Titans279 Posted November 7, 2015 Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 I've read this is actually pretty much meaningless. From a climate change perspective, this stuff is eventually going to be processed and consumed. From an economic perspective, the benefits to the US were largely exaggerated by proponents. It's a great opportunity for people to get all hot and bothered though! https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/keystone-xl-wasnt-about-jobs-or-the-climate-it-was-all-politics/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted November 7, 2015 Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 7 hours ago, TitanDuckFan said: But the main thing the shortcut would do is pick up the Bakken oil on the way through. That would cut out Warren Buffett's railroad contracts to haul the Bakken oil on his BNSF line, and reduce the oil being shipped to the terminals in Illinois for refining. Would also reduce rail congestion energy companies are experiencing in terms of coal shipments... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Btowner Posted November 7, 2015 Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 1 hour ago, Titans279 said: I've read this is actually pretty much meaningless. From a climate change perspective, this stuff is eventually going to be processed and consumed. From an economic perspective, the benefits to the US were largely exaggerated by proponents. It's a great opportunity for people to get all hot and bothered though! https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/keystone-xl-wasnt-about-jobs-or-the-climate-it-was-all-politics/ To me, messaging has always been a weakness of the Obama administration. They continually allow their opponents to frame the discussion regarding their policies. Instead of making this announcement and tying it to climate change, he should have mentioned the risk to the aquifers, use the BP spill as an example and how it could potentially impact our water and children's health. Turn it into a risk vs reward discussion. Turn it into a conversation on eminent domain and what happen to the GOP mantra of Washington stepping on state rights? Turn it into a conversation on the minimum benefits the USA would reap from the risk. Turn this into another example of the GOP allowing corporations to do whatever they want. Americans will understand a decision to not risk the health and water of communities for 50 jobs. We understand seizing taxpayers land to enable a foreign company and country to profit. However, we don't understand rejecting a project that would bring "many" jobs for climate purposes. It's all in the messaging. Mythos27, IsntLifeFunny, reo, and 1 other 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted November 7, 2015 Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 Has anyone considered the Canadian election results in the reasons for this decision? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 7, 2015 Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 No, even the pot smoking liberals needed the pipeline. This is a very bad blow to our economy. Canada has trillions of barrels of oil and we have no way to make it flow anywhere near it''s capacity without pipelines. This was much more about optics and politics than it was about practicality. Obama is going into international talks about climate change and he wants to be able to point to this and say he is leading by example. NOW he wants to stand up to big oil as he;s leaving out the door. This is about his legacy. Typical from this douche. Canada is the sacrificial lamb. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted November 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 The US is still buying Canadian oil, pipeline or no pipeline. But if you want to sell it overseas, build your own damned pipeline... MadMax 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/its-not-in-canadas-interest-to-celebrate-keystone-defeat/article27170237/ It also conveniently ignored the fact that the alternative to Canadian oil for U.S. Gulf Coast refineries is heavy crude from Venezuela that has a comparable carbon footprint. Canada’s ambassador to the U.S., Gary Doer, who now reports to Mr. Dion, pointed this out in a February letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in which he slammed the “significant distortion and omission” that led the EPA to reach its conclusions. Not only did the EPA base its findings on 2005 data – neglecting the reduction in the carbon intensity of oil sands crude that has occurred since – it also failed to recognize that Alberta is the only foreign supplier of oil to the United States that has imposed a carbon tax on its own producers – one that is soon set to double and whose proceeds are invested in clean-energy technologies. Canada was within its rights to strenuously object to Mr. Obama’s decision, and to the tortured logic the President used to reach it. Instead, Mr. Obama got only meek “disappointment” from Mr. Dion and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and the promise of a “fresh start” in Canada-U.S. relations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted November 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 On November 7, 2015 at 3:26:46 PM, Starkiller said: The US is still buying Canadian oil, pipeline or no pipeline. But if you want to sell it overseas, build your own damned pipeline... MadMax 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 You're not on point. That's not the issue. A) A significant amount of that oil stays in the US. Did you really think the US was doing this to help Canada? ) alternartives to Canada oil leave just as much carbon footprint and you buy it from countries who are not nearly as responsible about regulating themselves. c) The decision was based mostly on the findings form 2005. Since then things have changed dramatically in terms of the cleanliness of our oil and the extraction process. This decision was about politics and politics only. I hope it becomes a bigger broader assault on climate change and it doesn't end up just being the political football it has been since it became such a charged issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 On 11/6/2015 8:45:38, Btowner said: To me, messaging has always been a weakness of the Obama administration. They continually allow their opponents to frame the discussion regarding their policies. Instead of making this announcement and tying it to climate change, he should have mentioned the risk to the aquifers, use the BP spill as an example and how it could potentially impact our water and children's health. Turn it into a risk vs reward discussion. Turn it into a conversation on eminent domain and what happen to the GOP mantra of Washington stepping on state rights? Turn it into a conversation on the minimum benefits the USA would reap from the risk. Turn this into another example of the GOP allowing corporations to do whatever they want. Americans will understand a decision to not risk the health and water of communities for 50 jobs. We understand seizing taxpayers land to enable a foreign company and country to profit. However, we don't understand rejecting a project that would bring "many" jobs for climate purposes. It's all in the messaging. It's the problem w/ the entire Democratic party. They let the GOP label everything and then the Dems try to react. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legaltitan Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 On 11/6/2015 8:01:12, Titans279 said: I've read this is actually pretty much meaningless. From a climate change perspective, this stuff is eventually going to be processed and consumed. From an economic perspective, the benefits to the US were largely exaggerated by proponents. It's a great opportunity for people to get all hot and bothered though! https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/keystone-xl-wasnt-about-jobs-or-the-climate-it-was-all-politics/ Yes, it is largely meaningless on both issues. But did become highly symbolic. Take out the enviro concerns, and my understanding is the pipeline was likely to, if anything, cause an increase in gas prices. In fact I think it is in the position paper itself. Regardless, there is no compelling evidence that it would either create a lot of jobs, or lower the price of gas, or in any real way improve the quality of life for Americans. Starkiller, and Btowner 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legaltitan Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 On 11/7/2015 9:13:13, CanadianTitansFan said: No, even the pot smoking liberals needed the pipeline. This is a very bad blow to our economy. Canada has trillions of barrels of oil and we have no way to make it flow anywhere near it''s capacity without pipelines. This was much more about optics and politics than it was about practicality. Obama is going into international talks about climate change and he wants to be able to point to this and say he is leading by example. NOW he wants to stand up to big oil as he;s leaving out the door. This is about his legacy. Typical from this douche. Canada is the sacrificial lamb. Pretty sure your new leader isn't crazy about this either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted November 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 3 hours ago, CanadianTitansFan said: You're not on point. That's not the issue. A) A significant amount of that oil stays in the US. Did you really think the US was doing this to help Canada? ) alternartives to Canada oil leave just as much carbon footprint and you buy it from countries who are not nearly as responsible about regulating themselves. c) The decision was based mostly on the findings form 2005. Since then things have changed dramatically in terms of the cleanliness of our oil and the extraction process. This decision was about politics and politics only. I hope it becomes a bigger broader assault on climate change and it doesn't end up just being the political football it has been since it became such a charged issue. As I said, there doesn't need to be a pipeline for the US to keep buying Canadian oil. We don't need it for our sakes... Yes, other sources of oil are similar (tar sands aside) but oil is a global commodity. We can buy it from anyone. But can Canada export it to any country outside the US without a new pipeline? Yes, the decision was based on politics. I'm fine with that. All the GOP arguments for the pipeline were shit, so I don't have any good argument for building it. I wasn't violently against it because we will still buy tar sands oil, but I am more against it than for it. Pipelines inevitably fail, and often spectacularly. I just assume avoid that when we can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted November 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 10 minutes ago, Legaltitan said: Pretty sure your new leader isn't crazy about this either. He was for it publicly, but not as much as Harper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legaltitan Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Just now, Starkiller said: He was for it publicly, but not as much as Harper. Ah, that surprises me. I probably shouldn't comment much on Canadian politics, as I don't know anything about what goes on up there. Except I learned all about the last president in a really good article in Harpers a month or so ago. Basically saying he was a combination of W, Nixon and Palin on steroids. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.