Are you OK with the Democratic Congresspeople voting for the Keystone Pipeline?

[1StrongBlackMan]

267. By "agnostic", I simply mean ...

"hasn't voiced an opinion on the issue of the pipeline", itself; but rather, is taking the fact that the Canadian companies WILL pump the oil out of the ground (something that the U.S. Government has no control over), and that once out of the ground, that oil WILL be transported to refineries and, ultimately, to market. The U.S. Government can, however, affect whether the oil travels through the U.S. (and to U.S. refineries) by killing the project, and to a lesser degree by restricting transport by rail (through changing the existing regulatory scheme).

What no one who is either for this pipeline or agnostic about it has explained to me is 'how does this in any way benefit the US'?

How will the oil, once extracted, benefit the U.S.? There will be the refinery work, and if transported by rail, the railroad car sales and the rail transport fees, most of which go to companies domiciled in the U.S.; if transported by pipeline, there will be a short-term realization of construction jobs, along with the refinery work.

We do NOT have to transport this filthy product by train or pipeline through this country.

True ... by killing the pipeline, the oil will be slowed; but again, there is no way to ban this particular oil, since we DO allow other filthy products to be transported by rail throughout this country ... unless you are suggesting starting a trade war with our neighbors to the North.

The oil is not FOR this country. All we would be doing is to facilitate the destruction of a large part of our own environment so that Foreign Corporations can benefit.

The ultimate destination of the oil is, really, irrelevant ... the oil will affect global prices (slightly), as this oil purchased by China is oil China won't be purchasing on the global market.

The original attempt to claim it would provide jobs has been thoroughly debunked, so that is no longer an issue.

Actually, what has been "debunked" is not WHETHER jobs will be created ... everyone agree that there will be jobs ... the thing "exposed" is the nature of the jobs ... the vast majority of the pipeline related jobs will be temporary jobs during the construction phase, lasting 2-5 years, though there will be an uptick in permanent pipeline monitoring and maintenance jobs, plus the gulf coast jobs related to refining the oil.

Now ... None of this response is me taking a position advocating for the pipeline, as I do not favor it ... (like MM) not for climate change reasons. Even "Bill Nye the Science Guy" (this morning on one of MSNBC talk shows) stated that killing this pipeline project will have little affect on climate change because, even without the pipeline, the oil will still be extracted, refined and will make it to market. My objection to the project is that we have yet to find an environmental safe method for transporting it ... pipelines leak, pipelines affect wildlife migratory patterns and train cars leak and crash.

Secondly, none of this response will convince anyone whose opinion on the pipeline starts and ends with the unlikely proposition that the oil should stay in the ground.