General Discussion

bigtree

(94,322 posts)

54. fine, as long as he doesn't start talking about trade-offs to reach his carbon goal

Sun Jul 28, 2013, 07:46 AM

Jul 2013

. . .thing about numbers - like the ones used to measure carbon output - they've been screwy from the start. I'm not as reassured by this report as some might be that he's going to use this logic or formula and conclude Keystone would tip the balance. Now, if he already had a predisposition against tar sands, I might believe this report represents something more than eventually justifying approval of the pipeline.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama Says He�ll Evaluate Pipeline Project Depending on Pollution [View all] ProSense Jul 2013 OP

Cue the outrage! Scurrilous Jul 2013 #1

Boink! riqster Jul 2013 #32

... Scurrilous Jul 2013 #58

Isn't it amazing that the positive news stories about this administration woo me with science Jul 2013 #60

Hope JVS Aug 2013 #66

Still waiting for the other shoe to drop... chervilant Aug 2013 #67

Given the fact that the Dept of Interior doesn't even know Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #2

Because that's what Presidents do n/t. 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2013 #35

Obama let it slip to reporters at truedelphi Jul 2013 #41

I tried google to find any reference to sheshe2 Jul 2013 #52

The pertinent comments were back on page fifteen or sixteen, truedelphi Jul 2013 #53

Sorry that doesn't work for me. sheshe2 Jul 2013 #56

I can't help it - I read it and what interested me was thaqt truedelphi Jul 2013 #62

Interior has nothing to do with the pipeline; international pipelines belong to State (nt) Recursion Jul 2013 #55

I should have written EPA, not DOI. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #57

"2,000 jobs were �a blip relative to the need.� think Jul 2013 #3

According to Canadian networks, Obama's tough talk is just a political posturing NoOneMan Jul 2013 #4

Canadian networks don't get to decide, and the State Department hasn't issued a final assessment. ProSense Jul 2013 #6

No, but they get to evaluate world events without US partisan perceptions NoOneMan Jul 2013 #7

"Without US partisan perceptions"? ProSense Jul 2013 #9

Its a good thing that the NSA can run a flash poll now to find out how everyone feels about it NoOneMan Jul 2013 #14

About ProSense Jul 2013 #17

whether the pipeline is built or not, the tar sands oil will be extracted cali Jul 2013 #5

But if the pipeline is built it will cross the Ogallala Aquifer think Jul 2013 #13

of course. I'm just pointing out the obvious flaw in the President's reasoning cali Jul 2013 #36

I missed the relationship between your statement & Obama's think Jul 2013 #38

I find it reassuring that he has discredited the talking points. LiberalAndProud Jul 2013 #8

I hope that was sarcasm....yes, it is, among other things. PDJane Jul 2013 #10

The EPA ProSense Jul 2013 #11

Bookmarking here. freshwest Jul 2013 #59

He's going to approve it XemaSab Jul 2013 #12

And the moment he does, the same NSA-loving Democrats will be all over it NoOneMan Jul 2013 #15

Yup XemaSab Jul 2013 #16

You calling people "NSA-loving Democrats" while supporting the fucking Keystone pipeline is ProSense Jul 2013 #20

I don't support the pipeline, or the Tar Sand project at all NoOneMan Jul 2013 #21

So you're just here pushing the Canadian networks' opinion over "US partisan perceptions" ProSense Jul 2013 #22

Im telling you what people up north see from this speech: certainty in the pipeline and expansion NoOneMan Jul 2013 #24

So what? You're pushing this opinion like it's relevant to the decision. n/t ProSense Jul 2013 #26

Pushing? I am informing you what others around the world see in this speech NoOneMan Jul 2013 #37

Wait, ProSense Jul 2013 #39

Its always important to understand how others perceive reality, especially if you have bias NoOneMan Jul 2013 #40

None of ProSense Jul 2013 #42

Haha, sure NoOneMan Jul 2013 #43

OK, ProSense Jul 2013 #44

Hiding behind blue links is a bad thing now? NoOneMan Jul 2013 #45

Seems like you're dealing with some issues. n/t ProSense Jul 2013 #47

Your opinion is not relevant NoOneMan Jul 2013 #48

You're right, my last comment isn't relevant to the Keystone decision ProSense Jul 2013 #49

I am rubber and you're in the wrong sandbox NoOneMan Jul 2013 #50

Actually, ProSense Jul 2013 #51

Not a chance. Major Hogwash Jul 2013 #25

thank dog Kerry's in charge at State now AtomicKitten Jul 2013 #28

I doubt they'll redo the EIS entirely XemaSab Jul 2013 #29

Opinions evolve NoOneMan Jul 2013 #46

What is he waiting for? Agony Jul 2013 #18

Can we just get away from oil? Rosa Luxemburg Jul 2013 #19

But we haven't even got to 550 ppm yet! NoOneMan Jul 2013 #23

Are you opposed to getting away from oil? n/t ProSense Jul 2013 #27

Not a bit NoOneMan Jul 2013 #31

all the oil will go to China anyway putitinD Jul 2013 #33

Here's hoping he sticks to it. riqster Jul 2013 #30

Kick! BumRushDaShow Jul 2013 #34

fine, as long as he doesn't start talking about trade-offs to reach his carbon goal bigtree Jul 2013 #54

Farcical. It's a done deal. It's going to happen. Safetykitten Jul 2013 #61

We'll see. n/t ProSense Jul 2013 #64

My crystal ball says he kills the KXL. grntuscarora Jul 2013 #63

I want him to say No just to piss off the Clintons. Whisp Jul 2013 #65