Obama Sounds Skeptical on XL Keystone (?)

[kpete]

NYT: A couple other quick subjects that are economic-related. Keystone pipeline -- Republicans especially talk about that as a big job creator. You've said that you would approve it only if you could be assured it would not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon in the atmosphere. Is there anything that Canada could do or the oil companies could do to offset that as a way of helping you to reach that decision?

MR. OBAMA: Well, first of all, Michael, Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that’s true. And my hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline -- which might take a year or two -- and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 [chuckles] jobs in a economy of 150 million working people.

NYT: Yet there are a number of unions who want you to approve this.

MR. OBAMA: Well, look, they might like to see 2,000 jobs initially. But that is a blip relative to the need.

So what we also know is, is that that oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can’t ship some of that oil to world markets.

Now, having said that, there is a potential benefit for us integrating further with a reliable ally to the north our energy supplies. But I meant what I said; I'm going to evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release.

NYT: And if they did, could that offset the concerns about the pipeline itself?

MR. OBAMA: We haven't seen specific ideas or plans. But all of that will go into the mix in terms of John Kerry’s decision or recommendation on this issue.

MORE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/politics/interview-with-president-obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358577

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. Hopefully Susan Rice has been denied or it will go through:

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/susan-rice-keystone-pipeline_n_2207861.html

Of course, the Koch brothers want it because it'd save them $2 billion a year. That story has been posted on DU as well.

[AtomicKitten]

2. The Clintons are up to their armpits in Keystone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023022353

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

3. Yeah, hopefully John Kerry is chosen over Susan Rice as Secretary of State.

[cali]

4. I don't know if sounds skeptical, but what's with this:

I'm going to evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere.

You know and I know and surely the President knows that pipeline or no, the tar sands oil will continue to be extracted. I don't know what the Canadians could be doing to make the process less polluting, but I do know that the U.S. can't stop the Canadians from extracting tar sands oil.

No pipeline? They'll just keep doing what they've been doing: shipping by train.

[Cleita]

5. Something that seems to be overlooked is the pollution

That would seep into our soils and fresh water supplies should there be leak. It's already happened in some places. Why aren't they talking about this? Carbon emissions aren't the only concern.