I think President Obama just said that Keystone XL WILL be approved....

[Junkdrawer]

But Junk, you say, the President just said that Keystone XL should not be approved if it will increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions. How can you facilitate the most carbon intensive fuel on the planet and NOT increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

Let's look at what the President said exactly:

...

Here’s what he said:

I know there’s been … a lot of controversy surrounding the proposed Keystone pipeline that would carry oil from Canadian tar sands down to refineries in the Gulf. And the State Department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal. That’s how it’s always been done. But I do want to be clear: Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.

It seems obvious that Keystone XL would significantly increase carbon emissions by encouraging development and facilitating transport of the dirtiest fossil fuel on earth — tar-sands oil. But in its draft environmental impact statement on the pipeline, the State Department asserted otherwise.

The U.S. EPA says State is wrong and argues that Keystone would notably boost greenhouse gas emissions. Even Canadian tar-sands boosters say Keystone is needed in order to increase oil production: “Long-term, we do need Keystone to be able to grow the volumes in Canada,” Steve Laut, president of big oil company Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., said last month.

....

http://grist.org/news/obama-will-ok-keystone-only-if-it-wont-increase-carbon-emissions/

So I believe he's signaling that he's going to go with the State Department on this. And the DOS has been saying that the pipeline may actually reduce greenhouse gasses. How? Well....

...

How would the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline affect production
of Canadian oil sands?

Some suggest that the Keystone XL pipeline would not
substantially influence either the rate or magnitude of oil extraction activities in
Canada or the overall volume of crude oil transported to and refined in the United
States. This finding is supported by DOS in both the August 2011 Final EIS and
the March 2013 Draft SEIS, which states, “construction of the proposed Project
is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the development rate of the [Canadian]
oil sands, and that even when considering the incremental cost of non-pipeline
transport options, should the proposed Project be denied, a 0.4 to 0.6 percent
reduction in [Canadian] production could occur by 2030.”37 This view is based
on the assumption that Canadian oil sands crudes would find other ways to
market, including the construction of new pipelines, the switching of existing
pipelines, or the use of tankers, rail cars, or trucks. The choice of transport could
also affect the levels of GHG emissions in the sector (e.g., some suggest that the
life-cycle GHG emissions from the sector would increase if rail cars and trucks
were substituted for pipelines). Others contend that the lack of transport
infrastructure and the price discount it occasions has already affected production
of the oil sands crudes and, if continued, would further depress investment and
development in the region, significantly curtailing the sector’s GHG emissions.38

...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42537.pdf

IF you assume that the oil will make it to market one way or another, then a pipeline beats, say, trucking it or shipping it.

Clever, no?

[Democracyinkind]

1. I thought the same thing.

The "if" is way bigger than most people seem to think.

We'll find out soon enough.

[Puzzledtraveller]

2. He gave the dogs a bone!

While they are busy gnawing on it....

[The Straight Story]

3. Here is one way it could reduce gasses:

We build the pipeline and use the oil/gas/etc (a percent of it is set aside) to produce solar panels (in china where most the oil will go) and windmills (including the new non-rotating ones). It will also be used by scientists to power their cars to get to work to study how to reduce such gasses.....etc

We 'invest' in a greener future tomorrow with the energy of today.

Yeah, I can see it going down like that.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Let's assume that's the case. Would that be bad?

If the oil is used to end up with a net decrease in greenhouse gases, would that not be highly desirable?

[The Straight Story]

12. Yes and no

Because we know it would be a lie and the money used would go to the wealthy who would trickle it down to next to nothing for the projects and pay themselves big bonuses for having had to handle all the money in the first place.

That said, I can see burning more fuels if we do something like, I dunno, work more on colonizing space, building ships that can harvest asteroids, etc and so on - all the while getting more and more companies and people to do tele-work and instead of flying all over meeting with clients do so on the web and such.

In a perfect world run by people whose main concern was the planet and it's people - I would be on board. But this is just another way for the few to get as much as possible from the many while not caring at all.

[Buzz Clik]

14. "Because we know it would be a lie..." You'll have to forgive me, but I stopped there. n/t

[The Straight Story]

15. That's fine, you don't have to believe it for it to be true (nt)

[Buzz Clik]

16. True? You just made it up. It most certainly is NOT true.

Maybe someday it MIGHT be true, but right now it's all pure speculation on your part.

[liberal_at_heart]

4. of course he will.

[cali]

6. that's what I heard.

[rdharma]

7. Norman Goldman predicted that would happen a few days ago. nt

http://www.normangoldman.com/

[Buzz Clik]

11. THE Norman Goldman?

Predicted that Obama would initially reject Keystone XL but would be willing to listen if State could demonstrate no increase in greenhouse gases, and then approve it anyway?

[rdharma]

20. Yup! THE Norman Goldman.... Where justice is served.

And he's usually correct with his predictions.

[Buzz Clik]

22. Sweet!

A latter day Nostradamus, and none too soon!

[rdharma]

23. I hope he's wrong.........

..... but Norman Goldman is usually pretty accurate with his political and legal predictions.

[Buzz Clik]

25. Has he weighed in on Zimmerman?

[rdharma]

29. Yup! He's "weighed in"....... but no predictions on verdict.

I think that "murdering paranoid Barney Fife wanna-be" ........ is going to walk.

[Buzz Clik]

32. Agreed.

I do not share the optimism of some of the more vocal DUers.

[Buzz Clik]

8. Ignore his words. Let's focus on other outcomes that might really, really piss us off.

That's the spirit!

[xiamiam]

50. right, because you can take his words and promises to the bank..on a parallel planet you can..nt

[LongTomH]

9. Meybe so, maybe not. In the meantime, let the White House know what YOU think!

[MotherPetrie]

26. The WH doesn't give the teeniest tiniest goddamn what we think about this.

[fredamae]

10. Did he Mention

Protecting Ground Water/Aquifers, Lakes, Steams, Rivers and Land Protection?
If so I missed that.

[Buzz Clik]

13. Did you listen to his speech?

[fredamae]

17. No---very little of it

that's why I asked....
There is So much going on today--impossible to try to follow all of it---
Local State issues, Voting Rights, other SCOTUS decisions, TX Filibuster---

[Buzz Clik]

18. Okay. Then let me answer your question:

Did he Mention protecting Ground Water/Aquifers, Lakes, Steams, Rivers and Land Protection?
If so I missed that.

You missed it because didn't listen.

[Hydra]

33. You're so helpful!

Keep up the good work.

[Buzz Clik]

42. I suppose there are those who come to DU to find people to watch tv for them.

Is that the point: "I have better things to do than to stay informed. Educate me."

[Hydra]

43. You missed an opportunity

To tell us what the President DID say in favor of being snarky.

In the end, I think you did damage to both your image and the President's, so good job there.

[Buzz Clik]

47. I don't speak for the President, so I could not care less how I affected his image in your eyes.

[Hydra]

52. Oh, that clears it up then

You don't care how your words affect the discussion, but you felt the need to put it out there anyway.

That's now two "sensible" people who have been honest so far. We're getting there!

[Jamastiene]

46. So, instead of filling a person in on what was actually said,

you'd rather snark at them? That's not a good way to bolster your side of the debate.

[Buzz Clik]

48. I responded to snark with snark.

Shit happens.

[NealK]

51. "Shit happens."

Yes it does and what you did was pretty shitty.

[avaistheone1]

24. I share these concerns.

[Junkdrawer]

55. Nope. And that's the tell...

he set the as the decision criteria the only facet of the problem with even the remotest chance of being a green fig leaf.

[fredamae]

56. Sometimes it's what they don't say...

Thank you....

[GeorgeGist]

19. Exacerbate ...

x·ac·er·bate [ ig zássər bàyt ]
make worse: to make an already bad or problematic situation worse
Synonyms: make worse, worsen, aggravate, impair, intensify

[GeorgeGist]

21. The lesser of two evils.

Brilliant Chess move.

[MotherPetrie]

27. There's never been any doubt. Obama will do industry's bidding on this.

[Junkdrawer]

28. All the while saying it's the Green thing to do...

[MotherPetrie]

31. Yes, he is good at pretense.

[HooptieWagon]

30. Yep, he never met a Corporation whose water he wouldn't carry.

Perhaps the Bush Obama Group can make more apologies and lame excuses how Obama is different than Bush.

[ProSense]

34. More:

Obama: I will only OK Keystone if it won’t significantly increase CO2 emissions

By Lisa Hymas

Big news from President Obama’s climate speech: He says he won’t approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline if it will “significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”

It’s hard to know exactly what he means by that, but it’s a surprise that he mentioned Keystone at all. Pundits expected he would keep silent on the issue.

Here’s what he said:

I know there’s been … a lot of controversy surrounding the proposed Keystone pipeline that would carry oil from Canadian tar sands down to refineries in the Gulf. And the State Department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal. That’s how it’s always been done. But I do want to be clear: Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.

It seems obvious that Keystone XL would significantly increase carbon emissions by encouraging development and facilitating transport of the dirtiest fossil fuel on earth — tar-sands oil. But in its draft environmental impact statement on the pipeline, the State Department asserted otherwise.

The U.S. EPA says State is wrong and argues that Keystone would notably boost greenhouse gas emissions. Even Canadian tar-sands boosters say Keystone is necessary in order to increase their oil production: “Long-term, we do need Keystone to be able to grow the volumes in Canada,” Steve Laut, president of big oil company Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., said last month.

Climate activists put so much pressure on Obama over Keystone that he felt compelled to address it. He certainly hasn’t killed the pipeline, but it’s notable that he attached a climate litmus test to it.

http://grist.org/news/obama-will-ok-keystone-only-if-it-wont-increase-carbon-emissions/

[gateley]

54. But both sides of any argument are usually able to present "proof" to back up their

stance. To hear Brian Schweitzer talk about "clean coal" you'd think it was the answer to all our energy problems. Obama (and State) can't be expected to be experts, and will probably be convinced by the side that presents the best argument. And unfortunately, we know which side has the money to spend to make sure the message is in its best ($$$) interest.

I know he WANTS to do the right thing, just not sure if he (and State) will be given a good enough argument and "proof" to let that happen.

[BlueStreak]

35. Obama had three paths he could choose after winning reelection.

1) He could continue as a center-right "new Democrat because that's what he believes is the best long-term answer.

2) He could adopt more progressive policies because he doesn't have to stand for election again.

3) He could move far to the right because his base can't do anything to stop him now.

Obviously he has selected the third path, regardless of what happens with Keystone.

I have been old enough to have an understanding of every President since Kennedy. That is 10 Presidents. This one is the most disappointing one by far.We knew what to expect of the others and that is what we got. This one just cannot be trusted.

There is no "long game" at play here. No 9-dimensional chess. No greater strategy that we just can't understand yet. It is a sell-out, plain and simple.

I really worry what this is going to do to our chances of electing any Democrat of integrity in 2016. I'm afraid that there are millions of people out there who will say, "Hope and change? Sorry, pal. We tried that the last 8 years. No thanks."

[Zen Democrat]

36. You disagree with everything you said. Everything.

[BlueStreak]

37. Please be more specific.

[RILib]

44. We knew what to expect of the others and that is what we got. This one just cannot be trusted.

+1

[Fire Walk With Me]

38. Susan Rice Owns $300,000 in TransCanada Stock (Keystone XL Developer)

"Susan Rice, the candidate believed to be favored by President Obama to become the next Secretary of State, holds significant investments in more than a dozen Canadian oil companies and banks that would stand to benefit from expansion of the North American tar sands industry and construction of the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline. If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice’s first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project.

Rice's financial holdings could raise questions about her status as a neutral decision maker. The current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Rice owns stock valued between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada, the company seeking a federal permit to transport tar sands crude 1,700 miles to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, crossing fragile Midwest ecosystems and the largest freshwater aquifer in North America.

Beyond that, according to financial disclosure reports, about a third of Rice’s personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related energy industries north of the 49th parallel -- including companies with poor environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil. Rice and her husband own at least $1.25 million worth of stock in four of Canada’s eight leading oil producers, as ranked by Forbes magazine. That includes Enbridge, which spilled more than a million gallons of toxic bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010 -- the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history."

http://www.onearth.org/article/susan-rice-obama-secretary-state-tar-sands-finances

[G_j]

39. Sadly, it does sound like that

I wish you were wrong!

[Junkdrawer]

40. So do I. Perhaps if the pressure were increased instead of relieved by today's announcement...

Always good to see the issue in it's ENTIRE context.

[Marr]

41. Of course he's going to approve it.

Big business wants it.

[Jamastiene]

45. Congratulations!

Welcome to the group, that is, the group of people who have listened to politicians talk enough that we have learned to read between the lines to get what they are really saying, aka, the fine print. While it may appear they are saying one thing, if you understand how to listen to politicians, it will become easier and easier for you to hear the other thing they are REALLY saying. After a while, you will begin to hear them, LOUD AND CLEAR, without even concentrating.

Responses you will get:
Now: You are underestimating Obama's capacity for 12th dimensional chess. He is not really going to agree to the pipeline. That is what they are saying right now. Make note of this, because the talking points will change when Obama does what he is REALLY going to do, as opposed to what many may THINK he is going to do, based on what he said today.

Later: But, he clearly said he would build the pipeline if it could be built without increasing the amount of GHG emissions. And clearly, building the pipeline will not increase GHG emissions, because a biased group of polluting industry insiders said it will not. So, Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do and it won't hurt the environment.

Even later: There is no clear evidence that increasing GHG emissions hurt the environment in any way whatsoever. Obama did what is right, because it will bring gas prices down.

If you persist in rebutting their talking points, you will hear:
YOU NEVER REALLY LOVED HIM!!!
REPUBLICAN!!!!
RACIST!!!!
TROLL!!!!

My advice is to hear what the politician is saying, understand it and know you got it right (in this case, you got it right), cook some popcorn, and sit back and watch the above interactions take place on DU for the foreseeable future. The DU talking points dissemination team turns into a comedy troupe when you just sit back and watch them go through this process for the millionth time, try to rationalize the irrational, call everyone who disagrees with them a troll/Republican/racist, then turn blue in the face and pitch a temper tantrum when people disagree with them. It happens every time.

Yeah, I think you figured out what he was really saying. It is those qualifiers that give it away every single time. A politician won't do such and such, IF such and such doesn't happen first. Of course, such and such is already on its way to being tailor made to fit the qualified statement. Otherwise, a politician would not bring it up in the first place.

I just hope that maybe he will do some of the good stuff he mentioned to counteract the negative that will surely come with the pipeline and more freaking fracking that is surely on its way too. Maybe it will all work out. At least it is better than what the Republicans would do. We have that much working for us.

[1-Old-Man]

49. Which will prevail, individual profit or popular concern with health and safety?

Will the demand for immediate profit for a very few people trump the threat to the environment or the rightful concern of the people for not only their own health and safety but also for the health and safety of generations to come?

[Cleita]

53. According to Mike Papantonio this afternoon, he won't veto it if

there is a benefit for Americans and it won't increase carbon emissions. However, EPA, which is salted with industry insiders, has said just that, so it's possibly a done deal if he doesn't get some other informed opinions.

http://rt.com/usa/obama-environment-speech-keystone-223/