Eleven Democrats Push Obama to Approve Keystone
Source: Wall Street Journal
Nearly a dozen Senate Democrats, including five up for re-election this year, are pressing President Barack Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, and they say they want a decision by the end of next month.
Most Republicans support the pipeline, but the 11 Democrats who wrote a letter to Mr. Obama urging him to approve the project deliberately made it a one party-effort. While a set of bipartisan signatures can be a powerful thing in the art of Washington letter-writing, these lawmakers clearly want to accentuate the pressure Mr. Obama faces from his own party on this issue.
“It’s really to turn up the pressure on the president,” said a Senate Democratic aide on the condition of anonymity. “We know where the Republicans are on this issue.”
Democratic Sens. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Warner of Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska, who all face tight races this November, signed the letter, which urges Mr. Obama to put in place an explicit timeline to decide on the project and to make a final decision by May 31. The party’s quest to keep control of the Senate could hinge on the races of these five Democrats, who have previously expressed support for the project. Many of them come from fossil-fuel rich states.
Read more: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/04/10/eleven-democrats-push-obama-to-approve-keystone/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
newfie11
(8,159 posts)
INdemo
(7,024 posts)since the Koch Bros own most of the oil leases for/from the Keystone pipeline
As was said earlier and on the ED Show..we are now the Corporate States of America and soon they will start naming national monuments and parks after corporations as they do Athletic Fields..
Why not call the Keystone the Koch Brothers pipe line and never mind about the environment...Keystone somehow just doesn't fit and we could call Congress the Koch Bros forum or advisory committee
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
INdemo
(7,024 posts)not the real Democrats.Check out the voting recording and recent articles where "Some Democrats in Congress are urging President Obama to approve the Keystone pipeline"
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-senate-democrats-keystone-pipeline-20140410,0,447898.story#axzz2zQaNIK3C
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)They just don't want to lose their jobs.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)Polling in February and March showed that nationally, the pipeline is favored by 61% to 65% of the nation depending which poll you look at. One tragically, found that 47% believed it would harm the environment - AND found 65% in favor.
Now consider that that support is likely not evenly spread over the country. Vermont has had landslide votes in town meetings against it. I would assume that both Alaska and Louisiana which are energy states are as lopsided in favor of it.
THIS is why Obama could not issue a "NO" at this point without hurting these Senators. They will likely issue demands from now until November. This will do two things. One would be to diffuse the attack that they vote lockstep with Obama (and Reid, Pelosi(sic) etc) In fact, it is very likely that a Senator almost always votes with their party when they control the Senate and the Presidency. The legislation is designed to get most Democratic votes and to get the requisite Republican ones to pass. Yet The party out of power always calls for "bipartisanship" - even when as now they really demonstrate very little of it.
polichick
(37,626 posts)hoosierlib
(710 posts)The president will eventually approve the project and Dems inRed states need it approved to improve re-election odds. It's a shit sandwhich for environmentalists, but necessary for the economy and any hopes of keeping a majority. Hopefully, the President can get something in return for it...politics, the art of the possible...
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Canadian oil piped to a shipment port for export to Asia. It will provide about fifty full time jobs. It will certainly help the Koch brothers who own most of the tar sands where the oil comes from but I don't see how it will benefit the USA in any manner.
hoosierlib
(710 posts)-1,950 construction jobs over 2 years
-50 fulltime jobs managing the pipeline
-$3.4 billion increase to US GDP
-relief for oil glut in Oklahoma which will keep oil prices where they are at
-less reliance on foreign oil producers not named Canada or Mexico
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and as far as the "less reliance on foreign oil....", this is not true. The oil will go the same place the rest of our oil goes.
hoosierlib
(710 posts)BTW, most of our is refined into gasoline that either domestically consumed or shipped to Europe...
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)it will do nothing for the economy. hoosierlib, methinks you're in the wrong place.
hoosierlib
(710 posts)I just don't tow the line on everything and believe everything I'm told (namely climate change). I'm a pragmatist that wants to do things, not remain in gridlock or allow the GOP to run things into the ground again. Ideological purity is a bad thing...
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I just don't tow the line on everything and believe everything I'm told (namely climate change)..."
I imagine science will remain as such whether you "tow its line" or not... much as the earth maintained its spheroid shape regardless of those who didn't tow the line and remained tied to the dogmas of a flat earth. And while ideological purity may be a bad thing, denial of science seems even worse.
hoosierlib
(710 posts)I'm skeptical, get over it..m
former9thward
(33,424 posts)But to the point, how come you or no one else has said anything about the hundreds of oil and gas pipelines already criss-crossing the U.S. Why is this one so different?
hoosierlib
(710 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)BFD
.0002 of our GDP - won't even register in the economy
A lie - the oil will not be dedicated to our use, so it will do nothing for our dependence
Don't even know how to respond to that one, except that I imagine it cam from the Blaze or some such.
Like I said, this post might slide through at Fox Nation, but DU is much less densely populated with morons.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)the cash will keep on flowing
The sheepies will keep on pushing for their humgry masters
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I'm not sure how that helps OUR economy 
kokobell616
(35 posts)At the point of entry into the US there could be an oil refinery constructed. That would secure jobs well into the future, boost our economy with meaningful opportunities across a broad spectrum of job skills. XL need not be a pipeline. Need not be a pipeline. Should not be a pipeline.
Boreal
(725 posts)transported.
I don't like this pipeline one bit but that fuel WILL be transported. Meeting shave been going between the US and Canada for a lot longer than we were ever informed and by the time we heard about it was a done deal. So, how does it get moved? Trains or trucks, both dangerous. After what happened in Lac Megantic the possibilities are horrific. I really wish that more emphasis had been put on a safer pipeline.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)You don't know the tsar sands are in Canada.
hoosierlib
(710 posts)Never said they were in the US...refiners and seaports are and we as a nation benefit economically
Orsino
(37,428 posts)
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)The XL Pipeline will do very little for the U.S. economy, yet we gain all of the liability when there is a leak or sabotage by terrorists.
The XL Pipeline is only necessary to Canadian oil companies and China; the end user of the Canadian tar-sands oil.
hoosierlib
(710 posts)They export diesel and gasoline to Europe keeping our prices high...
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)refinery in the U.S. in over a decade. Our refineries will not benefit from XL Pipeline oil.
hoosierlib
(710 posts)We are producing excess gasoline and diesel that being in Europe because its more profitable.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)I did some research and found that you were mostly correct.
hoosierlib
(710 posts)Good to know some people are reasonable and look into things
karynnj
(60,968 posts)The difference in what Europeans pay is due to very high taxes compared to the US on these products. Those taxes have led to more efficient use. If you ever rented a car in England or Europe, you quickly get that the gas prices are much higher. That does not mean they pay more to the gas companies.
The additional oil from Keystone would not budge the international price - in fact, that international price would affect the % of the oil that would be economically feasible to extract and transport to world markets (most likely China.) The total amount of oil and the cost to produce it are why it will not lower the price significantly.
Boreal
(725 posts)Obama’s fellow Democrats in Congress, rather than the Republicans, are the source of concern for Canada and Mexico regarding trade promotion authority. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid poured cold water on the president’s State of the Union request for congressional authority to negotiate the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Canada and Mexico are participants in the TPP, and have already negotiated separate deals with the European Union.
Peña Nieto and Harper know that access to key European and Asian markets is key for export growth – preparing for this competition is the reason behind the efforts to improve border, regulatory and clean energy cooperation in North America now.
http://www.hudson.org/research/10128-twenty-years-after-nafta-obama-must-lead-in-the-toluca-two-step
Please explain your assertion that this pipeline is "necessary for the economy". I'd love to hear it. You obviously know something most here aren't aware of and would fully support XL after you've presented your case. Thank you in advance.
NickB79
(20,354 posts)Just not the US economy.
There are a billion Chinese and Indians desperately wanting to buy cars and live the American dream, and to do that they need that gasoline.
NickB79
(20,354 posts)As the world-renowned NASA scientist James Hansen said, exploitation of Canada's oil sands is "game over for the climate": http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=0
Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
James Hansen was one of the very first scientists sounding the alarm over climate change back in the 1980's, and he's been remarkably accurate over the past two decades, so I tend to listen when he talks.
What exactly can we get in exchange for Keystone XL that is somehow more important than a planet capable of supporting human civilization?
hoosierlib
(710 posts)I don't buy into to the assertion that CO2 emissions are the single cause for global warming / climate change. That belief combined with knowing that most of the oil will end up in Asia one way or another, makes me prefer to have it located in the US (net $3.4 billion contribution to US GDP). That being said, I do want the pipeline heavily regulated and inspected and if there is a spill, there should be big fines. We still need petroleum to power our economy for the foreseeable future. Thinking we switch overnight to renewables is a pipedream (pun intended).
djean111
(14,255 posts)This the United States. There will be none of that heavy regulation, inspections, or fines. It would be quite naive to think there will be. Or disingenuous.
NickB79
(20,354 posts)In my corner, I have 99% of the world's climate scientists backing my assertions.
In your corner, you have Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Koch brothers.
Enjoy your stay 
I acknowledge that climate is changing and we experiencing an increase in overall global temps. However I do not believe that CO2 emissions and its subsequent buildup in the atmosphere are to blame for a majority of that trend.
I have reviewed the science and what data sets I can get my hands on and I just don't buy into it. There are other variables at play that are contributing to the changes we see. The earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles. We experience ice ages and magnetic polar reversals on a regular basis every 50k to 100k years. I don't put faith in a data set of only 150 years, especially when instrumentation wasn't that great in the early days.
I am open minded, but I'll need to see better data before I would reconsider. And qouting studies and saying they are "fact" is just as bad as a the right-wingers that point at the bible for justification or proof.
NickB79
(20,354 posts)That statement is the CORE of the climate denier argument, and an argument that every scientific organization has utterly destroyed over the past 20 years.
And from there you further go into red herring arguments of ice ages, magnetic pole reversals, "I'm open-minded", etc. Those previous episodes in Earth's history have been studied, EXTENSIVELY, and what that research has shown is that the current cycle of warming is not a natural one in the sense that a volcanic eruption or solar flare is driving it.
Like I said, my backing comes from the 99% of climate scientists that think humans ARE driving climate change via CO2 emissions. Your arguments are shared by rightwing nutjobs.
The science on this has been settled now for years. Whether you like it or not doesn't mean a thing.
hoosierlib
(710 posts)Your evidence is based solely upon other people's work that you don't even think critically about. In 20 years, when the sky hasn't fallen, remember I told you so.
Enjoy the Kool-Aid and never be skeptical...
NickB79
(20,354 posts)
Like my grandfather used to say, "It's ok to have an open mind, just so long as it's not so open your brain falls out."
Plop.
hoosierlib
(710 posts)Your college major was? You went to grad for?
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Does this place have any sort of standards? Might as well take in the creationists.
hoosierlib
(710 posts)Just skeptical of its cause (i.e. natural vs. man made)
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)us economically?
Are the oil companies and Koch brothers going to send us thank you checks?
hoosierlib
(710 posts)Essentially;
-1,950 construction jobs over two years
-50 full-time jobs
-$3.4 Billion increase in US GDP
-Lower to stabilized oil prices
-Decreased reliance on middle eastern oil
djean111
(14,255 posts)as others have said, it will create very few jobs, the temp jobs for building it are likely outside contractors, and the oil will not stay in the United States.
The United States, however, can be damaged badly by leaks and splits and accidents. I would also bet that keystone is not responsible for environmental damages.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)Even the biased first State Department report estimated about 35 to 50 long term jobs jobs. The oil will traverse the US, and (possibly be refined in Texas) then shipped to China. It is not a quality of oil used in the US.
What we get is:
- A major risk of oil spilling somewhere from a leak - possibly creating a huge environmental disaster which the SAME REPUBLICANS pushing this would blame on Obama (and possibly the life long environmentalist, Secretary Kerry.) If the damage is major, who will pay for the cleanup - given that the company could declare bankruptcy?
- Most of the TEMPORARY jobs building the pipeline estimated to build the pipe line are likely already over given that they jumped the gun before final approval and built a significant portion of the pipeline.
The fact is the Koch brothers will benefit immensely, but the US is just being used -- as they have in the past used powerless countries or poor areas of this country --- risking our water and land to have oil traverse from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. I have long read of environmental justice which tries to protect the least affluent from all the most toxic activities in their vicinity. Here, the 1% Koch brothers are showing that their lack of concern with harm (if money can be made) extends to the United States.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)it's not necessary for her to be onboard with Keystone (cover to usher in fracking in NC.) The pipeline isn't (as far as I know planned to touch NC) Her Republican opponents are already in favor of it.
So...why is she pushing this? Because she knows desperate Dems will vote for her and gag down the Keystone Issue. She votes with Republicans on everything else. So desperate to keep a Dem Senator...Dem voters will comply.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Not vote for her?
What is your advice to them?
hoosierlib
(710 posts)Yeah, that's a brilliant strategy...
MindMover
(5,016 posts)the only reason these D's want KXL is because they have economic ties to the pipeline ... Arkansas builds the actual pipe used in the pipeline and that is just one example ....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024801059
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)remember Landrieu was the one who wanted to redraw gulf map lines, and make florida shores, her shores. Her thinking was the oil companies are not paying LA the drilling royalties due for impact and cleanup, so if she makes HER area bigger, the oil companies will have more money and pay her what they owe the dirty shores of LA. And screw FLA...who live on tourism beach money. Mary Landrieu is a MORON!
Mark Warner was one of four dems who voted against the only jobs bill we have had, back when we had the house and senate. The bill would have rushed jobs back here...changing the tax code back. Sen Warner told me personally he felt it was too bold a bill.
But NAFTA was not bold? The giant sucking sound of jobs leaving????
These names are the same over and over screwing dems. Can we replace them instead of believing, we have dems in those seats, so let's work on repub seats? With these dems NOTHING CHANGES. Do you get this? Screw Mary Landrieu and Mark Warner.
Alaska drinks oil for breakfast!
JudyM
(29,785 posts)(on edit) Done.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...I wonder what will be: The Top Ten Ways It'll Be Spun
10. To avert an ''energy crisis'' for Exxon and BP?
09. So we can fill our gas tanks over here so we don't have to fill our gas tanks over there?
08. To get back at Putin cause he asked for it? Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah.
07. To be in solidarity with Pussy Riot's shale oil position paper?
06. Canada said they'd beat us up if we didn't?
05. Americans will see how good it is to have healthcare insurance after the countless oil spills?
04. To shut the Teabagettes the fuck up about Benghazi for two damned minutes, okay???
03. If we don't, we'll have to close 200-300 of our overseas military bases?
02. We like Canada. Canada is our girlfriend. If you don't love Canada do you HATE AMERICA!?!?!
And the number one way the Keystone Pipeline's approval will be spun by the Obama Administration:
- 01. It was the terrorists what made him do it? Like always.
K&R
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)New Post-ABC News poll: Keystone XL project overwhelmingly favored by Americans
By Juliet Eilperin and Scott Clement, Published: March 7E-mail the writers
Americans support the idea of constructing the Keystone XL oil pipeline between Canada and the United States by a nearly 3 to 1 margin, with 65 percent saying it should be approved and 22 percent opposed, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The findings also show that the public thinks the massive project, which aims to ship 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta and the northern Great Plains to refineries on the Gulf Coast, will produce significant economic benefits. Eighty-five percent say the pipeline would create a significant number of jobs, with 62 percent saying they “strongly” believed that to be the case.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-post-abc-news-poll-keystone-xl-project-overwhelmingly-favored-by-americans/2014/03/06/d74c58c6-a4a1-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html
Doesn't sound much like the President, or anyone else, needs to "spin" anything.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Since this will only create about 50 permanent jobs, I would say the spinning has been done and swallowed.
The Koch, I understand, will benefit greatly, though.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts) djean111
(14,255 posts)And I don't think the 'will of the people" means crap any more. It is all about money and getting reelected.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts) djean111
(14,255 posts)If I thought the pipeline would create lots and lots of jobs, and the pipeline would be massively inspected and regulated, and the oil would bring the cost of our gas down, and believed that alternative fuel sources were bogus little blips - that might be my "will", too.
Yes, he has been re-elected, that's obvious. And sometimes it feels like his fervid admirers think there will be some ridiculous groundswell to elect him again somehow. Weird.
Anyway, the pipeline will be okayed, not because of any "will of the people". It will be okayed because money has been spent, and there has been cold calculation of how the approval will help people to get votes contrasted with how saying no would cost votes. The MSM has guaranteed that the "will of the people" is based on whatever the Kochs want. IMO, etc.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)way is there to take the pulse of the American people on issues important to them? And the president's "fervid" detractors will just have to suck it up. The detractors' impotence in getting the word out, can't be blamed on anyone but the detractors. It's like the Green Party, people know they're there, they just don't give a shit. Majority rules. Ever hear of that?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
djean111
(14,255 posts)Good thing I never watch political bloviation on TV - I imagine a Keystone announcement will make me want to hurl.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And I had forgotten about his proimse to expand our natural gas supply, and push for "clean" coal
djean111
(14,255 posts)I just watch what actually happens.
Wise indeed.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Government of, by and for Big Petroleum.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)This is a pipeline from Canada, is it not?
rehabanderson
(25 posts)I'm not sure how that helps OUR economy
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Boreal
(725 posts)but it helps Canada and multinationals and multinationals is what it's all about. This has everything to do with the SPP/North American Union/north American integration which has been in the works for decades. Don't like it? Tough shit because you and I don't matter.
Having said that, we are a world that runs on energy and we don't have viable alternatives to fossil fuels, except for nuclear which I hope we can get rid of. Worse yet is that nuclear is often sold as "green" by the AGW camp and nothing could be further from the truth unless we want to count glowing green like Fukushima.
The biggest danger with the pipeline is that tar sands are very abrasive and contain nasty chemicals. The usual pipeline specs are not good enough and that needs attention more than anything because those tar sands WILL be moved.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)They see it as part of a major economic boost based on an oil/gas boom that many are predicting for the US in the next several years. Of course long-term we are fucked, economically and environmentally, if our economy is based on petroleum, but politically, its "smart" to support it at this point in time.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Why do we only get laws that the corporations want?
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)I am sure he will approve it!
hatrack
(64,886 posts)No environmental/youth vote backlash to hurt voter turnout, and he can pretend to be "committed" on climate policy through early November.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)That means he won't suffer the political costs for rejecting the popular pipeline rather than destroy his own reputation when the pipeline - almost certainly - somewhere leaks and creates an environmental disaster.
One interesting thought is what do the Clintons do? I assume that they want Obama to take the fall for approving it. If he rejects it, it becomes a major issue again in the 2016 race. Hillary could take either side - she could position what she did as prudently asking for more investigation or as more willing to do it than Obama. (article from 3/11 that some environmental activists are asking for her to speak out against it - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-11/clinton-keystone-dodge-prompts-donors-to-rethink-support.html )
karynnj
(60,968 posts)Udall's statement is a profile in courage given the state he is from.
Following in his father's footsteps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Udall and those of his uncle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Udall on the environment.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Think about Canada. They voted down building this pipeline.
Sure we in the US can sell out our environment now but our children and Grand children will pay the price.
It's all about politics in this country. Some of our politicians would sell their sole for money.
Yes the idiots pushing for this pipeline are either uninformed and believing the lies being spewed daily by MSM or greedy money grubbing idiots that could care less about the future generations.
Faux pas
(16,356 posts)should outweigh the bottom line for some 'foreign' mega corp. Seems like an easy decision to me.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)I live in California, about a half a block from the rail tracks. The trains are so much heavier now that they are transporting oil, that sometimes I can feel my house shake. There is no safe way to move that motherfracking oil.