keystone pipeline

[LumRaiderFan]

That's a pretty big part of it, and it touches on a much larger issue.
 
The main driver behind the global warming scare isn't some coalition of environmental groups. It's companies that have thrown massive amounts of money into "green" technologies. When a company invests a lot of money in a technology that is environmentally friendly, but isn't economically competitive, creating artificial economic advantages to level the playing field against more economical technologies is in that company's best interest. The quickest way to do that is to put money into environmentalist groups that will obstruct the process for companies invested in older technologies on environmental grounds, and to put money into political campaigns for candidates who promise stronger, costly regulations for those same companies and more tax breaks and government investments in the newer, greener technologies.
 
General Electric is a prime example of this. We've all seen the figures regarding how little GE pays in taxes because of special breaks for companies that invest in certain technologies posted here a thousand times. We've also seen how much money GE throws into Democrat campaigns, and we've all seen the number of commercials GE puts on television advertising how environmentally friendly it is. Why do you think GE does all of that? It's not because they have any special love for the environment or Democrats, it's because establishing that narrative and funding those political initiatives makes their investments more profitable, their tax bill smaller and their share of the different markets they compete in larger. It's all about the bottom line.
 
Where Keystone's concerned, we find a similar example. The original reason for blocking the Keystone project was because of the potential it had to disturb the ecosystem in the Nebraska Sand Hills. TransCanada responded by eliminating that concern - they altered the project so that the pipeline would no longer run through the Sand Hills.
 
When that issue was eliminated, Keystone's opponents raised another one: the possibility of an oil spill contaminating the Ogallala Acquifer, one of the primary sources of freshwater for cities and farms across the Midwest. James Goeke, a hydrogeologist from the University of Nebraska and incidentally one of the world's leading experts on the Ogallala Acquifer, examined the project, spoke with TransCanada officials, and determined that the risk of a spill was so minimal as to be nonexistent, that the risk of any contamination resulting therefrom was equally minimal, and that if a spill somehow occurred and contamination somehow resulted from it, it would be so localized that it would be virtual non-issue.
 
When that issue was dismissed, a third one was raised: apparently, the process of extracting oil from the oil sands of Canada puts more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than extracting oil the old-fashioned way. Liberals are scared that building the pipeline will result in more oil being extracted from the oil sands, thus causing more greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere than would be otherwise. One report went so far as to say that more activity in the oil sands would result in so much greenhouse gas being released that the entire planet would fall into "runaway global warming" and life on Earth as we know it would come to an abrupt end.
 
Are we seeing a pattern yet?
 
The goal here was never to address a substantive environmental issue. If it had been, this project would have been approved by now, because the only substantive environmental issues were, in fact, addressed in a way that would more than satisfy any reasonable person with legitimate conservationist sentiments. The goal was to block the project from going through by any means necessary, no matter how ridiculous things had to get to accomplish that goal. And the reason that was the goal was because it's in the economic interest of some of the Democrat party's largest financial contributors.
 
The sad part in all of this is that there are people out there who actually believe that Barack Obama and Harry Reid and Elizabeth Warren and Warren Buffet and all the other Democrat fat cats who oppose Keystone do it out of some idyllic, innocent concern for the well-being of Mother Earth. The reality is that the Democrats and the people who back them, just like the Republicans in many instances, are concerned about their pocketbooks and nothing more, and most of the hardcore liberals out there are too blind to see it. There's a reason for that as well, but that's a conversation for another day.

Good post...

The farmers are complaining now that the railroads are putting the oil ahead of their grain and are pressuring the Dept. of Ag to pressure the railroads to beef up to handle it...which I'm sure Buffett will be more than happy to do.

Follow the money.

[new tobie]

If the keystone pipeline was Obama's idea, the pubs would be fighting against it .

[PN-G bamatex]

If the keystone pipeline was Obama's idea, the pubs would be fighting against it .

 

Yes, the Republican Party, with all the tens of millions of dollars Republican candidates receive from the major oil companies in every election cycle and the massive number of Republicans who hold office in districts where oil is a major part of the local economy, would be against the Keystone Pipeline if it had simply been the president's idea. That makes total sense.

[LumRaiderFan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/24/obama-to-usher-in-new-phase-presidency-with-keystone-veto/?intcmp=latestnews

[stevenash]

Yes, the Republican Party, with all the tens of millions of dollars Republican candidates receive from the major oil companies in every election cycle and the massive number of Republicans who hold office in districts where oil is a major part of the local economy, would be against the Keystone Pipeline if it had simply been the president's idea. That makes total sense.

:)  :) :)  :)  It does make sense to uninformed voters