Skip to main content

View Diary: 11 Democratic senators want a deadline on Keystone XL decision. And they want a yes, of course (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  When did Mark Udall say he supports Keystone? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    unfangus, Cadillac64

    This surprises me.

    I did a quick gooogly search and couldn't find much.

    There was this vote last year---but he didn't vote for it.
    http://thehill.com/...

    I'm not doubting you, MB, but wondered where this comes from?

    Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

    by willyr on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 11:03:47 AM PDT

    •  From Mark Udall's Senate website: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      unfangus, BMScott, Cadillac64, Shockwave

      Here's the page that deals with his positions on energy and environment. He talks a lot about "all of the above," and safe natural gas etc., as well as renewable energy like solar and wind. I see nothing about pipelines, of any kind, or Keystone specifically. http://www.markudall.senate.gov/...

      Here's a brief excerpt from the beginning and end of the page:

      we will need an all-of-the-above strategy that includes all of our energy sources, with a special emphasis on those that are clean and domestic. That means focusing on everything from renewable energy and energy efficiency to natural gas and safe nuclear power. This approach will help diversify the sources of energy we depend on, which will stabilize prices, create new jobs and make our country more secure.....

      ....Global warming is one of the defining challenges of our time, and how we handle the issue will have profound implications for the planet we leave our children. This is clear in Colorado, where rising temperatures, reduced snowpack and ongoing drought have exacerbated recent wildfires that threaten entire communities and our critical water supplies. We can meet this challenge head on, but it will take us working together in our communities, states, and around the world to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, adopt a comprehensive energy policy, develop cleaner-running vehicles and put a common-sense price on carbon.

      Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

      by willyr on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 11:19:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Voted against the Boxer Amendment (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      willyr, BMScott, Meteor Blades, Creosote

      http://thehill.com/...

      I'll give him a break on this.  He's in a big oil state and he's trying to walk the fence.  Sometimes I think he thinks he can win some conservatives if he tries to look a bit Republican.  I think he's dead wrong and don't believe the XL is going to sway many votes one way or the other.

      •  Ok. He Voted against Boxer but also against Hoeven (4+ / 0-)

        Boxer's amendment was to delay Keystone for more "study" . Hoeven's was to take away Obama's authority to approve Keystone. I'll give Udall a pass on the Boxer vote.

        [On the Hoeven bill]:

        All Republicans voted in favor. The Democrats who supported the measure were Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Tom Carper (Del.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Chris Coons (Del.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Mark Warner (Va.).

        [On the Boxer amendment]:

        To that end, the Senate rejected Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-Calif.) amendment that called for conducting more studies on Keystone while its application remains pending.

        That amendment, which fell 33-66, aimed to answer questions of how much of Keystone's oil is intended for overseas markets and how much of the pipeline's steel would come from U.S. firms, among other things.

        "It's not true that all the work has been done. We don't know how much of the steel will be American. We don't how many of the jobs will be American. We don't know if our national security people think that dirty tar sands is going to create climate disruption," Boxer said after her amendment fell, before the Senate took up Hoeven's measure.

        All Republicans voted against Boxer's proposal. The Democrats joining them were Baucus, Begich, Carper, Casey, Coons, Donnelly, Hagan, Heitkamp, Johnson, Landrieu, Manchin, McCaskill, Pryor and Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), William Cowan (Mass.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Mark Udall (Colo.), Tom Udall (N.M.). Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) also voted against. 

        Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

        by willyr on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 11:39:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's the "support." Without a doubt... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          willyr, Creosote

          ...Udall has cautious on this, which is shown by his not signing the letter and not voting for the Boxer amendment. He's got a tough re-election fight ahead of him, which is no surprise. But Colorado has even worse form of petroleum than the tar sands to exploit—oil shale (what the Utes called tempe niache, the "rock that burns")—and it would be nice to see Colorado senators showing that they don't want to see this stuff converted to burnables.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 01:00:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Why should we give him a break on this? (3+ / 0-)

        When do we start to demand that climate change be taken seriously? It's never going to be convenient, but that doesn't mean it's not necessary. Vitally necessary.

      •  He also has (0+ / 0-)

        A lot of Christian Taliban and white supremacists in his state.  Should we give him a pass on reproductive rights and civil rights?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site