Elizabeth Warren Fights against Global Warming, Separates Herself from Hillary Clinton

[Cal33]

Last edited Sun Feb 9, 2014, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

More than a month ago Elizabeth Warren finally separated herself clearly from Hillary Clinton, regarding the issue of climate change and global warming. Here is the story: TransCanada Corporation wants to build the Keystone XL Pipeline to carry oil from Alberta Canada's tar sands to two refineries owned by Koch Industries near the Texas Gulf Coast, for export to Europe; and Hillary Clinton has helped to make that happen, but Elizabeth Warren has now taken the opposite side. Clinton had worked behind the scenes to ease the way for commercial exploitation of this, the world's highest-carbon-emitting oil, 53% of which oil is owned by America's Koch Brothers. Secretary Clinton's State Department allowed the environmental impact statement on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline to be performed by a petroleum industry contractor that was chosen by the company that was proposing to build and own the pipeline, TransCanada. That contractor had no climatologist, and their resulting report failed even at its basic job of estimating the number of degrees by which the Earth's climate would be additionally heated if this pipeline is built and operated. Their report ignored that question, and instead evaluated the impact that climate change would have on the pipeline, which was estimated to be none. President Obama himself is now trying to force the European Union to relax their anti-global-warming regulations so as to permit them to import the Kochs' dirty oil. His agent in this effort is his new U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman, from Wall Street.

But on December 20th, Senator Warren signed onto a letter criticizing the Obama Administration's apparent effort to force the European Union to agree to purchase this oil. Six senators and 16 House members, all Democrats, wrote a letter to Froman on Friday asking him to elaborate on his position on the matter. "If these reports are accurate, the U.S. Trade Representative's
actions could undercut the EU's commendable goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its transportation sectors," these
22 Democratic lawmakers wrote. This is, essentially, a rebellion by 22 progressive congressional Democrats against the Clinton-Obama effort to provide a market for the Kochs' dirty oil. This letter was actually written by Representative Henry Waxman and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

What is at issue in the Keystone XL and Alberta tar sands matter is governmental policies that will determine whether the tar-sands oil will undercut the production-costs of normal oil. If the Kochs win, then the existing governmental policies will change in ways that will eliminate this cost-advantage of normal oil. The benefits to Koch Industries, from this competitive re-alignment in favor of tar-sands oil, have been estimated to be around $100 billion. David and Charles Koch would then become the two wealthiest individuals in the world.

On December 17th, the Republican House budget chief, Paul Ryan, threatened to drive the U.S. Government into default unless President Obama approves the Keystone XL Pipeline. President Obama holds the sole authority to approve or disapprove this project, because it crosses the international border, but he has delayed this decision for years, because he doesn't want to enrage the environmental community. Senator Warren has now joined with the progressives on two big issues that arouse intense opposition to her from the aristocrats who finance most political campaigns: She opposes the taxpayer-handouts to Wall Street, and she now also opposes the entire planet's, basically, environmental handouts, to the owners of the most-harmfully polluting corporations, such as Koch Industries. (The other owners of tar-sands oil are Conoco-Phillips, Exxon-Mobil, and Chevron-Texaco.) This could be a turning-point in Warren's political career. She's no longer at war against only the financial industry corruption that dominates the conservative (Clinton and Obama) establishment within the Democratic Party (and all of the Republican Party), but she is also at war against their environmental corruption. Clinton's extensive Wall Street network is already busy behind the scenes, to discredit if not smear Elizabeth Warren. If Big Oil will now be donating to Wall Street's pro-Hillary campaign against Warren, then Warren will be lucky even to keep her Senate seat.

My admiration for Elizabeth Warren has gone up another notch. She is willing to dare and risk so much for the sake of giving the
American people a better chance. Character assassination does lasting political harm, and it works best against candidates whose policy-prescriptions are the hardest to attack; and every major politician knows that this is so. Hillary Clinton has a huge following that wants to see her as president. How many would still number themselves among her supporters, if they had known of the above? I, myself, would still prefer her to an out-and-out Republican, like Romney. But it is a choice of the lesser of two evils. I would like it much better to have a decent, left-of-center Democratic candidate, who would be working for all the American people, not just for the corporations.

We are in desperate need for a change, and time is not on our side. Who knows? The coming 3 years may be our last
chance. Plutocracy is already more than half way replacing democracy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/elizabeth-warren-comes-do_b_4483753.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. This article cuts right to the heart of why I do not want Hillary as president of anything:

This excerpt really says it:

What is at issue in the Keystone XL and Alberta tar sands matter is governmental policies that will determine whether the tar-sands oil will undercut the production-costs of normal oil. If the Kochs win, then the existing governmental policies will change in ways that will eliminate this cost-advantage of normal oil. The benefits to Koch Industries, from this competitive re-alignment in favor of tar-sands oil, have been estimated to be around $100 billion. David and Charles Koch would then become the two wealthiest individuals in the world.)

Her stand on this topic is so reprehensible as to disallow her from ever holding high office again.

It borders on criminal.

K&R

[Cal33]

2. So much of what the Republican leaders are doing - both in government and in private industry - is

morally reprehensible. I believe the vast majority of those people who vote Republican
don't even realize what they are really doing. A high percentage of these leaders are
sociopaths. This is the nature of their pathology. They can't change. All we need to
do is to vote them out of office, or not promote them up the corporate ladder.
I know, this is more easily said than done

As for Clinton and Obama, are they playing with fire - our whole nation being the hot toy,
or is this just their particular blind spot, which each and every one of us also does have?
There is no escape. We all have them.

[mdbl]

6. when you have as much money as the kochs, you can buy death

Do we really have a choice in these matters? Does Clinton or Obama? I wonder.

[zeemike]

8. Or is it just pragmatism?

They know where the money and power lies and don't have the courage to oppose it...Warren does and is.
And for that reason I fear for her safety.

[JDPriestly]

21. I think that she taught bankruptcy law at Harvard.

In that field, I suppose you get to know the winners from the losers. I think you also see just how the corporate tax and bankruptcy codes protect the winners and punish the losers.

Hence, her perspective.

She also studied middle-class financial issues.

She would be a great president in my view because she more than anyone in Congress knows how our laws are used to benefit the oligarchs and hurt the rest of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Academic_career

We need Elizabeth Warren in the White House.

[Cal33]

24. "We need Elizabeth Warren in the White House." Yes, we do. And you put your reason so nicely. nt

[Divernan]

10. Hillary can have all the "blind spots" she wants - just not in the Oval Office.

You seem to condemn "Republican leaders" as morally reprehensible but then give Obama and Clinton a pass as merely having "particular blind spots".

A policy which is morally reprehensible when pursued by a Republican is not excusable as a "blind spot" when promoted by a corporate-owned Democrat.

It seems that a "blind spot" is what lobbyists purchase with their campaign donations, or special interest/big corporations purchase with their $1/2 million "speaking fees" to husbands of a possible future president . So no, we do not all have them.

[Cal33]

17. That's because they are only half-way as bad. With people like Obama and Clinton, democracy

is still hanging on to life. And where there is life, there is hope of a left-of-center
Democrat winning the next time. Whereas with someone like Romney in 2016,
democracy will most likely be killed off.

Yes, we all do have blind spots, but in different areas. This does explain why
there has always been, and there always be, problems in this world of ours. If
not in one area, then in another.

This might also explain why we are here at all: To learn to see ourselves as we
really are, to deal with challenges and to improve ourselves as far as we can.
We are all at various levels of moral development. Sociopaths are among the
most primitive. Unfortunately, they are also the most ambitious, and go for their
goals with total disregard for the rights of their fellow human beings.

They make life harder for all, but sociopaths do provide us with opportunities
to learn how to meet life's challenges. Do we meet them with grumbling, complaints
and curses, or do we KO them with hard work, learned skill and grace? I have done
more than my share of grumbling, complaining and cursing.

2% to 4% of the general population are sociopaths. This is pretty steady all over
the world. They'll always be around. Lately 4 or 5 genes have been identified to
be present in some sociopaths. There are also sociopaths who do not carry these
genes, but became this way probably through their environmental upbringing.
Maybe someday scientists will learn how to manipulate these genes so that children
will be born without them. But this is still in the distant future -- if humans should
survive that long.

[JDPriestly]

22. I am certain of one thing: Elizabeth Warren is not a sociopath.

I'm not so sure I can tell sociopaths from non-sociopaths until it is too late. We all like to think we can, but only very rarely can we be sure. And I am sure that Elizabeth Warren is not a sociopath.

She gets my vote.

It is time for real change that will even the playing field just a bit for ordinary Americans.

We need an overhaul not just of our tax code, but also of our corporate law and our bankruptcy code. Student debts should be subject to discharge in bankruptcy just like any other debts. And some of the subsidies for corporations should end. The tax revenue collected when those subsidies end (oil and gas subsidies to start with) should go into supporting our state colleges and universities and providing assistance to students in private colleges and universities who have the grades and test scores that warrant assistance.

[Cal33]

27. Yes, you can tell by what she says and the way she votes that she is a highly decent person. I'd

love to see her as president, too.

[Enthusiast]

44. +1 a whole bunch.......nt

[Whisp]

35. Please don't speak the names Clinton and Obama

in the same sentence as if they are alike.

Will Obama veto? I don't know but hoping he will.

But I do know what a Clinton will do for money:

[Cal33]

47. The Keystone XL Pipeline question has been around for a few years now. And Pres. Obama simply

let it lie around without doing anything about it one way or another. According to this article, that's
because he was afraid of rousing the anger of the environmental protectionists. But recently he has
been trying to forcibly sell the idea of getting the European nations to promise to buy this oil, before
he okays building of the pipeline from Canada to Texas. Obama seems to be willing to pollute the
air and build the pipeline to help sell the Koch Brothers' oil abroad.

I am sorry to break it to you in this way, but can you think of any other explanations for Obama's actions?
I can't. It seems he is obsessed with the idea of "bipartisanship." He does not see that the more you
try to appease sociopaths, the more you whet their appetites, and the greedier they become. Have you
ever heard of any Republican leader commending Obama for having given in to their way of thinking?
I never have. They only continue their verbal abuse, curse him, call him "a Hitler," ... Sociopaths only
respond to fear of punishment, and money and power. Obama cannot see this because of his obsession
with bipartisanship. That's what "obsession" means. He's got that one idea stuck in his head, and it
doesn't leave him alone. He can't get rid of it.

[malthaussen]

12. How about realism?

I don't like the pipeline for assorted reasons, but I am also not responsible for keeping the USA energy-happy for the immediate future. What's your alternative? The country is geared to the use of dirty power, whether from coal, oil, or "safe, environmentally-sound" fracked gas. Your heat, your computer, your life depends on sucking up more energy per capita than any other nation, and it's got to come from somewhere. All the "alternatives" in the world aren't going to come online overnight even if we committed to them right now. So what do we do in the interim? I think this is the perspective that drives at least a few of the supporters of the pipeline.

What I don't get is how they could be so naive as not to see that this is a tremendous sellout. That tar-sands crud isn't going to go towards keeping the US supplied, it is going to be shipped overseas to fatten the wallets of the Kochs and other multinationals, who will offshore the money and laugh at the rest of us. This would seem to be so obvious that it is hardly unreasonable to wonder if the fix is not in.

Kids, we were talking about this in the 70's when OPEC first started putting the screws on. All the alternatives talked about now were known and understood then. Nothing was done (or not much). We preferred to find new ways to extract the same crap, oblivious of the point that the very fact we were resorting to such marginally-efficient means of extraction was a sign we needed to make a substantive change. Why should it be any different 40 years later?

-- Mal

[DeSwiss]

13. Why should it be any different 40 years later?

If you have to ask, you won't like the answer.

[JDPriestly]

25. Look. Tar sands and shale oil and the oil under the ocean

are among the hardest most costly fossil fuels to extract, and I am not even adding in the environmental costs.

That we are considering paying that cost to keep up our dependence on oil tells me that we need to get very serious very quickly about switching to other, perhaps initially more costly sources of energy.

As I keep saying here on DU, the Southwestern states have not begun to exploit the cleanest source of energy available: solar energy.

Our technology regarding solar energy is still in the infant stages even though we were pretty well aware of what potential it had way back in 1974.

Saying no to the pipeline is the first step in weaning ourselves from the illusion that we are going to be able to rely on fossil fuels dug out of the ground well into the future. We aren't. We may develop some means of manufacturing fossil fuels from other substances, but that would most likely be very costly too.

At this time, when we use fossil fuels we are using what is left of the ancient life on the earth. It took a long time for nature to produce fossil fuels. It's time we decide to leave what is left of it in the ground and move on to other energy sources. Procrastinating will not produce more fossil fuels. We need to replace them.

Let's really move on, move forward and away from fossil fuels. The sooner the better.

[Cal33]

33. Corporations and their paid minions are the only ones who actively prevent our nation

from going over gradually into solar and wind energy. And they have been very
successful. These forms of energy require no fuel. If we had started 40 years ago,
little carbon-based fuel would be in use today.

Why can't we start right now? A few have. But greedy corporations are still doing
their level worst to prevent it from spreading. And they still are succeeding.

[JDPriestly]

40. Yes.

"We don't like solar because there is no product to sell."

The statement of a representative of the Canadian nuclear energy industry meeting at the First World Energy Conference in London, January 1974. I'll never forget it. I was sitting just in front of him and had to turn around to see him utter that damning sentence. We had heard a talk by a team from MIT on solar energy. At that time they were fueling a house in Massachusetts with solar panels switching to I believe it was gas on days with very bad weather. 1974.

[freshwest]

30. Well said, true and tragic.

Externalizing the blame comes from a deliberately crafted, but fraudulent internal belief in our own helplessness. It denies our involvement in the creation of the problem our leaders solve.

At the same time, it denies our lack of involvement to resolve the quandary of consumption and oppression to nature and the rest of the world, and increasingly, fellow citizens. It's a mindless calling out for more all the time, but is a great burden on leaders and those supplying it.



Note: the word 'We' in this following part of my post does not apply to anyone who feels separate. This is a grammatical device to express the actions of majority in the world, by patterns of human consumption, which the poster I am replying to has defined well.

We call the alleged sociopaths in government and industry evil for their giving us what we do not say with our mouths we want as they attempt to make it work, expecting the miracle of being supplied goods without suffering the loss of what they know that we demand silently 24/7/365 days a year.

We don't demand it in politics, our mouths are too pure and our causes too just - when our mouths are exhaling. We find some person or entity to blame, or another faction of society.

But we demand it with every inhalation by the way we live and what we consume. We cannot escape what we are, to crucify those who are meeting the unspoken but baser demands of our subconscious desires, may be hypocritical, IMHO.

[malthaussen]

32. That Pogo will never go out of style...

... and ya know what? That's the real tragedy. It will never go out of style.

I'm pretty resigned to the fact that I live on the blood and suffering of others. Even if I could claim to try to limit the damage, that's just to salve a too-timid conscience. But I also fear that life is ultimately a zero-sum game. It may be possible to live without exploiting somebody, but I haven't figured out how as yet.

Good rant. You have a nice way with words.

-- Mal

[freshwest]

34. Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.

[Divernan]

15. Well and succinctly stated!

I was once, in a land which now seems far away and long ago, such an ardent, enthusiastic, hard-working Clinton supporter that I was a guest at Bill Clinton's first inauguration. Prime seat across from the Presidential viewing stand for the parade, passes to VIP viewing areas, standing/sitting shoulder-to-shoulder w/ Hollywood celebrities. I still have a now dust-covered bottle with the label, "No. 35, Germain-Robin Alambic Brandy, Small Barrel PV25m, Clinton Inaugural 1993." The label on the back of the bottle informs me "The Clinton Inaugural blend was drawn from a small barrel blended each year for the White House."

At this point, there are many reasons, including but not limited to the Keystone XL, for any one of which, I also do not want Hillary Clinton as president of anything.

[LongTomH]

3. How about we write in Sen. Warren's name on the ballot in the 2016 Primary?

That is, unless a real progressive like Sheldon Whitehouse is in the running!

[Cal33]

5. A very good idea, I must say!

[anasv]

4. This letter was actually written by Representative Henry Waxman and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

We are very, very lucky to have Sheldon Whitehouse as our Senator in RI.

I still would like to see Joe Biden run in 2016, but Elizabeth Warren would make a great VP and then President herself.

Hillary not only has bad policies, but she has never convinced me she is competent. Being a hard worker is not being competent.

[coldbeer]

14. I sure like Biden and Warren.

I wish Hillary would back out. I am not backing her.
I had to vote for Gore after he chose Lieberman and
it is hell voting for someone you do not like.

Go Biden!

[JDPriestly]

28. I like Biden but he is from the Northeast as is Warren.

We need someone from some other part of the country as Warren's running mate.

I do like Biden but as vice president, he has not spoken out about the economic injustice in the country. I suspect that he is very aware of it, but hampered by his position in the administration from speaking out about it. The inequity and disparity in incomes have increased during the Obama administration.

Also, I think that Elizabeth Warren because of her background in bankruptcy law and studying middle-class economic issues is uniquely qualified to set our country and our economic system back on track. Without a strong middle-class and opportunities for small business entrepreneurship (Really Small Businesses not conglomerates pretending they are small) and bright individuals in our country, we will fail not just economically but also in every other way.

[anasv]

45. Congress

Joe is the only potential candidate (or upper level office holder...) who's shown any ability to work with Congress to actually get anything sensible done.

[libdem4life]

43. I like this...just seeing it show up on DU, or I just started seeing it. I do get the regional

issue, though.

[madrchsod]

7. one hell of a country we are leaving the future generations

just for a brief moment in time they let us have just enough to get us by. then they realized we might not appreciate what they did for us. they will never let that happen again.

[JDPriestly]

9. I did not find the article at the link. Did I do something wrong?

Who wrote the article?

[Cal33]

11. Go back to the link. At the bottom of the main page you can type in the title of the article you

want to read: Elizabeth Warren fights against global warming, separates herself from Hillary Clinton.

[I, too, was surprised at the change]

[JDPriestly]

16. Thanks.

[joshcryer]

18. pandering

Warren knows it will be built lest Canada go with China

[reddread]

20. positioning

its gonna be cat fight.

[joshcryer]

23. oh god I hope so

but Clinton already has the talking points down

* unions support keystone
* keystone helps USA energy roadmap
* it's already mostly underway, south portion finished
* serves geopolitical interests, prevents China from having the upper hand
* climate change a separate issue

[reddread]

26. she is way outmatched

anyone who wants to take her down, can. None as easily as Warren.
I'll give her mad props over Biden's total incompetence.
But she will have an impossible journey as well.

[joshcryer]

29. hope you are right

bit I don't see a president getting elected without supporting keystone

[MADem]

41. It is a bit late to protest this; maybe the "XL" Phase IV can be stopped, but the rest of it--

most of it, anyway, is already up and running.

For the record, and to "give the hand" to anyone suggesting that I somehow "like" this thing, I hate it. I think the process for extracting the fuel is hideous and filthy, I think the way forward is with wind/solar/wave, and I am not a fan of pipelines for anything save desalinated water.



Now, from what I understand of this issue, everything save the blue line in the pic, above, is up and running as of last month. I have to wonder why in hell they didn't make the existing pipeline just a shred larger, to avoid having to build that big blue slash and piss off everyone in its path? Is the idea to have two very distinct routes in the event of "terra?" Since they converge at a certain point, anyone wanting to make trouble only has to look at the picture and figure out the best place to raise hell...!

[WillyT]

19. Working Link Here:

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/elizabeth-warren-comes-do_b_4483753.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

& Rec !!!

[Cal33]

36. Many thanks. Have updated the link.

[WillyT]

38. Anytime Cal33, Anytime...

[MADem]

31. Your LINK is BAD.

It directs to a headline that says Oh, Noes! A 404! with a picture of two dogs in Xmas costumes,



and a link-note saying "Please feel free to continue to the Huffington Post."

[Cal33]

37. Thanks, I have corrected and changed the link in the OP.

[MADem]

39. Nothing against cute puppies, mind you--thanks! nt

[Scuba]

42. Elizabeth was already widely seperated from Hillary. This indeed increases the distance.

[Enthusiast]

46. We do not want a Hillary presidential candidacy. We must have Elizabeth Warren.

No more of these "too liberal" lies. If she would join with Bernie on a ticket they would crush the opposition.