General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKeystone and the Clintons.
So there is no misunderstanding now or down the road ... I hope the president nixes this project but I have no idea what he will do. He's being pressed by the GOP and corporate Democrats on one side and environmentalists and progressives on the other.
Bill Clinton advising Democrats to "embrace the Keystone pipeline:
Hillary's Crony Lobbyist Problem:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/hillary-clintons-keystone_b_997523.html
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,627 posts)A lot of information is contained in these two graphics. Anyone wanting to know more would do well to study them thoroughly.
K&R
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)cheers
KoKo
(84,711 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)I know we were worried about Hillary but now it's Kerry that will recommend...but if Kerry refused to sign off on it...Could Obama then counter him? Anyone know answer.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)As with anything, Obama makes the final decision on anything in the executive branch.
I hope that Kerry stays true to who he is and rejects the report. The report ASSUMES away most of the impacts of the project. The key assumption is that the tar sand oil will be produced in the same quantity, with of without the pipeline - so NO estimate is included reflecting that it is far dirtier than other oils. I know nothing of the project, but simple basic economics would challenge that. The pipeline would provide them with the cheapest way to transport the oil to where it will be refined and then sent out. If it is disallowed, the total cost of providing the oil increases by the difference between using something else. This means the break even point (where you still profit) shifts - and some oil becomes uneconomic to recover.
I hope that one of the environmental groups that both John and Teresa Kerry have been involved with for decades persuades him (or Teresa, if he can't) to go see one of the areas where there have been tar sand spills. Anyone who read the Kerry's book (This moment on earth) knows that almost more than climate change, they have been involved with clean water, clean air issues. This pipeline increases the risk that there will be these ecological disasters in the US. We bear the risk - and almost all the gain goes to a Canadian company. Are we requiring they buy a reasonable amount of insurance to insure that for all time they bear the brunt of any spill?
The problem is that this may in fact be a done deal. Obama, before Kerry was in, allowed the bottom part of the pipeline to be put in. I have no idea where this leaves the US, Canada and the company if the project is completely rejected. It is almost like a breach of faith.
I hope that Kerry recognizes that he can use his own judgment and if Obama disagrees, so be it. There are plenty of precedents where Presidents overrule the advice of their Secretaries of State. A big historical one was Truman siding with the creation of Israel, when SOS George Marshall recommended against it - and more recently rejecting Clinton's and Petraeous' proposal to arm Syrian rebels.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)of food and water quality, so I hope he will be against it. That would make it a harder call for Obama though. But, I guess it would cover the pro's and con's backlash, politically.
I'm totally against these pipelines and fracking, also.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)I seriously doubt that he would personally be for it. My concern is that he is intensely loyal but, I don't see how his decision helps or hurts Obama whichever way he goes. (ie a JK yes doesn't mean a BO yes would be accepted any better or worse - and a JK no does not hurt Obama if he wants to approve it any more than had JK approved it. The one exception is if JK says no and makes an incredibly compelling case - which he has the ability to do - why that is the right decision. Then he genuinely helps Obama saying no. But it unfortunately looks very rigged.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Big Dog is going to have grandchildren someday. Does he NOT realize his approval of Keystone will affect them negatively?
Are donations to the CGI more important than them??????
Whisp
(24,096 posts)A perfect example how the Clintons use their elected powers for personal gain for themselves and their 1%ers then have their suroggates and the media mewl about how wonderfully humanitarian they are and shucks aren't they brilliant.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)And those who keep singing "Hillary 2016" just keep wanting to bury their heads in the sand. The Clinton dynasty is just the left-speaking version of the bush dynasty. They're ALL in the same bed.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Triangulating (aka pandering) to the the right is a hallmark of the 3rd Way, New Democrat, DLC, "bi-partisan", agenda of both the Clinton and Obama administrations.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)And the DLC, NDN, etc, are all financed by the same .... the VERY same.... benefactors.
glinda
(14,807 posts)... Sick and tired of it. Hillary Clinton 2016? Give me a break...
newfie11
(8,159 posts)We need new people , ones hopefully not sold out to corporations.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And maybe weekly thereafter.
Uncle Joe
(58,364 posts)"One of the saddest thing about being a former President is that nobody necessarily cares what you say."
I imagine that some people cared, particularly those closest to the former President.
Thanks for the thread, Atomic Kitten.