Skip to main content

Keystone XL support

Here's some affluenza news from Spectrem's Millionaire Corner:

Nearly half of Affluent investors have a “build, baby, build” attitude toward the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a new survey conducted by Spectrem’s Millionaire Corner.

Forty-seven percent of Affluent respondents believe President Barack Obama should approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to help make America more energy independent. This is twice as many as those who said they had no opinion on the 1,700-mile, $5.4 billion project that would move oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast (23 percent. [...]

Support of the pipeline increases with net worth, the Spectrem survey finds, with nearly six-in-ten (57 percent) of respondents with a net worth of at least $5 million (not including primary residence) in favor of the pipeline as a way for the country to achieve energy independence. In comparison, 25 percent of those with less than $100,000 feel the same way.

Men, too, express greater support for the pipeline than women (54 percent vs. 32 percent). While women are more concerned about the project’s environmental impact (18 percent vs. 13 percent). A higher percentage of women than men (37 percent vs. 17 percent) have no opinion on the pipeline.

Spectrem did not provide any details on methodology, including how many affluent—pardon me, Affluent—investors it surveyed.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 01:45 PM PDT.

Also republished by Climate Change SOS.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm Ok with the KXL if new Coal Burning Stations (0+ / 0-)

    are forbidden.

    It sets the stage for forbidding all burning . . .

    •  You're in that $5 million+ category, right? n/t (6+ / 0-)

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

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 01:59:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Three Social Security credits per year. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Oh Mary Oh

        I get ObamaCare via being a nearly impoverished veteran.

      •  I'm not an affluenza sufferer but at this point (0+ / 0-)

        I want something to happen. What I'm worried about is that Canada will continue to extract the bitumen regardless of what happens to the pipeline. So if we can get a moratorium on coal plants that will be something positive. With KXL there are no good options EXCEPT keeping the grease in the ground and Canada is dead set against that. So what are the alternatives?

        Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

        by ontheleftcoast on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:28:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Making them see the light by blocking KXL. (5+ / 0-)

          That will make the entire sordid enterprise far less lucrative to the Affluent.

        •  It's not Canada. It's the f*ing huge multinational (0+ / 0-)

          oil companies and companies like the American Koch brothers that are the ones pulling the shit out of the ground in Canada in order to fill their pockets with money. They control a good part of the politics of Canada just as they do in the US.

          "All of the Above" Obama has done more for pumping up US oil production than any other president. Look at the new pipeline construction, the offshore drilling, the fracking, the rail transport of oil and the refinery upgrading under his administration. He will go down in the history books as the president who made the US completely self sufficient in hydrocarbon energy production.

          America is positioned to become a major hydrocarbon supplier to the world in the very near future. Nothing is going to stop that.

          So, drill baby drill, frack baby frack, pump baby pump.

          You can't swing a cat in the US without hitting a barrel of oil or getting a whiff of natural gas.

  •  How exactly importing oil from Canada (8+ / 0-)

    Is going to help achieve energy independence?

    It is like saying that borrowing money from the bank will help you go debt free.

    •  The thought is actually, independent of middle (0+ / 0-)

      East and other hot spot oil.  A variant of this is so we don't need to use our military to protect access to oil.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:45:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're Changing the Subject. (4+ / 0-)

      We're not going to import any Canadian oil. They're just shipping it here for us to refine before shipping it overseas.

      Part of the sales pitch for this is that it will allow midwest energy prices to rise, since it'll be able to reach the global market and stop depressing local prices.

      The oil is NOT FOR US consumption.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 03:29:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The US still has to import half it's oil (0+ / 0-)

        It is only in the last year that domestic production equaled imports.

        http://www.resilience.org/...

        The US cannot export crude oil until Congress changes the law. The crude coming down the Keystone will be mixed with domestic crude so it must be refined on the Gulf Coast. But, that is no problem. The gulf coast refineries can handle it.

        Some of the tight oil from California is as dirty as Canadian tar sands oil and they have been doing it for decades. They started steam injecting back in the 60's.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        •  How about US consumed less energy? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Oh Mary Oh, peregrine kate

          There is no real effort made to consume less. Even the tiniest of efforts can't be enforced... because... our freedoms to use eight plastic bags for each tour to the grocery shop to bag 15 items of processed food neatly packaged in plastic based containers...can't be limited.

          •  The US has the world's cheapest hydrocarbons. (0+ / 0-)

            It has become an American birthright. With the massive amount of tight oil and gas hitting the markets now the price will go lower to encourage consumption or it will have to be exported. As it can't go much lower and still be profitable, the writing is on the wall.

            I figure there will be an extremely strong push to relax export bans in the coming year. Possibly before the midterms if it appears to be advantageous to either party.

            One way or another, the bans will be lifted by this time next year and the US will become a major supplier of the world's gas and oil.

        •  Crude oil can be exported from the United States (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peregrine kate

          under export licenses that must be issued and are readily provided.

          •  Only under special circumstances (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LakeSuperior

            Is a Democrat president willing to do it for commingled tar sands oil?

            U.S. oil export ban could be lifted piecemeal

            The White House could lift the ban on U.S. oil exports in stages, according to an analysis of past presidential decisions prepared for Senator Lisa Murkowski, the highest-ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

            “The executive branch retains the statutory authority to authorise crude oil exports,” according to the report released in Washington on Monday.
            ...
            On six occasions since 1981, the president has lifted some of the restrictions on the export of crude oil and refined products originally imposed during the energy crisis of the 1970s.

            Presidential decisions have lifted controls on the export of refined products (1981), crude to Canada (1985 and 1988), oil from Alaska’s Cook Inlet (1985), California heavy crude (1992) and Alaska North Slope oil (1996).

            In five instances, the president acted alone, without Congress, utilising the discretionary authority conferred on him by the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and the 1979 Export Administration Act (EAA) as well as a number of other laws.

            In each case, the president or the secretary of commerce determined exports were in the U.S. national interest, would not diminish the quantity of petroleum available in the United States, and were consistent with the purpose of EPCA and the EAA.

      •  Since commencement of the operations of the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy

        KXL pipeline does not have any effect on the production capacities of PAD3 refineries, and these refineries are already using tar sands crude and will use more to replace Venezuelan heavy sour crude....

        ....and since the large majority of refined petroleum products from PAD3 refineries are presently consumed here in the United States, there is no reason to believe your claim that KXL commencement means all of the refined oil products to be produced are for export is correct.

        Michael Brune keeps saying this, but that is all part of Sierra Club's and Oil Change International's advocacy misconduct in prosecuting opposition to KXL.   By advocacy misconduct, I am not criticizing their objective of opposition to KXL.    What I am criticizing in Michael Brune's and OCI's repeated insistence on national stages claiming what you are claiming....the erroneous insistence that all of the petroleum products made from crude delivered by KXL are for export.    

        Making the claim that the oil is all for export is anti-KXL-advocacy malpractice.  

        Since this claim is not true, making false claims in the middle of trying to persuade the President and the Secretary of State to make the right decision to turn down KXL simply can't be defended as conservation and environmental protection leadership.

        If all of the refined products produced from heavy sour crude from tar sands were to be exported from the United States, it would mean that the KXL permit issuance decision would be less relevant and not more relevant to the national interest of the United States.

        When Brune and OCI keep saying that the United States will not get any benefits from the KXL pipeline and that all of the oil will be exported....it is an attempt to substitute an image branding campaign for a legitimate conservation/protection leadership approach to anti-KXL advocacy.   However, the "KXL is an export pipeline" image branding campaign looks to me more like an element of an organized campaign of lying and disinformation to me.

  •  The mother of all NIMBY's (5+ / 0-)

    How many affluent live on top of the pipeline

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:29:15 PM PDT

  •  Highly suspect survey. How exactly does one (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Oh Mary Oh

    get an unbiased sample of people worth over $5 million of sufficient size?  The linked to site was not a source that I recognized and there was no details on how the survey was performed, sample size, etc.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:43:28 PM PDT

  •  If I understand the chart correctly (5+ / 0-)

    in the <$100 000K group (ie. the 94 % of the population) 50 % have no opinion about the issue. That's not very encouraging.

    •  It's not only America's security at stake now. (0+ / 0-)

      The energy security of every European country is now threatened by a tyrant who wants to invade and take over all the Eastern European countries. Once he has these firmly in his clutches, it is only a matter of time before Berlin, Paris and even London will be brought to their knees.

      America must respond to this very real and dangerous threat immediately. Now is not the time to worry about the environment when the very freedom of half the world is in danger.

      The only way to stop Putin from rearing his head over Europe is to cut off his source of strength - Russian natural gas.

      So Patriots, put down those protest signs and pick up an American flag in support of Freedom Fracking and Pipelines for Peace across this great land so we can ship Liberty Gas and Liberty Oil to Europe to stop Putin dead in his tracks.

      Of what use is clean air and clean water when you are enslaved under the thumb of a despot? Bottled water is such a small price to pay when the very freedom and future of Europe is at stake.

      If you are not with us, you are with Putin.

      [wish this WAS snark]

      •  Meant as a reply to diary not mimi. (0+ / 0-)
        •  but that doesn' t make your comment (0+ / 0-)

          any less worrisome to me. You are hyperventilating over the despotism you see in Russia's Putin.

          •  I was being snarky with the Putin boogeyman. (0+ / 0-)

            But watch how some politicians use this as a pretext to open the floodgates for the export of American oil. The media can very easily wrap the flag around this just like they did for other 'wars' and the sheeple will blindly follow along. It's all in the framing.

            Punishing Putin Fuels Energy-Export Drive in Congress

            In the decades after the Arab oil embargo, the U.S. restricted energy exports to promote self sufficiency as a matter of national security.

            Now Russia’s annexation of Crimea and massing of troops on the Ukrainian border is fueling a push in Congress to remove those limits to punish President Vladimir Putin.

            “In the 70s, we argued that for the sake of national security we have to prohibit exports,” Michael Webber, deputy director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview. “Now we argue that for the sake of national security we have to allow exports. Our mind has flipped in 40 years.”
            ...
            ‘Energy Superpower’

            “America can and should be an energy superpower,” Senator Mary Landrieu, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said today at her first hearing as head of the panel. “The last thing Putin and his cronies want is competition from the United States of America in the energy race.”
            ...

            •  The flags are starting to wave.... (0+ / 0-)

              Come on everyone - lets start Fracking For Freedom and get that Liberty Gas to Europe. Only completely free trade will free the people of the world! We are all Europeans now.

              EU-US Energy Council – Joint Press Statement
              Brussels, 2 April 2014

              1. The fifth EU-US Energy Council met today in Brussels, chaired by EU High Representative/Vice President Catherine Ashton, EU Commissioner for Energy Günther Oettinger, US Secretary of State John Kerry, and US Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman
              ...

              2. Developments in Ukraine have brought energy security concerns to the fore and prove the need to reinforce energy security in Europe.
              ...

              4. The Council commended the efforts of the EU and of its Member States at the European Council of 20-21 March 2014 to address the issue of external energy dependency through a further diversification of supplies and routes, increased energy efficiency, smart grids, improving the opportunity for the integration of renewable energy into the network and increased production of domestic energy resources. The Council further welcomed the prospect of US LNG exports in the future since additional global supplies will benefit Europe and other strategic partners. The Council also welcomed the negotiations towards a comprehensive and ambitious Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) whose early conclusion would further underscore the strategic significance of the transatlantic relationship.

    •  A different take on it could be that the least.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Oh Mary Oh, peregrine kate

      ..affluent are most unlikely to have a sizable portfolio that include investments in petrochemical stuff and don't have time or energy after work to devote much concern about it. That part is not a good thing

      Yet taking that (lack of $$ - disposable income/investment) into consideration the remainder of the <100Kers that are paying closer attention enough to have an opinion are the most correct about what Keystone represents - by a lot.

      <100 grand income:

       • It would create more jobs  ~ 2.2% | the lowest and the most accurate by far

       • It would help achieve energy independence ~ 24.5% | that's the lowest and most correct assessment by quite a bit

       • negative environmental impact would be too great ~ 18.5% | the most accurate reading of it but not as different than the more affluent

      So clearly $$ makes a difference. Whether these higher affluent favoring the pipeline believe that Keystone achieves independence or that they even care about that is as highly suspect as their positive vote on that question - imo

      Thx MB

  •  Maryland Voice Opposition to NG Fracking Export (0+ / 0-)

    38,000 petitions submitted against the project while backers say more than 20,000 submitted in support


    More at The Real News

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site