, but that only 50 workers would be required to operate the pipeline. This oil would not be used here in the U.S., but would be shipped to other places around the world.....so it would do nothing to bring down our costs of crude oil at all.
So why build it you ask?
Well if we weren't so dependent on oil so much, we probably wouldn't need to. The world hasn't completely gotten off the grid, so to speak, so we have to maintain ourselves by continuing to use this stuff.
A few days ago, Obama and the Chinese President agreed to a groundbreaking new climate change deal. Under the agreement, the United States would cut its 2005 level of carbon emissions by 26-28% before the year 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions by 2030 and will also aim to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources by the same year. This is great for the environment, being that these two countries lead the world in carbon pollution.
But of course, the Republicans complained that Obama didn't have the authority to make such a deal and that they would try and fight him on it.
Quoth the raven, Senator Mitch McConnell:
“Our economy can’t take the president’s ideological war on coal and oil that will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners,”
If the Republican's think that this is a war on coal and oil and the middle class....
....then they can keep on pipe dreaming!
It runs from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada to refineries in Illinois and the Gulf Coast of Texas, also to oil tank farms and oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition to the synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen from the oil sands of Canada, it also carries light crude oil from the Williston Basin region in Montana and North Dakota.
Approval for the controversial pipeline, which easily passed the House by a 252-161 vote, comes as Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana battles runoff challenger Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy, who sponsored the House bill. Both candidates are taking credit for influencing the Keystone vote, which is popular in the oil-producing state they represent. Now the bill moves to the Senate, which is still under Democratic control until January, for a vote. If it passes there, then it heads to the President's desk for his signature.
But will he sign it?
The problem with this pipeline is that the oil that it will carry has been proven to be unsafe for the environment, due to the consistancy of the oil sands. The main issues are the risk of oil spills along the pipeline, which would traverse highly sensitive terrain, and 17% higher greenhouse gas emissions from the extraction of oil sands compared to extraction of conventional oil. Environmentalists have consistantly been warning Washington DC of the dangers this pipeline could create, but the Republicans and members of the Oil Industry argues that it would help create more jobs and would bring down the costs of energy here in the U.S.
But that simply isn't true.
Building the pipeline will create jobs in the U.S., but not as many as the supporters have claimed, and only for a year or two. The U.S. State Department estimates that 42,100 jobs would be added during construction, but that only 50 workers would be required to operate the pipeline. This oil would not be used here in the U.S., but would be shipped to other places around the world.....so it would do nothing to bring down our costs of crude oil at all.
So why build it you ask?
Well if we weren't so dependent on oil so much, we probably wouldn't need to. The world hasn't completely gotten off the grid, so to speak, so we have to maintain ourselves by continuing to use this stuff.
A few days ago, Obama and the Chinese President agreed to a groundbreaking new climate change deal. Under the agreement, the United States would cut its 2005 level of carbon emissions by 26-28% before the year 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions by 2030 and will also aim to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources by the same year. This is great for the environment, being that these two countries lead the world in carbon pollution.
But of course, the Republicans complained that Obama didn't have the authority to make such a deal and that they would try and fight him on it.
Quoth the raven, Senator Mitch McConnell:
“Our economy can’t take the president’s ideological war on coal and oil that will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners,”
If the Republican's think that this is a war on coal and oil and the middle class....
....then they can keep on pipe dreaming!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Page 1 of 3