| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
 Posted: 11/13/14 4:47 pm ::: Keystone Pipeline... Yea or Nay? |
Reply  |
|
What sayeth the board?  _________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/13/14 5:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I tend towards nay. It seems like something that would just be asking for all sorts of environmental trouble. That's all the profits going to oil and gas companies, and billions of tax dollars to handle the spillage over the years. Seems like a loser deal to me. But I haven't read much about the yays and nays.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/13/14 5:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| How badly do you want Brian Schweitzer to be the 2016 Democratic nominee for president? The more you want that, the more you'll favor the XL.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/13/14 5:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| norwester wrote: |
| I tend towards nay. It seems like something that would just be asking for all sorts of environmental trouble. That's all the profits going to oil and gas companies, and billions of tax dollars to handle the spillage over the years. Seems like a loser deal to me. But I haven't read much about the yays and nays. |
The thing I have with the whole spillage aspect is that all that oil is still going to be shipped, whether or not there is a pipeline. So instead of pipeline spillage there is spillage by rail, truck, or ship. And all of that transport is just asking for more troubles like clogging up our rail system.
Ultimately, the pipeline is by far the most efficient means of transporting that oil. So while I don't love it, I'm for it.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/13/14 8:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| against. It's just another excuse to put off developing sustainable energy options until we get really desperate.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/13/14 9:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I was talking to someone in my office today, and we agreed that we'd vote nay, but on the list of important U.S. environmental issues it probably didn't rank in the top 50. (Not to mention that item 1 is so far ahead of the rest as to make it almost not worth discussing the others.)
More troubling to me is that by scheduling this vote, the Dems are giving it up as a bargaining chip for something else.
|
|
TonyL222
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/14/14 2:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
Ultimately, the pipeline is by far the most efficient means of transporting that oil. So while I don't love it, I'm for it. |
Amplifying that thought, the Canadian heavy crude is already being transported through the US by train and truck. The Keystone pipeline would not only be more efficient, but it would be a heck of a lot safer.
Something that doesn't get talked about much and seems to have sneaked up on us, is that the US has once again become the worlds LARGEST oil producer - over taking Saudi Arabia and Russia due to shale oil.
Because of the US reduced dependence on foreign oil there's downward pressure on prices. Since we have gotten used to $3-$4 a gallon gasoline, wonder if we shouldn't keep it there with some way to guarantee MOST of the surplus goes into renewable fuel research?
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/14/14 3:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TonyL222 wrote: |
| Amplifying that thought, the Canadian heavy crude is already being transported through the US by train and truck. The Keystone pipeline would not only be more efficient, but it would be a heck of a lot safer. |
Much of it is already being transported through the US by pipeline. The question is whether picking up US oil in Eastern Montana is worth the risk of running the pipeline over the Ogallala Aquifer.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15734
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/14/14 3:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| TonyL222 wrote: |
| Amplifying that thought, the Canadian heavy crude is already being transported through the US by train and truck. The Keystone pipeline would not only be more efficient, but it would be a heck of a lot safer. |
Much of it is already being transported through the US by pipeline. The question is whether picking up US oil in Eastern Montana is worth the risk of running the pipeline over the Ogallala Aquifer. |
I can't see the aquifer being in any real danger by overland transport....there's probably more risk to it from the fracking in ND and MT, etc., but both are minimal.
I agree with Myrtle, that it's avoidance of a sort, but still--in our lifetimes, I don't see the political machinations cutting off their own Lifeblood (Oil $$$) in such short order, so as to implement full-scale alternatives. Hence, "yes" to the pipeline.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
mb1
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 4691
Location: Scottsdale,AZ,USA
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/14/14 4:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
This by Robert Reich pretyy much sums up my opinion:
| Quote: |
Republicans claim the Keystone XL pipeline will create thousands of American jobs. Baloney. As the President said this morning: Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn't have an impact on US gas prices. If my Republican friends really want to focus on what's good for the American people in terms of job creation and lower energy costs, we should be engaging in a conversation about what are we doing to produce even more homegrown energy.
Id add: If Republicans were really interested in job creation, theyd pass a bill to rebuild Americas crumbling roads, bridges, ports, and public transit systems creating hundreds of thousands of jobs directly and more than a million indirectly, at the lowest borrowing costs in more than two decades. You agree |
_________________
I've got a crush on Rebby!
LONG LIVE THE WNBA!
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/14/14 6:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mb1 wrote: |
This by Robert Reich pretyy much sums up my opinion:
| Quote: |
Republicans claim the Keystone XL pipeline will create thousands of American jobs. Baloney. As the President said this morning: Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn't have an impact on US gas prices. If my Republican friends really want to focus on what's good for the American people in terms of job creation and lower energy costs, we should be engaging in a conversation about what are we doing to produce even more homegrown energy.
Id add: If Republicans were really interested in job creation, theyd pass a bill to rebuild Americas crumbling roads, bridges, ports, and public transit systems creating hundreds of thousands of jobs directly and more than a million indirectly, at the lowest borrowing costs in more than two decades. You agree |
|
x_______________
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/14/14 11:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mb1 wrote: |
| Id add: If Republicans were really interested in job creation, theyd pass a bill to rebuild Americas crumbling roads, bridges, ports, and public transit systems creating hundreds of thousands of jobs directly and more than a million indirectly, at the lowest borrowing costs in more than two decades. You agree |
[/quote]
We just did a gazillion dollars for infrastructure in 2009 with the stimulus bill to practically no effect. Our roads, bridges, ports, and so on are as bad or worse off than they were. Unless you can demonstrate that another money dump will make an impact, there's no point to it.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/15/14 8:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| mb1 wrote: |
| Id add: If Republicans were really interested in job creation, theyd pass a bill to rebuild Americas crumbling roads, bridges, ports, and public transit systems creating hundreds of thousands of jobs directly and more than a million indirectly, at the lowest borrowing costs in more than two decades. You agree |
We just did a gazillion dollars for infrastructure in 2009 with the stimulus bill to practically no effect. Our roads, bridges, ports, and so on are as bad or worse off than they were. Unless you can demonstrate that another money dump will make an impact, there's no point to it. |
Of the $819 billion, about $182 billion was in tax cuts, plus another $100 billion in tax credits. Only $30 billion went to highway projects, and another $16 billion went to other transportation projects, so it wasn't really that much.
The last estimate I saw of the annual need for road, bridge, etc. repair and maintenance (above what is spent today) was $85 billion.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/15/14 10:38 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| mb1 wrote: |
| Id add: If Republicans were really interested in job creation, theyd pass a bill to rebuild Americas crumbling roads, bridges, ports, and public transit systems creating hundreds of thousands of jobs directly and more than a million indirectly, at the lowest borrowing costs in more than two decades. You agree |
We just did a gazillion dollars for infrastructure in 2009 with the stimulus bill to practically no effect. Our roads, bridges, ports, and so on are as bad or worse off than they were. Unless you can demonstrate that another money dump will make an impact, there's no point to it. |
Of the $819 billion, about $182 billion was in tax cuts, plus another $100 billion in tax credits. Only $30 billion went to highway projects, and another $16 billion went to other transportation projects, so it wasn't really that much.
The last estimate I saw of the annual need for road, bridge, etc. repair and maintenance (above what is spent today) was $85 billion. |
Four years before that we had the largest infrastructure bill in history. What's going to make another Republican bill better?
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/15/14 10:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
We have a roughly 30 year history of not spending nearly enough money on road, bridge and tunnel maintenance. The replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge here in the D.C. area, for instance, was something of a crisis because it was more or less falling apart. Then, of course, there's the bridge in the Twin Cities, which was an even worse situation.
What we actually need is sustained spending over a period of a decade or more just to catch up. It probably should happen at the state level, but of course we've had decades of people insisting that taxes are theft and cutting things that shouldn't be cut.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/15/14 10:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
We have a roughly 30 year history of not spending nearly enough money on road, bridge and tunnel maintenance. The replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge here in the D.C. area, for instance, was something of a crisis because it was more or less falling apart. Then, of course, there's the bridge in the Twin Cities, which was an even worse situation.
What we actually need is sustained spending over a period of a decade or more just to catch up. It probably should happen at the state level, but of course we've had decades of people insisting that taxes are theft and cutting things that shouldn't be cut. |
I agree that the problem is primarily political. If state and local officials actually spent the tax dollars to fix infrastructure, they wouldn't be able to claim they need the next tax increase to fix the infrastructure. Here in Macon we're pretty well permanently under the maximum 3% SPLOST because the money never seems to actually get used to improve road conditions ad the voters keep voting for it on the theory that this time it will be different.
Taxpayers = Charlie Brown
Politicians = Lucy
The promise of improving roads = football
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
p_d_swanson
Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9713
Back to top |
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/18/14 1:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| p_d_swanson wrote: |
| http://boldnebraska.org/ |
| Quote: |
| You said the job numbers surrounding the KXL are stunning. We agree, they are stunningly insignificant when you consider that this project would create about the same number of permanent jobs as the local grocery store does. It seems ironic that you are extremely concerned about creating these few jobs but have little interest in making sure that all working Americans receive at least a decent minimum wage for their family. You cant even vote for the basics of requiring TransCanada and other tarsands pipelines to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Fund as American oil companies are required. |
Nice.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/18/14 7:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Defeated 59-41 on the floor of the senate this afternoon._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/18/14 7:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| So, are filibusters OK when Democrats use them?
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15734
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
SORF
Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 1979
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/18/14 11:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I vote, Yes. Safest transport available.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/18/14 11:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| Defeated 59-41 on the floor of the senate this afternoon. |
So I'm going to be a bit pedantic here (shocking, I know): The bill was not defeated. A motion to close debate on the bill was defeated because the Senate rules require 60 votes to close debate when any one Senator objects. Once debate is closed, a majority vote is all that's necessary to pass the bill. I'm pointing this out because about a million news stories have gotten this wrong over the last six years, including pretty much every story on this vote that I saw in a quick Google search.
Also, up until 2009, these kinds of votes were relatively rare and when they did come up, even Senators opposed to bills generally did not vote against closing debate. Forcing the Senate to vote on cloture on everything of significance is a tactic that the Republicans used since President Obama came to office to clog up the works.
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
|
|
|
