Basically he told our neighbors we're not interested in an oil pipeline that would have brought 20,000 jobs to the USA...AND helped secure a little bit more oil that wouldn't have to come from the middle east... Not to mention:
Canada will look to China to sell its oil
OTTAWA (CNN) -- In a phone conversation that came as little surprise, President Barack Obama called Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper Wednesday afternoon to explain why he had rejected the Keystone oil sands pipeline project.
In a statement released by Harper's office, the president is quoted as saying that the decision was not a decision based on the "merits of the project" and that TransCanada, the company looking to build the pipeline, could reapply for permission after a new route had been developed.
The statement went on to say that Prime Minister Harper "...expressed his profound disappointment with the news. He indicated to President Obama that he hoped that this project would continue given the significant contribution it would make to jobs and economic growth both in Canada and the United States of America."
Basically he told our neighbors we're not interested in an oil pipeline that would have brought 20,000 jobs to the USA
More like 6,000 at most, according to outside estimates, and those would be temporary construction jobs. Then there's the fact that the proposed route passes through a water supply for eight states...oil pipelines are not known for being leak-proof over the long term. And let's not brush over the little tidbit where this February "deadline" was tacked onto a completely-unrelated bill by Republicans as a condition for its passage.
This was the proper decision. And of course he's still going to be vilified for it by everyone sucking Big Oil's knob.
woodchip wrote:It's not free when the politicians get hold of it.
It costs more when the Capitalists get a hold of it because they have to take a cut to make a profit.
I guess Obama decided that the risks of oil spills in a sensitive aquifer zone out weighed the benefits of a few jobs and more oil for us to burn. Or, he's decided he doesn't want to screw his liberal base anymore and hose his chances at getting re-elected.
Speaking of those "jobs" numbers, ranging from 20,000 to 250,000, depending on which source you look at, appear to be a little inflated. It's probably closer to 6000.
This was the proper decision. And of course he's still going to be vilified for it by everyone sucking Big Oil's knob.
I wonder what the world would be like if we just stopped sucking on oil and coals knob.
I'd say we'd at least have a lot fewer paid-off lawmakers, but there's a long list of other industries behind them that we'd have to deal with first. The stats on RIAA/MPAA campaign contributions to the primary sponsors of SOPA/PIPA are especially telling.
This was the proper decision. And of course he's still going to be vilified for it by everyone sucking Big Oil's knob.
I wonder what the world would be like if we just stopped sucking on oil and coals knob.
well, OUR world would come to a grinding halt, given virtually everything you touch is made from petroleum to some extent, most of our vehicles run on the stuff and probably 1/3 of the heating is done by oil or coal(including generation of electricity). That said, it is sort of sad that we've chosen to spend so little, as a nation, to search for and develop truly viable alternatives. Possibly, the core problem was addressed by your next post(ie-politics and the 'free market')
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
The pristine aquifer argument is a sop to uninformed environmentalists. There are already a number of oil and refined products pipelines that run over the top of the Ogallala. The aquifer is probably in more danger from pollution from current agricultural activities that it is from the proposed new pipeline.
"I've long called these people Religious Maniacs because, of course, they are. I always point out that you don't need a god to be religious maniac; you just need a dogma and a Devil."- Ace @ Ace of SpadesHQ, 13 May 2015, 1900 hr
I'm of mixed feelings on this project. Unfortunately, I know exactly two people from Nebraska. One is a long time fisherman and nature buff, so I would assume him to be very concerned about the aquifer. He is. His spouse, however, is a former Army brat who settled in Nebraska and whose only concern with water is that there be enough so her husband will leave to go fishing and give her some peace and quiet. She claims to be rather alarmed by the proposed route, as well. I can see the plus from the jobs, albeit temporary, and the risks from spillage. I am very leery of the method of extraction, but that is Canada's problem to sort out. Thus,
I can see where the administration is wanting some time to sort the whole thing out. Putting a short deadline on the matter was nothing but political theater.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
dissent wrote:The pristine aquifer argument is a sop to uninformed environmentalists. There are already a number of oil and refined products pipelines that run over the top of the Ogallala. The aquifer is probably in more danger from pollution from current agricultural activities that it is from the proposed new pipeline.
Well, the Greenies are against it, but the unions are for it. I sense a schism amongst the liberals. They're going going to have to decide which is more important, oil and jobs, or a clean environment? What to do? Frankly, it's no skin off my back. I don't live near wear it's going to be built, so I don't have to worry about oil spills and pollution.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
