Obama's idiotic pipeline decision
E. Thomas McClanahan
Pipelines already criss-cross the U.S.
The White House is spinning President Obama’s boneheaded Keystone XL pipeline decision not as a “no never” but a “wait for the full review.” But that won’t wash. They’ve been studying this project for what — three years? What they’ve been studying is how to avoid angering a key part of the Democratic base. But there’s no away around it: The greens were against and the unions were in favor, and strongly so. So Obama decided to punt the real decision until after the election. Big surprise.
A Canadian TV talker summed it up as well as anyone: Obama “chose Venezuela over Canada.” Indeed. America is already criss-crossed by energy pipelines, many of which cross the Canadian border, as the accompanying map shows. So the administration’s perpetual dithering over the environmental impact was an act to begin with.
Despite all the effort that went into finessing the politics of this, the administration has been too clever by half. If it had bitten the bullet and made the decision earlier, this would be well in the rear-view mirror. Now the story is breaking in an election year and Obama has handed the Republicans a big issue while sticking it to organized labor.
As many have already pointed out, even on environmental grounds this is dumb. Pipeliines aren’t infallable. Nothing is. But their record is better than tankers. The oil from Canada will find its way to market, most likely in Asia, where it will be refined in facilities with fewer environmental protections than here. This is dumb politics and dumb energy policy.
Google+
Share
Tweet
Chuck Close
3 months, 4 weeks agoArguably the dumbest thing any sitting president has done since Nixon stupidly decided that covering up the break-in was a good idea.
The decision is offensive on multiple levels, any one of which could cost him the re-election he so clearly covets. Politically, he was in the middle of the two disparate constituent groups you cite, ET.
What should have elicited a rather easy, simple, politically expedient choice to approve Keystone, instead became another Obama vote of “present.” Never has a US president more consistently avoided tough decision making than has Mr. Obama.
Phil Cardarella
3 months, 4 weeks agoActually, this is the result of two GOP decisions.
First, they have been adamant opponents of any “green” energy proposals — solar, cap & trade, etc. — and unwilling to compromise (which is what stuff like cap & trade really IS!). So there is no rational way for Obama to sell this pipeline as part of an overall good energy policy.
Then, the GOP decided to force a decision as part of the tax relief bill in December. And, Obama — told he MUST decide yea or nay — did exactly what one should do when faced with that kind of childish ultimatum: Default to NO.
Perhaps the GOP might consider a rational compromise energy policy. Problem is that the Oil Party has gotten the Tea Party too crazy to do rational politics.
Chuck Close
3 months, 4 weeks agoWow….I am stunned by the silliness forwarded by Phil. Investing in the “audacity” trademark Obama gave us, Phil says that Cap & Trade was and is a compromise position! Between who, Phil….the marxists and the liberals?
Not only is C&T not in any way a compromise, it is being implemented by executive fiat after having been soundly rejected by both houses of congress.
You’re right Phil. After all of Obama’s frivolous green energy funding to his largest donor groups the GOP would dearly love to see Obama quit whizzing away taxpayer dollars on quixotic misadventures driven by ideological “hopes.” Did you forget that the man boldly announced his intention to “profoundly increase” the basic energy costs of all Americans, while forcing the coal industry to close their doors?
Guess what….most are against that as a policy based motivation.
Steven Fetter
66223
3 months, 4 weeks agoThank God we have opponents of the green energy proposals. There still today is no cost effective green energy on the grid and none projected for the near future.
The pipeline speaks for itself. It will deliver needed oil cheaply, efficiently and lessen our dependance on petro dictators. It will increase the supply of oil and moderate price volatility. Our Canadian friends will spend much of their new wealth on our side of the border.
Like it or not, our oil consumption will continue into the next century. We have more proven oil reserves now then when the 1st shortage fears of the 1970’s appeared. It is the cheapest, most efficient, most abundant energy source on the planet.
You will hear very little campaign rhetoric from President Obama this fall on his green initiatives He knows this is a losing proposition.
Mark Hastert
3 months, 4 weeks ago“The pipeline speaks for itself. It will deliver needed oil cheaply, efficiently and lessen our dependance on petro dictators.”
Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/obamas-idiotic-pipeline-decision/#storylink=cpy
Well, not exacty. Perhaps you all have been reading that the US is exporting gasoline even as the price is rising for Americans. This is about commerce, not energy dependency. It’s about getting the crude and refined products to the warm weather ports in the Gulf for export.
Now, if the producers will pledge not to export the any of the refined products until all US/Canadian demand is satisfied and put up a bond sufficient to remediate any and all environmental damage to the aquafer I’ll give it my full support, but they won’t.
Chuck Close
3 months, 4 weeks ago“Now, if the producers will pledge not to export any of the refined products until all US/Canadian demand is satisfied and put up a bond sufficient to remediate any and all environmental damage to the aquafer I’ll give it my full support…..”
Mark, get serious. I guess you will support that the government mandate we all buy GM cars too. Or how about we outlaw any exporting of foods until all american pantries are full.
Perhaps more analagous would be insisting that all airlines post irrevokable bonds to cover the potential damages to fresh water supplies which might be caused by the rupture of jetfuel pipeline to Kennedy from Jersey refineries (which have been running for decades.)
Why don’t we just fold up our economy and cede our future to Obama’s new world order of anti capitalism.
Abject irrationality really does look silly.
Steven Fetter
66223
3 months, 4 weeks agoWow Mark, I am glad you do not make demands on our farmers, miners, steel, coal, or any business that could potentially export a needed product. We would be out of business if we had to satisfy all internal demand first while guarantying all possible environmental damage.
Increase the supply of a consumer staple good and let the market distribute the product in manner that maximizes profit and demand. The more efficient the process, the cheaper the good. Econ 101.
Mark Hastert
3 months, 4 weeks agoI’m afraid guys, you’ve missed my point (again). The domestic oil security is one of the main excused used to support the pipeline’s construction. I’m trying to point out that for Keystone builders, owners and the refiners it’s not part of the equasion. They don’t care and won’t insure our energy security. It’s a free market. They can and WILL sell the product to the richest bidder (remember that next summer whe gas is upwards of $5/gal). As for the other part of my condition, a surety bond to safeguard the aquafer, I’m equally certain that they would refuse that too even if they could.
However, if the aquafer were to become polluted it would be the undoing of big chunks of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. The risk/reward ratio demands as much certainty as possible.
Kent Mueller
3 months, 3 weeks agoActually, Mark, the biggest reason being touted in favor of Keystone is the number of jobs that will be created. Yes, increasing the number of good private sector jobs with private sector financing is a good thing. But, I’m not sure if that is the best reason. National security wouldn’t be first, either. If we don’t allow the pipeline to be built, then it will be built to the Canadian Pacific coast with Chinese ships picking up the oil. But, in a big security crisis, Canada most likely would side with the US and divert the oil for our mutual benefit. So, why should it be built? Well, because it’s the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do for a combination of reasons, including the two I have already mentioned. Environmental damage? Mark, take a look at the map provided above. Those aren’t varicose veins. Those are existing pipelines, many crossing over the Ogallala aquifer. Those were all built with technology and knowledge available at the time. Despite the incredibly good (not perfect) history of pipelines, this one would/will be the most advanced ever. Canada is our biggest trading partner and we have just told them that we can’t make a decision because the greenies won out over the unions in the West Wing, and that this will most enhance Obama’s re-electability. That is just so wrong. We shouldn’t treat our friends that way.
Yes, the oil will go into the world market. People above here have torn you apart quite well for your criticism of that. I don’t need to kick you while you are down.
Chuck Close
3 months, 3 weeks agoMark, you are the one missing the point. Building the pipeline requires no “excuse.”
The support for the pipeline is simply prudent. We import too much energy for too much money from countries that are less than allied to our interests: We are about 2.5 million jobs short of where we need to be.
The pipeline will not cost the taxpayers any monies. The treasury will benefit in hard dollars in taxes paid. Whether there are 4-5 thousand jobs or 25-30 thousand jobs makes no difference to me. They are solid well paying jobs and they come from the taxpaying private sector not from the tax sucking government.
You on the left always stave off step one of ANY movement away from an enviro-activist, economically suicidal energy policy that the dems installed in the seventies. You falsely restrict any harvesting of our resources. Their first comment is always something like “well, this isn’t going to solve our foreign dependence on oil”, as if someone suggested that it would.
What we actually DO KNOW is that there is currently NOTHING that substitutes for fossil fuels for economic output.
I am all for green energy….but not at the expense of our economic growth and security. The enviro whackos have already cost us over 6 trillion unnecessarily.
It’s time to think of the people before the unknown future planetary evolution.
Mark Hastert
3 months, 3 weeks agoWell, the bogus jobs claim has been debunked several times. A few thousand over a few years but nothing like the prediction some were making. As I said the oil and gasoline go to the highest bidder so there is no guarantee of energy security. As for the aquafer I want a thoughtful 3rd party engineering evalation before we go forward. If a mistake is made we don’t get a do-over. I’m not saying we should’nt have the pipeline but it should be based on a thoughtful thorough evaluation. The house Pubs are responsible for the impasse, they tried to force issue and force it they did.
Kent Mueller
3 months, 3 weeks agoMark, the impasse has been caused by Obama. The State Dept had already approved this thing, until the greenies gained enough power to scream louder than the unions.
It doesn’t matter how many jobs are involved. They are private sector jobs that will be financed with private money.
Chuck Close
3 months, 3 weeks agoOK you stubborn idealist…..what bogus jobs claim was debunked…..the smallest number I have seen is 3k. So what. Makes no difference. They are real jobs our “laser focused” buffoon on the hill decided were not up to his ideals.
Are you able to comprehend that which you read? I said “economic security.” I did not say energy security….though it would certainly be a long overdue first step in the right direction.
There have already been three completely independent “thoughtful evaluations.” They just didn’t reach the conclusions that Obama wanted them to reach.
Blaming the house repubs is so comically obtuse and partisan it is unworthy of a response……which is exactly what the bipartisan house bill got when it was refused consideration in Hopeless Harry’s fiefdom known as the US Senate. It was for the whole year by the way….not the lame BS 2 month can kicking the dems passed in the senate.
Matt McKinley
3 months, 3 weeks ago“However, if the aquafer were to become polluted it would be the undoing of big chunks of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. The risk/reward ratio demands as much certainty as possible. There are currently twelve pipelines that cross portions of the aquafer. Try again.
Sam Woods
3 months, 3 weeks agoRegardless of the lines that currently exist, one more doesn’t take away from the risk, does it. Add to that the US would pretty much be a tool for Canada to mitigate all the risk of the pipeline to us, while reaping all of the benefit of tar sand by getting it to the gulf, refined, and off to China at a huge profit. What are the republicans missing here? We are the mark in this oil market game.
Jonathan Craig
3 months, 3 weeks agoIt is not really about what you think it is about. It is true that Obama has handed the Republicans a big issue. They will use this to convince uninformed individuals that he is not serious about creating jobs, which is like saying he is not serious about being president. It is not true. He knows what many do not. Obama knows that cheap oil hurts America in the long run because our future, including future jobs is going to be in producing alternative fuels, and the green technology needed to produce green energy. Imagine all of the rust belt factories opening back up as producers of windmills and solar panels. That dream cannot compete with cheap oil from Canada or anywhere else. What green innovators and alternative energy companies need is a more expensive dirty fuels industry so that consumers will have an incentive to switch cars, fuels, homes, etc. With cheap oil, people will just stay addicted to it. They will drive hummers, and live in fancy suburbs from which they will commute an hour to work each way without carpooling. Read Thomas L. Friedman’s book, “Hot, Flat, and Crowded” like Obama did, and you will also be informed. It changed my views. I wish Tom would run for President.
Jonathan Craig
3 months, 3 weeks agoThere may not be a great alternative to dirty fuels right now, but that is because investors are too smart to put their money into those industries while the competitor is selling cheap (oil) drugs to American addicts. They will simply demand more of the cheap drug at even less cost, forgetting the environment and the huge potential for job creation that green energy can bring in the long run. Just look at all the addicts who feel the need to vent their anger at Obama for giving us some of the tough medication that will save us all and our kids one day. When we make dirty fuels more expensive, the market you all have been touting will give investors the incentive to fund the new technologies we need. This investment in our future is not easy, just like any long term investment. Most Americans don’t want to invest or make sacrifices. They want to borrow and spend. We like our long-distance vacations and road trips, and we want them to stay cheap. Changing American attitudes and behaviors will be very difficult. We will blame every president for our lack of jobs, our addictions, our debt, etc. We don’t like big government spending unless it is coming to us. So republicans say, let’s cut spending, but not on the things Republicans like. Dems do the same. We are a nation of whiners. Pay the extra fuel price, and be glad that at least it might force us all to change our habits and attitudes. There is nothing wrong with a moped or a plug-in car. You don’t have to have a huge house and car to be cool. It’s okay to live in the city, near the dirty riff-raff or take public transportation to save money on your commute to work. Of course we all would prefer to drive, and not carpool either. “Who are you to tell me how to live?”, you say. Right. Only high oil prices will be able to convince you, not me, Obama or Al Gore.
Kent Mueller
3 months, 3 weeks agoSam, you are the first, the very first to say the US is the tool of Canada. I have never heard that. Where did you get that? Did you come up with that yourself? That is so stunningly inane that I really don’t know how to react. Oh, well.
What just amazes me after reading these comments is not one mention of the most advanced energy technology we possess today. Even James Lovelock, the high priest of the religious environmentalist understands that nuclear energy is the greenest option we have today. After the tsunami in Japan, nobody even wants to bring it up. Idealist dreams about “green” energy are not going to solve our needs. Time to grow up and behave like responsible adults. Build the pipeline, build Nuclear plants.
Johathan,
Your logic is flawwed on so many levels that I don’t even know where to begin. Cheap oil hurts us? Are you serious? Yeah, paying $4.00 per gallon at the pump is MUCH better. Paying $4.00 at the pump don’t impact the cost of goods AT ALL, does it? Oh yeah, it DOES. I’m sorry, but the notion that cheap oil hurts America is unbelieveably stupid.
Your utopian notion of rust belt factories making solar panels and windmills is all fine and dandy, but who in the hell is going to pay for them? Unless those forms of power become cheaper and more efficient (or at least in the same ballpark) it is NOT economically feasible to use them. We all live in a global economy these days, and we’re already at a disadvantage because of labor costs. The last thing we need is to put our struggling economy at an even bigger disadvantage. Are you seriously STUPID enough to artifically inflate the cost of fossil fuels so that the green alternatives will become more “feasible?” Oh, okay. I’m suuuure the rest of the World will follow suit. Sheesh.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see alternative fuel sources if for no other reason so that we all can tell the Middle East to take their oil and shove it up their tailpipes. We can’t commit economic suicide to get there though.
As far as all of the bloated SUVs go, you have a valid point. If anything we need to be more responsible about how we use fossil fuels. While the engines are EXTREMELY efficient these days, putting an overpowered engine in a 6,000lb SUV is stupid and excessive. No one needs 400HP to haul groceries or kids to and from soccer practice. Yes, that’s what the market keeps asking for, but at least this is a compromise that would be feasible and realistic. REAL gas mileage standards would be a step in the right direction.
As far as the notion that there aren’t any alternatives to fossil fuels is concerned, you’re absolutely right. Calling investors junkies for going for the more economically sound investment is idiotic though. Maybe you would like to take a blow torch to YOUR money, but the rest of us would like to get some return on our investments. Wake up Jonathan. This is the REAL World. It is what it is, no matter how badly you want it to be something else. No amount of ill-conceived political policy is going to change that.
JR Beillenhouser
3 months, 3 weeks agoYou shouldn’t try to get the economy off of oil until there is a valid alternative on the market. Thinking that you are going to force the economy to go green and that some magician is going to pull valid alternatives out of a hat, just because you want it, is just plain stupid. I wanted a pony for my birthday when I was 10 years old, but it didn’t happen either.
When a valid alternative is available, then we will go for it. The driving force will not be making it too expensive to get, rather, it will be when the supplies no longer exist. Supply and demand. (You might have missed that day in class) The US has more oil and natural gas than any other country in the world, to not get at it is idiotic. We’d be better off making use of these supplies, supplies that will last us for several hundred years, and then going green when it is practical. A small surcharge on a 2.50 gallon of gas to provide grants for research would be a much better idea than artificially inflating the price of oil by not allowing us to get at the volume that we have available.