Skip to main content

View Diary: Video, Photos: 12,000+ People Surround White House Demanding a Stop to Dirty Tar Sands Pipeline (186 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  not exactly (0+ / 0-)

    But I have friends who build pipelines with tools. They are mostly out of work. I have one buddy, the only time he worked during all of 2010-2011 was on the Ruby Pipeline.

    That is why I am conflicted on XL. I don't love tar sands but I sure want 20,000 folks to get jobs for a year or so, especially in Montana where  times are rough.

    I hate to see equipment for the Tar Sands fabricated in China and shipped right thru the Northwest. It should have been built in the USA instead.  I supported the folks who wanted to stop those shipments for that reason.

    •  you sure do mention 20,000 a lot (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, Matt Z, AllisonInSeattle

      but provide no evidence to back up that claim.

      big badda boom : GRB 080913

      by squarewheel on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:32:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  published accounts (0+ / 0-)

        I am repeating the 20,000 figure from various newspaper articles. The number seems a little high, but 1700 miles of 36-inch line, along with several pumping stations, could generate that much work.

        There will be truck drivers, work in fabrication shops, equipment operators, welders, laborers, surveyors, and so on.

        I am not happy to read that the steel pipe may be imported, and I don't care for TransCanada, who is no friend of workers.

        But half of the unemployed have been out of work so long they don't even get unemployment anymore, and I know some of them who would get work on the pipeline.

    •  first of all, it is NOT 20,000 jobs. Please (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      angstall, Matt Z

      take the time to do some actual reading.  There are lots of comments in this very diary which provide evidence that the 20,000 is basically a fictional number.

      Second, Just like horse-buggy drivers needed to consider career alternatives... your pipeline-building friends could consider transferring their skills to build things that are not environmentally destructive...  There are even organizations dedicated to helping such people make such transitions.

      Here is a good place they could start:

      "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

      by Hopeful Skeptic on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:56:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  forgot part of my sentence... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        angstall, Matt Z
        Just like horse-buggy drivers needed to consider career alternatives when cars were invented...

        "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

        by Hopeful Skeptic on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:58:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I did (0+ / 0-)

        read the diary, and what I saw, were assertions that the 20,000 jobs would be counterbalanced by other lost jobs in the future because the pipeline would cause higher gas prices in the Midwest.

        I don't remember seeing anyone who claimed that pipeline construction wouldn't put thousands of people to work.

        And I dispute that bringing more oil into USA refineries will cause higher gasoline prices.

        I'm not going to advise anyone to forget how to built pipelines. As long as the USA consumes 180 billion gallons of gasoline annually, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, and oceans of chemicals, there will be pipeline after pipeline built and maintained to bring those products to the marketplace.

        Pipelines are less environmentally destructive, in my opinion, than the current alternative, which are  interstate highways with diesel-powered trucks chugging along.

        Tar Sands oil production is breathtakingly environmentally destructive, but stopping the pipeline will not stop tar sands production.

        •  so, you missed the part in the comment (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FishOutofWater, Matt Z, aliasalias

          that you actually replied to that contained the independent study by Cornell university (PDF)... that said

          The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State Department.

          Oh, and this...

          The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.

          But, you're still quoting the 20,000 number based on NEWS stories??

          You are starting to sounds like you're not interested in having an honest discussion...

          "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

          by Hopeful Skeptic on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 10:51:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I said all along (0+ / 0-)

            the 20,000 jobs seemed high.  

            The Cornell study quotes State Dept. figures that don't match what the State Dept. put into the EIS.

            Pipeline critics cited a NEWS story in WaPo that claims the 20,000 jobs double-counts 6500 2-year jobs as 13,000 1-year jobs.

            Given that, You might say there are only 13,500 jobs, but we still need the work.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (170)
  • Community (68)
  • Civil Rights (44)
  • Baltimore (42)
  • Culture (35)
  • Elections (35)
  • Bernie Sanders (34)
  • Economy (31)
  • Texas (30)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Labor (25)
  • 2016 (24)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Education (21)
  • Hillary Clinton (21)
  • Politics (20)
  • Health Care (20)
  • Freddie Gray (20)
  • Media (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site