Skip to main content

View Diary: New York Times Joins the Bumbling Keystone XL Cops (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Cue the claims that without the pipeline... (34+ / 0-)

    ...the tar sands will be fully exploited anyway and that stopping it would make no never mind.

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

    by Meteor Blades on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:14:14 AM PDT

    •  With one hand Obama Taketh, with the other He (12+ / 0-)

      Giveth.

      Obama has approved the Kinder Morgan Cochin Pipeline Project which will allow the condensates from gas fracking to be shipped to the Alberta tar sands to be used a diluent which allows the bitumen to be pumped. There is a shortage of this diluent so the price is currently higher than WTI in Canada which makes fracking even more profitable. Canada only produces 145,000 bbls/d out of the 350,000 it currently requires. The shortfall is made up from US suppliers.

      •  More thoughts about diluent shortage in the tar (4+ / 0-)

        sands project.

        Until this problem is solved, there is no way that the Keystone XL pipeline can be filled. At 30% diluent ratio, the Keystone pipeline will require up to 250,000 bbls/d additional condensates moving north (depending upon the future availability of local sources).

        Postponing the Keystone XL simply allows the gas/oil industry to get it's ducks in a row. The Kinder Morgan Cochin pipeline, which will supply about 100,000 bbls/d, is just one of those ducks.

    •  You're Right, MB (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      expatjourno

      And I can assure you that shipping oil via Churchill, Manitoba and Hudson Bay is far more environmentally safe than via Keystone.

      •  Why is it that so many people who keep... (12+ / 0-)

        ...saying opposition to Keystone XL is a waste of time don't believe Canadian officials and oil company executives who themselves say that that pipeline is key to speeding up development of the tar sands?

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

        by Meteor Blades on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:23:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why Is It That So Many People - (0+ / 0-)

          Who keep saying they favor working people ignore core material economic aspects? Redistribution is fine and needed; however, history suggests that economic growth is most strongly correlated with improved material conditions for the poor and working poor. Degrowth leads to more extreme economic stratification.

          There was once a time when Democrats actually supported working people.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

          •  If that's directed at me, you've missed the... (6+ / 0-)

            ...mark about a light-year.

            As even a cursory look at my posts here and my writing all the way back to when I started 47 years ago, as well as my political activism that has nothing to do with writing, I've always favored working people.

            But I don't happen to be one of the folks who views the economy and the environment as two separate entities. Nor am I one of those who claims to support the needs of working people while ignoring (if not laughing at) the impact of the externalities of certain economic practices, such as the tens of thousands of people killed and hundreds of thousands sickened every year by the burning of fossil fuels, not to mention the consequent climate change that will displace and kill millions in the coming years.

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

            by Meteor Blades on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 05:58:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Astoundingly off base comment by johnny (6+ / 0-)

              If anyone here combines an integrated approach to economics, environment and advocacy for workers better than you do, I would like to know who that is.

              Pollution and environmental problems always hit the workers harder than the owners. And tar sands exploitation is destroying the land that Canada has taken from the people of its first nations. People living near the tar sands are exposed to toxic air and poisoned water. I think johnny is sincere, but he's off base about Keystone XL, too.

              “Industry does everything they can and gets away with it almost all the time, whether it’s the coal industry, not the subject of this hearing, or water or whatever. They will cut corners, and they will get away with it. " Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D, WVa

              by FishOutofWater on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 06:54:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank You Fish, But I Am On Base - (0+ / 0-)

                First, a significant majority of Americans has consistently supported KXL over the past 5 years - with margins ranging from 2-to-1 to 3-to-1. Although support is skewed heavily in the GOP direction, even a majority of Dems support Keystone according to the latest Pew poll. The only demographic that clearly opposes KXL is Dems with incomes over $100,000.  Dems under $50,000 support 54% to 34%.

                http://www.people-press.org/...

                Second, as for Alberta, the provincial median family income is $90,000 - almost $20,000 above the Canadian average. Saskatchewan - with its peripheral oil sands and Bakken - comes in 2nd with $77,000. BC weighs in at $69,000.

                http://www.statcan.gc.ca/...

                Now if people in Alberta were so dissatisfied as you suggest, then why did the Conservatives win a 61/26 majority in the legislature in 2012. (Granted they are in trouble now, but they are likely to be replaces by the Wild Rose Party - even more conservative.) And the Saskatchewan Party next door has a 49 to 9 majority over the NDP.  May I say that again? 49 to 9.

                You make it sound like people supporting Keystone are some misguided minority.  But the numbers suggest that KXL opponents - both in the U.S. and Canada - are few and far between. Certainly in Alberta and Saskatchewan, the vast majority of voters support the expansion of oil and gas production.

                •  Again. Not a word about the damage being... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  navajo

                  ...done to health of these workers and to the climate.

                  FishOutofWater made no claim about the viewpoint of workers in these matters. He didn't say they were dissatisfied. He  said, quite rightly, that workers are hit hard by the impacts of extracting and burning fossil fuels, whether it's coal, oil, gas or tar sands.

                  The supporters of continuing to do this burning are a misguided majority.

                  The most recent Gallup Poll (March 2014) shows that only 24% of Americans worry a great deal about climate change with 51% worrying about it not at all.  By your gauge, that should be the end of the story because those of us who worry about climate change a lot are in the minority.

                  By Gallup's measure, it wasn't until the fourth quarter of the fourth year of the war in Vietnam (4Q of 1968) that a bare majority of Americans told surveyors that they thought the war was a "mistake" even though it was (in America) those working class people who were paying the price for that war in blood and vast numbers of ruined lives. Until then, those of us who opposed the war up until then were ridiculed, called unAmerican, labeled as traitors. The kinder among them tagged us, as you do foes of Keystone XL, quixotic. But we were right.

                  Yes, thanks to vast gobs of propaganda and lies, the majority of Americans don't yet think climate change is a big deal and the majority favors the pipeline. Many do so out of self-interest, as do coal workers in Appalachia despite the horrific damage coal mining has done to their health and environment. That interest is understandable when they've been offered no alternative.

                  But that doesn't mean those of us who are in the 24% who worry about climate change and the 38% who oppose the pipeline are wrong. It just means, as with Vietnam, that the majority hasn't yet been persuaded what we (and presumably you unless you are a denier, not just a delayer) know to be true about a future shaped by the burning of coal, bitumen from the tar sands, fracked oil and gas and, soon, kerogen from oil shale.

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

                  by Meteor Blades on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:12:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "False Consciousness" (0+ / 0-)

                    One of the more egregious terms coming out of the 1960s and 1970s left - a la Marxist theory - which basically says that if the masses fail to agree with your ideas, then the masses have obviously been misled.

                    Not only does "false consciousness" reek of elitism and moral superiority, but it also falls flat on its face whenever it is used. For millennia, people who want to save the world have usually elicited either fear or, more often, scorn.

                    PS - Keystone ain't Vietnam.

                    PPS - I remain amazed that supposed progressives are willing to toss away a Senate majority for a project that will make little difference in the carbon equation - with profound consequences for civil rights, women, minorities, immigrants, income, health care access, and yes, the environment.

                    •  Keystone XL isn't Vietnam obviously. But. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      navajo, LakeSuperior

                      … climate change makes Vietnam look like a pimple.

                      And, please, spare me the "false consciousness" riff. It was invented in the 1890s, not the 1960s and '70s when it was mostly used by leftists against leftists, not vanguardists against proles.

                      Speaking of moral superiority, what I find amazing is your implication that climate change activists are wild-eyed cultists worthy of scorn. Wow.

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

                      by Meteor Blades on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:21:22 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Your Statement Above - (0+ / 0-)

                        Conforms far more with the 1960s & 1970s version of "false consciousness" than that initially stated by Engels - - although I am familiar with the development of Marxist and Leninist thought in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

            •  If you care about the security of your children (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades

              and grandchildren, you cannot ignore climate change, which is already happening;  but, it can get a lot worse.  

            •  Did You Read? (0+ / 0-)

              Terry O'Sullivan's critique?

              Can you tell me whether or not the views of the skilled trades unions have any validity on this issue? Or are they all as misguided as I am?

              •  Of course I read it. I noticed O'Sullivan... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                navajo

                ...has added to his cast of devils to sneer at the anti-KXL billionaire Tom Steyer. This he does without the slightest mention of the billionaire brothers Koch. He says the delays of KXL are all about politics, not policy, as if deciding to okay the pipeline's construction would have nothing to do with politics.

                He mentions the jobs that KXL will create without noting that renewable energy projects in California have put more LIUNA members to work in that one state alone than the pipeline would nationwide. If all 50 states would follow California's policies, LIUNA would see ten thousand or more new jobs for its members.

                O'Sullivan hasn't just complained about White House delays and environmentalists. He's also upset at brothers and sisters in unions that oppose the pipeline. He's called opposition to KXL from the Amalgamated Transit Union and the Transport Workers Union "repulsive." I suppose he thinks they have "false consciousness."

                He's given a speech to the members of one of labor's biggest enemies, the National Association of Manufacturers. Whose side is he on.

                The National Nurses Union also opposes the pipeline and has this to say about Keystone XL:

                Finally, stumping for the Pipeline puts labor in league with the most anti-union, socially and politically regressive corporate interests in the U.S., such as the oil billionaire Koch Brothers, the American Petroleum Institute, and other energy corporations generally, abetted by the rightwing politicians who carry their agenda.

                The future for labor should not be scrambling for elusive crumbs thrown down by corporate partners, but advocating for the larger public interest, the reputation labor deservedly earned in the 1930s and 1940s, the period of labor's greatest growth and the resulting emergence of a more egalitarian society. Today labor should be on that path again, uniting with the very coalition of those opposing the Pipeline and working to rein in the frightening consequences of climate change the Pipeline would hasten.

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

                by Meteor Blades on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:20:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site