Keystone becoming a touchstone for once-ardent Obama supporters

[Willinois]

This article is a good run down of what's going on and what the real political consequences could be if Obama approves the Keystone XL pipeline.

Quote:That protesters show up to challenge a U.S. president when he leaves the bubble of Washington is hardly new in American politics. But what’s different about the Keystone XL activists hounding Obama on his cross-country travels is that, by and large, they have been once-ardent supporters.

Many are progressive students who were inspired to join Obama’s campaign in 2008 because of his pledge to pass climate legislation and tighten environmental protection regulations. Increasingly the demonstrators also include well-heeled liberal donors whom the president is counting on to fill his re-election coffers in 2012. Academy Award-winning director Robert Redford, a longtime financial supporter of Democratic candidates, last week appeared in a video opposing Keystone XL.

The anti-pipeline protest outside Obama’s San Francisco fundraising event was organized by cellular company entrepreneur Michael Kieschnick. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Kieschnick has “donated $60 million to progressive causes.” Kieschnick couldn’t be reached for comment Wednesday, but the Chronicle quoted him as saying he wouldn’t give to Obama this election cycle “if he says yes” to Keystone XL.

Yeah, I know, "Do they want a Republican?!" But, if environmentalists show they can be taken for granted (or taken along for a ride) with no negative consequences, then environmental problems will never be resolved. That's the political world we live in. It's not realistic to expect that people will volunteer and donate if they feel Obama didn't deliver even when the decision was entirely up to him.

[sandnsea]

I'm just wondering if this is the absolute worst environmental issue we face, and the worst possible energy that we can use. Is it worse than coal top removal, for instance? Worse than fracking? Worse than off shore oil drilling? The man can't say no to everything. Where does this line up with other environmental hazards? Now the GOP is opposing an electric car company because one car is made in Finland. Shouldn't we be helping Obama fight back those attacks? And how can it be a better economical decision to build in Finland, when they're supposed to be non-competitive due to high taxes and regulations? We've got to find another means of polticial activism besides always being against everything. We've got to convince people new technologies will work.

[Willinois]

(10-27-2011 05:42 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  I'm just wondering if this is the absolute worst environmental issue we face, and the worst possible energy that we can use. Is it worse than coal top removal, for instance? Worse than fracking? Worse than off shore oil drilling? The man can't say no to everything. Where does this line up with other environmental hazards?

I'm sure it's possible to have Obama's back on EPA regulation that's moving forward and still put pressure on the administration to reject the pipeline. He's getting lots of pressure from the other side.

Here's why many people think it's so important:

James Hansen slams Keystone XL Canada-U.S. Pipeline: “Exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts”

"Disastrous global climate impacts" means cities are destroyed and many people die.

[sandnsea]

(10-28-2011 07:57 AM)Willinois Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 05:42 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  I'm just wondering if this is the absolute worst environmental issue we face, and the worst possible energy that we can use. Is it worse than coal top removal, for instance? Worse than fracking? Worse than off shore oil drilling? The man can't say no to everything. Where does this line up with other environmental hazards?

I'm sure it's possible to have Obama's back on EPA regulation that's moving forward and still put pressure on the administration to reject the pipeline. He's getting lots of pressure from the other side.

Here's why many people think it's so important:

James Hansen slams Keystone XL Canada-U.S. Pipeline: “Exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts”

"Disastrous global climate impacts" means cities are destroyed and many people die.

I understand why this is important. I've been concerned about tar sand drilling since the 90s, and actually didn't know it was already so far advanced and that we already had a pipeline carrying the stuff into this country.

My question, however, is on the scale of bad energy, where does this rank? Is mountain-top coal removal worse, is fracking worse, is off-shore oil worse, what's the most important thing to oppose? We can't oppose everything.

[Willinois]

(10-28-2011 01:04 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 07:57 AM)Willinois Wrote:  I'm sure it's possible to have Obama's back on EPA regulation that's moving forward and still put pressure on the administration to reject the pipeline. He's getting lots of pressure from the other side.

Here's why many people think it's so important:

James Hansen slams Keystone XL Canada-U.S. Pipeline: “Exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts”

"Disastrous global climate impacts" means cities are destroyed and many people die.

I understand why this is important. I've been concerned about tar sand drilling since the 90s, and actually didn't know it was already so far advanced and that we already had a pipeline carrying the stuff into this country.

My question, however, is on the scale of bad energy, where does this rank? Is mountain-top coal removal worse, is fracking worse, is off-shore oil worse, what's the most important thing to oppose? We can't oppose everything.

We can oppose everything that's terribly destructive when there are better alternatives available. That would be the case here.

[sandnsea]

(10-28-2011 02:09 PM)Willinois Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 01:04 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  I understand why this is important. I've been concerned about tar sand drilling since the 90s, and actually didn't know it was already so far advanced and that we already had a pipeline carrying the stuff into this country.

My question, however, is on the scale of bad energy, where does this rank? Is mountain-top coal removal worse, is fracking worse, is off-shore oil worse, what's the most important thing to oppose? We can't oppose everything.

We can oppose everything that's terribly destructive when there are better alternatives available. That would be the case here.

What better alternative is available in large enough quantities for the next ten years?

[Willinois]

(10-28-2011 10:47 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 02:09 PM)Willinois Wrote:  We can oppose everything that's terribly destructive when there are better alternatives available. That would be the case here.

What better alternative is available in large enough quantities for the next ten years?

No one knows how long current oil supplies are going to last. Candada tar sands are very expensive to extract and refine. They will only be used when the price of oil is high. It's an act of last resort because cheaper, better oil is getting scarce. It means we're reaching/passed peak oil.
The fact that companies are going there means we need to move away from oil NOW. If not, we're in deep shit because the price of oil will only go up dramatically and become even harder to find. Refining every last drop of Canada tar sands won't stop that from happening.

So the ONLY realistic alternative in the next 10 years is to use much less oil. Obama is doing a good job taking us in that direction.

[sandnsea]

(10-29-2011 09:38 AM)Willinois Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 10:47 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  What better alternative is available in large enough quantities for the next ten years?

No one knows how long current oil supplies are going to last. Candada tar sands are very expensive to extract and refine. They will only be used when the price of oil is high. It's an act of last resort because cheaper, better oil is getting scarce. It means we're reaching/passed peak oil.
The fact that companies are going there means we need to move away from oil NOW. If not, we're in deep shit because the price of oil will only go up dramatically and become even harder to find. Refining every last drop of Canada tar sands won't stop that from happening.

So the ONLY realistic alternative in the next 10 years is to use much less oil. Obama is doing a good job taking us in that direction.

This is where we split ways, a little. First, I would strongly strongly oppose drilling the tar sands if things were a bit calmer in the ME. Or we had better standards for off-shore drilling. I honestly don't care remotely about the pipeline itself. They seem to put in pretty high standards when the consequences of a break will spread out over somebody's literal back yard.

But we are where we are. We aren't going to have enough reduction in fuel demands in the next ten years to pretend we can ignore the need for oil. The high cost of fuel, imo, is the real culprit in the drag on the economy. So putting aside the idea that we can miraculously buy everyone an electric vehicle in 3 years, what is the safest means of getting fuel for transportation AND energy to heat homes and buildings. That's the question you have got to answer first, BEFORE you say no to any given energy source out there.

[Willinois]

(10-29-2011 02:42 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  But we are where we are. We aren't going to have enough reduction in fuel demands in the next ten years to pretend we can ignore the need for oil. The high cost of fuel, imo, is the real culprit in the drag on the economy. So putting aside the idea that we can miraculously buy everyone an electric vehicle in 3 years, what is the safest means of getting fuel for transportation AND energy to heat homes and buildings. That's the question you have got to answer first, BEFORE you say no to any given energy source out there.

The question YOU have to answer is how to fuel our economy without adding to the loss of life and property in climate change disasters. Tar sands is not the answer to that question. Letting people believe the delusion that we can drill our way into energy security isn't the answer either.

The alternatives already exist. The addiction to oil, and projects like this one, are what keep us from deploying those alternatives.

Bringing up the high price of oil is irrelevant given the cost of extracting and refining tar sands. It will produce nothing other than expensive oil.

(10-29-2011 02:42 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  I honestly don't care remotely about the pipeline itself. They seem to put in pretty high standards when the consequences of a break will spread out over somebody's literal back yard.

Please, google about the breaks and spills already happening on the existing pipeline. I'm just astonished by this claim.

And please drop this Republican straw-man of accusing me of saying no to "any given energy source." That's a line polluters use to dismiss and marginalize environmentalists with serious and reasonable concerns. I'm not saying no to anything. I'm saying no to this specific, very destructive idea. Stop saying yes to anything that comes along!

[sandnsea]

(10-30-2011 06:18 PM)Willinois Wrote:  

(10-29-2011 02:42 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  But we are where we are. We aren't going to have enough reduction in fuel demands in the next ten years to pretend we can ignore the need for oil. The high cost of fuel, imo, is the real culprit in the drag on the economy. So putting aside the idea that we can miraculously buy everyone an electric vehicle in 3 years, what is the safest means of getting fuel for transportation AND energy to heat homes and buildings. That's the question you have got to answer first, BEFORE you say no to any given energy source out there.

The question YOU have to answer is how to fuel our economy without adding to the loss of life and property in climate change disasters. Tar sands is not the answer to that question. Letting people believe the delusion that we can drill our way into energy security isn't the answer either.

The alternatives already exist. The addiction to oil, and projects like this one, are what keep us from deploying those alternatives.

Bringing up the high price of oil is irrelevant given the cost of extracting and refining tar sands. It will produce nothing other than expensive oil.

(10-29-2011 02:42 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  I honestly don't care remotely about the pipeline itself. They seem to put in pretty high standards when the consequences of a break will spread out over somebody's literal back yard.

Please, google about the breaks and spills already happening on the existing pipeline. I'm just astonished by this claim.

And please drop this Republican straw-man of accusing me of saying no to "any given energy source." That's a line polluters use to dismiss and marginalize environmentalists with serious and reasonable concerns. I'm not saying no to anything. I'm saying no to this specific, very destructive idea. Stop saying yes to anything that comes along!

Uh, I can do without the Republican bullshit. I didn't say "any" given energy source, I said any "given" energy source. Meaning any specific or particular energy source, not the whole batch. And no, we do not have a short term alternative energy answer.

I am well aware of pipe line spills. That's why one more pipe line isn't at the top of my list of battles. That one is already lost. Pipe lines are here to stay.

I note that you won't answer my very simple question. Which current source of energy is worst?

[Willinois]

(10-31-2011 06:07 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  I note that you won't answer my very simple question. Which current source of energy is worst?

Coal is the most deadly energy source. That seems irrelevant to the conversation but there you go. I'm not going to support something as heinously destructive as the tar sands just because coal is worse.

My Republican Congressman is writing facebook posts in favor of the tar sands pipeline almost every day. I too, can do without the Republican bullshit.

[sandnsea]

(10-31-2011 06:24 PM)Willinois Wrote:  

(10-31-2011 06:07 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  I note that you won't answer my very simple question. Which current source of energy is worst?

Coal is the most deadly energy source. That seems irrelevant to the conversation but there you go. I'm not going to support something as heinously destructive as the tar sands just because coal is worse.

My Republican Congressman is writing facebook posts in favor of the tar sands pipeline almost every day. I too, can do without the Republican bullshit.

Are the tar sands and pipe line worse than off shore drilling?

[Willinois]

(11-01-2011 09:23 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(10-31-2011 06:24 PM)Willinois Wrote:  Coal is the most deadly energy source. That seems irrelevant to the conversation but there you go. I'm not going to support something as heinously destructive as the tar sands just because coal is worse.

My Republican Congressman is writing facebook posts in favor of the tar sands pipeline almost every day. I too, can do without the Republican bullshit.

Are the tar sands and pipe line worse than off shore drilling?

Possibly, but once again, I see no relevance. Does tar sands become environmentally friendly because there's something even worse? Off shore drilling isn't as bad as a nuclear power plant explosion so maybe that's OK too.

Is a punch in the face worse than a kick to the groin?

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift...nds_p.html

Quote:The first Keystone tar sands pipeline, constructed less than a year ago, has sprung its twelfth leak, spilling up to 2,100 gallons of raw tar sands crude oil in Kansas on May 29th when a pipeline fitting around a pressure transmitter failed. This comes just three weeks after a broken pipe fitting on Keystone resulted in a 60’ geyser of tar sands crude, spewing 21,000 gallons in North Dakota.

[sandnsea]

Quote:Possibly, but once again, I see no relevance. Does tar sands become environmentally friendly because there's something even worse? Off shore drilling isn't as bad as a nuclear power plant explosion so maybe that's OK too.

It seems to me if changes have been implemented in off-shore drilling allowing for more drilling, calculating the increase in that production into available energy would be important in getting support for stopping this pipeline.

If you envision an all-electric energy world, then somebody needs to be out there selling it. Most people think teeny electric cars are a joke, they've got kids to haul to soccer, piles of groceries to haul home, suitcases to pack for a weekend at grandmas. The President has to design a world to accommodate that woman.

And, solar and wind also take new materials for construction, including mining for things like copper and silicon. Where are we going to get that from?

You can call it being a Republican if it makes you feel better. I doubt that would impress the President.

Speaking of crap elected officials say - my very liberal DeFazio is blaming Obama for local forestry companies hiring Mexicans instead of local loggers. Never mind that that's been going on ever since they privatized the industry, or that a lot of hiring was actually done straight through the forest service because of the stimulus wording -- any chance for DeFazio to bash Obama and gain a redneck vote - he'll take it.

[Willinois]

(11-02-2011 11:37 AM)sandnsea Wrote:  And, solar and wind also take new materials for construction, including mining for things like copper and silicon. Where are we going to get that from?

What's your point here? Making mountainous obstacles out of molehills is what I'm used to seeing from the fossil fuel industry.

I didn't write anything about an all electric world. I wrote about reducing oil use, not eliminating it. You're setting up a false choice. We don't need the tar sands. They want to ship it to the gulf coast so they can export it anyway. It's not about American energy independence.

[Willinois]

(10-31-2011 06:07 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  And no, we do not have a short term alternative energy answer.

We don't have a short term energy problem. We have a long-term one. Looking for short-term answers like the tar sands won't solve it.

The answer is to invest heavily in alternatives now. Resources spent on tar sands is a destructive distraction that won't solve any problem at all. It won't lower the price of gas. It won't make us energy independent. It won't do anything but make a few people wealthy while keeping us from pursuing realistic alternatives.

[nofurylike]

always with the threats.

no matter how many things he does better than anyone else could have, always the threats.

here:

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/10/2...-pipeline/

you made the point, where were they during *bush? doesn't that tell you something?

i hope you are confronting those doing the threatening! i certainly spend far too much valuable time we need for winning that election educating the constant whiners.
do you write letters to the President or to his administration, or to editors educating on this? do any of those just threatening?

[Willinois]

(10-28-2011 06:29 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  always with the threats.

No, there is no "always with the threats." Environmental groups held back most of their criticism for two years while cap-and-trade was put on the back-burner. The criticisms have been mild when Obama delayed several new EPA rules. So, if there's more criticism now maybe it's because people saw that the Senate finally acted on repealing DADT after all the "threats." Threats work.

And for many people it doesn't make any logical sense to spend their time getting Obama re-elected if he's not going to deal with the deadliest threat of our time, which is climate change.

[RoyGBiv]

(10-28-2011 07:54 AM)Willinois Wrote:  No, there is no "always with the threats."

It's not even reasonable to call this a "threat," certainly not a threat of the same variety as what came from certain demographic groups right out of the gate condemning the President and everything he was about when he hadn't even had time to do anything at all.

This is more accurately described as the modern form of petition the government for a redress of grievances. It would be irresponsible for environmental groups simply to sit back and let events play out without expressing their deep concern over the course this issue has taken, particularly in light of what you mention about them standing back and letting Obama use his political capital on other things like DADT, health care reform, etc. at the expense of environmental legislation. That is, as was well publicized at the time, Obama had to lay off of "cap and trade" and similar measures back then because he needed votes for a series of initiatives from people who opposed his environmental agenda. Environmentalists let that slide, seeing the bigger picture.

All that is out of the way now, and this is in fact the most pressing, potentially life altering issue of our time. There is a time to draw a line in the sand, and I think this may be it. Hopefully Obama will come out on the right side on this.

[nofurylike]

http://democratsforprogress.com/forum/sh...?tid=10513

those are the same threats we have heard all along, from the whiners. there is a difference between urging, petitioning, protesting and threatening. people who tell the President that if he does not accomplish their specific goal, they will throw the rest of us to the repukes, as seen here, and as you, yourself, Willinois, warn to expect to happen if he doesn't, are no differnet than hamsher, et al. i am an environmentalist, and i do know, for fact, that, as in other instances, Obama is working in increments that are one hello of a lot better than the backwards we would go in repuke hands.

and i did effectively, and factually dispute the charges about the EPA ozone delays, and i did not receive acknowledgement of that, on your threads. i did not mind not receiving that then, but to have those charges repeated here is puzzling.

[Willinois]

(10-28-2011 11:38 PM)nofurylike Wrote:  and i did effectively, and factually dispute the charges about the EPA ozone delays, and i did not receive acknowledgement of that, on your threads. i did not mind not receiving that then, but to have those charges repeated here is puzzling.

No, nothing you posted about that rebutted anything. You may have found something that made it seem not so bad to you. But, it was still a bad decision that Obama has been justly criticized for and nothing you posted made it a good thing. The fact that the usual pundits exaggerated how bad it was still doesn't make it OK that he did it.

No President is going to be perfect. I'm pointing out that there will be major political fallout if Obama approves this pipeline. That's the political reality. After all the posts I've made supporting Obama you really know better than to compare me to Hamsher..

[RoyGBiv]

(10-28-2011 11:38 PM)nofurylike Wrote:  http://democratsforprogress.com/forum/sh...?tid=10513

those are the same threats we have heard all along, from the whiners.

What does a thread with nothing but brief quotes and a list of links tell me about "threats" from "whiners"?

There is nothing "threatening" in the article Willinois originally posted. It is as close to straight reporting as you're going to get from an interest group's reporting. It explains and advises on the potential backlash Obama may face if he chooses wrong on this pipeline. If you really and truly think this is a whine or complaint on the order of what Jane Hamsher does, you need to make an argument, not throw out a bunch of links that don't tell me anything we didn't already know from the original article.

Quote:there is a difference between urging, petitioning, protesting and threatening.

Why don't you explain to us what that difference is, using specific examples.

Quote:people who tell the President that if he does not accomplish their specific goal, they will throw the rest of us to the repukes, as seen here, and as you, yourself, Willinois, warn to expect to happen if he doesn't, are no differnet than hamsher, et al.

You owe Willinois an apology.

Quote:and i did effectively, and factually dispute the charges about the EPA ozone delays, and i did not receive acknowledgement of that, on your threads.

No you didn't. You just kept repeating yourself and when challenged on any point would repeat the same point. You meanwhile ignored every question you were asked or failed utterly to explain or support any of the issues you were trying to argue.

Speaking only for myself, I simply stopped participating because I had better things to do and got tired of spinning in that particular circle.

Quote: i did not mind not receiving that then

Which is why you brought it up, of course.

[nofurylike]

(10-29-2011 11:13 AM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 11:38 PM)nofurylike Wrote:  http://democratsforprogress.com/forum/sh...?tid=10513

those are the same threats we have heard all along, from the whiners.

What does a thread with nothing but brief quotes and a list of links tell me about "threats" from "whiners"?

There is nothing "threatening" in the article Willinois originally posted. It is as close to straight reporting as you're going to get from an interest group's reporting. It explains and advises on the potential backlash Obama may face if he chooses wrong on this pipeline. If you really and truly think this is a whine or complaint on the order of what Jane Hamsher does, you need to make an argument, not throw out a bunch of links that don't tell me anything we didn't already know from the original article.

Quote:there is a difference between urging, petitioning, protesting and threatening.

Why don't you explain to us what that difference is, using specific examples.

Quote:people who tell the President that if he does not accomplish their specific goal, they will throw the rest of us to the repukes, as seen here, and as you, yourself, Willinois, warn to expect to happen if he doesn't, are no differnet than hamsher, et al.

You owe Willinois an apology.

Quote:and i did effectively, and factually dispute the charges about the EPA ozone delays, and i did not receive acknowledgement of that, on your threads.

No you didn't. You just kept repeating yourself and when challenged on any point would repeat the same point. You meanwhile ignored every question you were asked or failed utterly to explain or support any of the issues you were trying to argue.

Speaking only for myself, I simply stopped participating because I had better things to do and got tired of spinning in that particular circle.

Quote: i did not mind not receiving that then

Which is why you brought it up, of course.

A. your not being persuaded does not invalidate a rebuttal.

B. Willinois did, in fact, warn:

"But, if environmentalists show they can be taken for granted (or taken along for a ride) with no negative consequences, then environmental problems will never be resolved. That's the political world we live in. It's not realistic to expect that people will volunteer and donate if they feel Obama didn't deliver even when the decision was entirely up to him."

i do not owe him an apology. it is a fact.

[nofurylike]

"Technically, the decision whether to approve or reject Keystone XL isn’t Obama’s call. The responsibility for deciding on pipelines that cross an international border was assigned to the U.S. State Department by an executive order made by president George W. Bush in 2004."

[RoyGBiv]

(10-28-2011 11:57 PM)nofurylike Wrote:  "Technically, the decision whether to approve or reject Keystone XL isn’t Obama’s call. The responsibility for deciding on pipelines that cross an international border was assigned to the U.S. State Department by an executive order made by president George W. Bush in 2004."

Do you understand how the executive branch of our government works?

[nofurylike]

(10-28-2011 11:57 PM)nofurylike Wrote:  "Technically, the decision whether to approve or reject Keystone XL isn’t Obama’s call. The responsibility for deciding on pipelines that cross an international border was assigned to the U.S. State Department by an executive order made by president George W. Bush in 2004."

he has now made it his decision. i am about to post about that now.

[Willinois]

Along the same lines...

Sierra Club to Obama: Help us help you

Quote:The Sierra Club’s top official fired a political shot across the bow at the White House Friday, warning it will be hard to motivate activists on President Obama’s behalf next year unless he rejects the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline. “We don’t think that we will be able to effectively mobilize our members until the president keeps his promise to fight climate change effectively and stand up to big polluters and to protect public health,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune told reporters on a conference call.

Quote:The Sierra Club is active in both presidential and congressional races. The group has not made a formal presidential endorsement yet, although it’s highly, highly unlikely to back one of Obama’s GOP rivals.

But the disappointment that would stem from a decision to approve Keystone could affect how the Sierra Club spends its field campaign and ad resources between the White House and congressional races it’s involved in. Asked about how a decision to approve the pipeline would affect the group’s allocation of resources, Brune replied: “It will have a very big impact.”

People aren't stupid. They won't be taken for granted. Keystone XL has become a make or break issue. The many excellent things Obama has done for clean energy won't be taken seriously if he approves it.

[nofurylike]

(10-30-2011 08:13 PM)Willinois Wrote:  Along the same lines...

Sierra Club to Obama: Help us help you

Quote:The Sierra Club’s top official fired a political shot across the bow at the White House Friday, warning it will be hard to motivate activists on President Obama’s behalf next year unless he rejects the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline. “We don’t think that we will be able to effectively mobilize our members until the president keeps his promise to fight climate change effectively and stand up to big polluters and to protect public health,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune told reporters on a conference call.

Quote:The Sierra Club is active in both presidential and congressional races. The group has not made a formal presidential endorsement yet, although it’s highly, highly unlikely to back one of Obama’s GOP rivals.

But the disappointment that would stem from a decision to approve Keystone could affect how the Sierra Club spends its field campaign and ad resources between the White House and congressional races it’s involved in. Asked about how a decision to approve the pipeline would affect the group’s allocation of resources, Brune replied: “It will have a very big impact.”

People aren't stupid. They won't be taken for granted. Keystone XL has become a make or break issue. The many excellent things Obama has done for clean energy won't be taken seriously if he approves it.

please also speak of those "many excellent things Obama has done for clean energy" in your environmental threads, and also to the likes of the Sierra Club and other of the environmentalists you refer to. please express to them the true difference between a president met with incessant obstructionism doing what he can as it is possible to do - who RECONGIZES the need and speaks his intention to remedy, as possible, and demonstrates his commitment to that by those "many excellent things" - and repugs who live by the consume-it-ALL philosophy, and who would finish off ANY hope we have of saving life on this planet.

i also always ask complaining environmentalists i know whether, and how often, they have contacted their sens and reps, including their repug ones. they usually only sign online petitions, or occasionally call them. it is Congress that needs to hear from them! from all of us!

they NEED to hear that.

we are here to help our President win this election.

[Willinois]

Current Keystone pipeline spills 12 times in first year.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift...nds_p.html

[sandnsea]

Be the President for 2 minutes.

You're not proposing eliminating oil use. Simple question - where do you propose we get the oil from then? That's the question he has to answer.

Why do you think you don't?

And by the way, I actually do think we can eliminate oil. I think we can go to electricity and natural gas. But that's going to take some new mining and drilling and pipelines too. I just think it's a cleaner approach. I also think there will be people protesting those mines and pipelines too.

[Willinois]

(11-02-2011 01:34 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Be the President for 2 minutes.

You're not proposing eliminating oil use. Simple question - where do you propose we get the oil from then? That's the question he has to answer.

Why do you think you don't?

And by the way, I actually do think we can eliminate oil. I think we can go to electricity and natural gas. But that's going to take some new mining and drilling and pipelines too. I just think it's a cleaner approach. I also think there will be people protesting those mines and pipelines too.

Yes, someday in the future we'll have clean energy, BUT for now let's just keep drilling this one more extremely destructive source after another. And every year the empty promises continue. Don't you think that just encourages procrastination from switching to an economy that isn't completely oil based?
No, the burden is on those who want this pipeline to show that we can't do without it. They can't.

[sandnsea]

Quote:Yes, someday in the future we'll have clean energy, BUT for now let's just keep drilling this one more extremely destructive source after another.

OR do what?? What do you propose we do?

YOU said you don't believe we will ever be free from all oil. I don't understand why you won't say what the best method is to get that oil. I also don't understand why you don't think it's a legitimate topic of discussion.

You seriously don't believe a 5 year old would figure out you need to get the oil from somewhere and ask you where??

[Willinois]

(11-02-2011 03:06 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

Quote:Yes, someday in the future we'll have clean energy, BUT for now let's just keep drilling this one more extremely destructive source after another.

OR do what?? What do you propose we do?

You're saying we can have an all electric economy and yet you need ME to answer that question for you? Seriously? I think you already know what the alternatives are.

How many times are we going to go in this circle? YOU need to show that we can't do without this particular oil operation. Go right ahead and do that. Can you show that the economic benefits outweigh the costs in climate change disasters? Please, let's run those numbers.

[Willinois]

(11-02-2011 03:06 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  You seriously don't believe a 5 year old would figure out you need to get the oil from somewhere and ask you where??

Did I miss the news story about all the other oil wells in the world suddenly drying up?
Or, are you suggesting that we just keep drilling until long after we reach peak oil and THEN decide to build alternatives? Because building this pipeline is definitely a "do nothing different until long after we reach peak oil" kind of strategy.

[sandnsea]

(11-02-2011 03:37 PM)Willinois Wrote:  

(11-02-2011 03:06 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  You seriously don't believe a 5 year old would figure out you need to get the oil from somewhere and ask you where??

Did I miss the news story about all the other oil wells in the world suddenly drying up?
Or, are you suggesting that we just keep drilling until long after we reach peak oil and THEN decide to build alternatives? Because building this pipeline is definitely a "do nothing different until long after we reach peak oil" kind of strategy.

Well you're the one that said we will always need oil. I just asked where you think we should get it from. Apparently your answer is drill in other countries. That's cleaner than the pipeline, in your opinion?

I'm honestly just asking, I don't know. I would hate to oppose the pipe line and find out in ten years that we did irreversible damage to the ocean that went undetected because we don't see it every day.

[nofurylike]

(11-02-2011 07:42 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(11-02-2011 03:37 PM)Willinois Wrote:  Did I miss the news story about all the other oil wells in the world suddenly drying up?
Or, are you suggesting that we just keep drilling until long after we reach peak oil and THEN decide to build alternatives? Because building this pipeline is definitely a "do nothing different until long after we reach peak oil" kind of strategy.

Well you're the one that said we will always need oil. I just asked where you think we should get it from. Apparently your answer is drill in other countries. That's cleaner than the pipeline, in your opinion?

I'm honestly just asking, I don't know. I would hate to oppose the pipe line and find out in ten years that we did irreversible damage to the ocean that went undetected because we don't see it every day.

i just want to say that i share your questions, sandnsea. that, as long as people will not, and industry can not give up driving internal combustion vehicles, and as long as alternatives are not well-enough developed to fill the need, where do we get the oil they demand be available?

i understand, too, that facing that reality does not equal stopping the inventing and developing of alternatives as fast as possible.