I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Which would increase gas prices and hurt small businesses. But that's fine. We can just use the money we save to fund another war, or some tax cuts on the "job creators".
#sexystrawman
Obama faces angry liberals over pipeline
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
Which would increase gas prices and hurt small businesses. But that's fine. We can just use the money we save to fund another war, or some tax cuts on the "job creators".
#sexystrawman
Ok. I'm on the phone. I thought you said we were giving them 1b in subsidies.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
remember all the fear and hype about the alaska pipeline...how did those fears turn out?
Althea
Althea told me...
It's clear you haven't researched the topic.
There is an oil glut in the midwest right now, where the Keystone pipeline ends. Bet you didn't know that the pipeline is already here, did you?
What revenues are going to come from the refineries? Multi national companies run them, and no taxes will be collected when ALL the finished product leaves the country for the open market.
Althea
Althea told me...
I said WE are giving the refineries 1 billion in tax subsidies.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, (assuming you are including N. Dakota as midwest) I understand that we have dramatically increased production on private lands in the US. This is yet another reason we need more, not less pipelines to distribute the oil. I know the theory is that the oil, if distributed via pipelines will increase gas in the midwest, I think that theory is flawed. Putting more oil on the market is going to help reduce overall costs. A factor that is not included in that calculation that many opponents of the pipeline are harping on.
Yes, I am aware of what pipelines currently exist... creating straw men is not going to help your argument.
Please link us up to your source that shows ALL the finished product will leave and that NO taxes will be collected from the refineries.
WE shouldn't. That's what profits are for.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/04/1155653/-The-Lies-of-the-Keystone-XL-pipeline
The most common mistake that politicians and the media make when discussing the Keystone XL pipeline is to frame it as an “environment vs. economy” issue. When presented this way, it appears to be a niche issue that will only resonate with the liberal base. The key to effectively informing people, and arguing the case against the pipeline, is to point out that the claims of benefits are lies.
While the environmental impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline would be numerous and extreme, it is too easy for people to dismiss the consequences when they perceive the benefits to be more jobs, less dependence on foreign oil, and cheaper gas at the pump.
There aren't any actual benefits to the pipeline – only perceived benefits. It is within this context that the environmental impacts are even worse, since we will be destroying our planet for no real reason.
All Republican Senators (including “moderate” Scott Brown) voted to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, claiming that it would create jobs, decrease our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, and decrease oil prices.
But the problem is that those perceived benefits are a complete fabrication, whereas the consequences are very real. They are cynically trying to manipulate us in order to help the oil industry make more money.
Here are the facts: among the studies conducted to estimate jobs created, there were only two not affiliated with TransCanada. Both agreed that there would only be a small number of jobs created, a lot of which would be temporary – certainly not enough to base a jobs plan on. Further, Cornell University pointed out that the long-term effects would actually be job losses. This is not the solution to our jobs crisis; it would make it worse. Strike 1.
Even Canada’s Natural Resources Minister admitted that the purpose of the pipeline is to “diversify” their clientele beyond the United States. The crude would bypass refineries in Oklahoma, and go directly to Texas for export. Since the oil wouldn’t be used in the US, that won’t affect our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Strike 2.
In their own report, TransCanada admitted that the pipeline would enable them to discontinue the $5 billion in discounts they've been giving us to use their dirty crude. This would increase price at the pump by 20 cents per gallon. Further, when the Canadian oil can be sold on the global market, it will end up costing us an addition $3.9 billion a year – more increases at the pump. Strike 3.
By peddling these three lies to advocate for a project that would cause so much devastation, Republicans have shown that they simply cannot be trusted to represent the best interests of not just the United States, but even humanity as a whole.
If the pipeline were to be built, it would encourage further exploitation of the Canadian Tar Sands. NASA’s top climatologist, Jim Hansen, pointed out that if we “tap this stuff heavily, it’s game over for the climate.” And this comes at a time when we can already see and feel the effects of Global Warming through continually more-frequent and more-devastating storms, such as Hurricane Sandy.
We cannot drill our way to affordable energy. Far more jobs would be created, and energy sources stabilized, by investing in clean, renewable. Republicans are against ending tax subsidies for big oil – Republicans think we need to pay them billions of dollars from our taxes or else they won’t want to continue making more money than any industry to ever exist on Earth. To actually achieve all of the things falsely promised would come with the Keystone XL pipeline, we need to invest in clean energy – not resort to lies and distortions.
So you are against the foreign owned pipeline company condemning private property for their pipeline?
Bfgrn
New member
"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain."
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).
Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL
A report by Cornell University global labor institute
Main Findings
The main points in this briefing paper can be summarized as follows:
» The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget. However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means fewer jobs.
» 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.
» The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.
» There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline permit issuance.
» The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1 billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built.
» KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate, and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it is now.
» KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.
» Pipeline spills incur costs and therefore kill jobs. Clean-up operations and permanent pipeline spill damage will divert public and private funds away from productive economic activity. In 2010 US pipeline spills and explosions killed 22 people, released over 170,000 barrels of petroleum into the environment, and caused $1 billion dollars worth of damage in the United States.
» Rising carbon emissions and other pollutants from the heavy crude transported by Keystone XL will also incur increased health care costs. Emissions also increase both the risk and costs of further climate instability.
» By helping to lock in US dependence on fossil fuels, Keystone XL will impede progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal and will have a chilling effect on green investments and green jobs creation. The green economy has already generated 2.7 million jobs in the US and could generate many more.
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_012312_FIN.pdf
The Impact of Tar Sands Pipeline Spills on Employment and the Economy
A report by Cornell University global labor institute
About this report
This report examines the potentially negative impacts of tar sands oil spills on employment and the economy. It draws attention to economic sectors at risk from a tar sands pipeline spill, particularly in the six states along Keystone XL’s proposed route Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. This report also shows how Michigan’s Kalamazoo River spill in 2010—to date the largest tar sands oil spill in the U.S.—caused significant economic damage and negatively impacted the quality of life of local communities.
The information was collected from employment and economic data in the pipeline states, as well as from interviews with businesspeople, landowners, farmers, and ranchers who live and work along the proposed route for the Keystone XL or near the Kalamazoo River oil spill.
Main Findings
» The negative impacts on employment and the economy of tar sands pipelines have largely been ignored. To date, a comprehensive spills risk assessment for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline has not been conducted. Such an assessment would provide an independent review of both the risk of spills and their economic consequences.
» The Keystone XL pipeline would cut through America’s breadbasket. Agricultural land and rangeland comprise 79 percent of the land that would be affected by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. It would cross more than 1,700 bodies of water, including the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers and the Ogallala and Carrizo-Wilcox aquifers. The Ogallala Aquifer alone supplies 30 percent of the groundwater used for irrigation in the U.S. It also supplies two million people with drinking water.
» Farming, ranching, and tourism are major sources of employment along the Keystone XL pipeline’s proposed route. Water contamination resulting from a Keystone XL spill, or the cumulative effect of spills over the lifetime of the pipeline, would have significant economic costs and could result in job loss in these sectors. Approximately 571,000 workers are directly employed in the agricultural sector in the six states along the Keystone XL corridor. Total agricultural output for these states is about $76 billion annually.
» Many of the land areas and bodies of water that Keystone XL will cross provide recreational opportunities vital to the tourism industry. Keystone XL would traverse 90.5 miles of recreation and special interest areas, including federal public lands, state parks and forests, and national historic trails. About 780,000 workers are employed in the tourism sector in the states along the Keystone XL pipeline. Tourism spending in these states totaled more than $67 billion in 2009.
» There is strong evidence that tar sands pipeline spills occur more frequently than spills from pipelines carrying conventional crude oil because of the diluted bitumen’s toxic, corrosive, and heavy composition. Tar sands oil spills have the potential to be more damaging than conventional crude oil spills because they are more difficult and more costly to clean up, and because they have the potential to pose more serious health risks. Therefore both the frequency and particular nature of the spills have negative economic implications.
» The largest tar sands oil spill in the U.S. occurred on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010. This spill affected the health of hundreds of residents, displaced residents, hurt businesses, and caused a loss of jobs. The Kalamazoo spill is the most expensive tar sands pipeline oil spill in U.S. history, with overall costs estimated at $725 million.
» According to the U.S. State Department, the six states along the pipeline route are expected to gain a total of 20 permanent pipeline operation jobs. Meanwhile, the agricultural and tourism sectors are already a major employer in these states. Potential job losses to these sectors resulting from one or more spills from Keystone XL could be considerable.
» Renewable energy provides a safer route to creating new jobs and a sustainable environment. The U.S. is leading the world in renewable energy investments, and employment in this sector has expanded in recent years.
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_Impact-of-Tar-Sands-Pipeline-Spills.pdf
guess who supported eminent domain? It wasn't conservatives . . .
Althea
Althea told me...
You're in the wrong discussion. We're talking about tar sands....not oil. Presently, the Keystone pipeline ends in the midwest, where it is being turned into oil. Said production has created a local gasoline glut, bringing the price of gasoline down. Extending the pipeline will end the glut, and cause higher prices.
Clearly, you don't know what pipelines exist.
You are so far behind in your research, you need to spend an hour or two catching up before you deserve to join this discussion.
None are speaking out against in on this pipeline project are they?
this is not the first time I have brought up that point and not ONE spoke against it.
constitutional rights supporters my ass.
They support the ones which suits them.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Obama will do what he has done from the beginning of his political career and vote present.
China building a pipeline isn't the only option. They could use rail, which ironically would have a much greater impact in the environment than the pipeline. Liberals aren't just stupid and shortsighted. They know that fossil based fuels are the keys to individual liberty, prosperity and freedom. That is why they are under assault. The environment is just the vehicle for Marxists to hide behind.
The oil is coming out regardless
China building a pipeline isn't the only option. They could use rail, which ironically would have a much greater impact in the environment than the pipeline. Liberals aren't just stupid and shortsighted. They know that fossil based fuels are the keys to individual liberty, prosperity and freedom. That is why they are under assault. The environment is just the vehicle for Marxists to hide behind.
The oil is coming out regardless
Bfgrn
New member
You never cease to prove you are a pea brain.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i see liberals have buried their head in the sand regarding the alaska pipeline
