jump to navigation

The Global Argument for the Keystone Pipeline March 2, 2013

Posted by geoff in News.
trackback

Reading about the latest environmental impact report for the Keystone pipeline (no effect on global warming) made me wonder why the President and his administration hate other countries. You see, the report apparently goes on to say that we don’t really need Keystone to meet America’s energy needs:

But the detailed environmental report — almost 2,000 pages long — also questions one of the strongest arguments for the pipeline, by suggesting that America can meet its energy needs without it. The growth in rail transport of oil from western Canada and the Bakken formation on the Great Plains and other pipelines, the analysis says, could meet the country’s energy needs for the next decade, even if Keystone XL is never built.

Let me just outline the following argument:

  1. We’re teetering on global recession
  2. Lower oil prices help economies
  3. More oil generally means lower oil prices
  4. Building Keystone makes more oil available
  5. …and creates US jobs and increases exports
  6. …which I thought was part of the master plan
  7. So WTF? Build the damn pipeline and promote other oil projects, and help the world dig itself out of this recession while lining our own pockets along the way.

Unless you hate those other countries, that is.

About these ads

Comments»

1. daveintexas - March 3, 2013

Added global argument: we import more oil from Canada than from Saudi Arabia. Canada is our largest energy importer.

And also the United State’s hat.

2. digitalbrownshirt - March 4, 2013

If the US was as hot for invading countries for their oil as the liberals have claimed for the last 20+years they’d be speaking American in Toronto by now.

3. digitalbrownshirt - March 4, 2013

Teetering? I’m pretty sure we’re already inside the rabbit hole now.

4. lauraw - March 4, 2013

So WTF? Build the damn pipeline and promote other oil projects, and help the world dig itself out of this recession while lining our own pockets along the way.

If there’s a chance that human beings will benefit generally, or the US will benefit spefically, it is wrong and evil and not gonna happen.

5. daveintexas - March 4, 2013

Environmentalism is just Marxism with pimp threads and a walking stick.

6. lauraw - March 4, 2013

Comment of the year, Dave.

7. lauraw - March 4, 2013
8. lauraw - March 4, 2013

Also, one of my comments went to spam bucket.

9. daveintexas - March 4, 2013

Did it get fished out?

That’s why I never trusted the climate change/global warming/ice ager goal post movers. They have the same agenda, it’s always been the same. Junk science and outright lies. Same answer: hobble capitalism and control the serfs.

10. lauraw - March 4, 2013

No it is still missing. It was that article on how cheap oil is good for poor people.

Michael - March 4, 2013

Couldn’t find it, Laura. By any chance are you “whole house filter system”?

11. daveintexas - March 4, 2013

Well, at least I got Comment of the Year.

And yes, cheap energy is the best weapon there is to fight poverty.

12. lauraw - March 4, 2013

Hmmm. I wonder if this was one of those comments that I started in another window then got interrupted by work and accidentally closed out.

Never mind.

13. daveintexas - March 4, 2013

hmmmmm

14. ChrisP - March 4, 2013

So, we can meet our energy needs without this pipeline.
Does that mean that the 20,000 jobs that would be created by building his pipeline are superfluous?
We could totally do without mid-east oil if this was built.
Whose ox is being gored?
Follow the money…

15. Nan G - March 5, 2013

Henry Waxman issued a press release, stating “The draft impact statement appears to be seriously flawed.
>>>>We don’t need this dirty oil. <<<<
To stop climate change and the destructive storms, droughts, floods, and wildfires that we are already experiencing, we should be investing in clean energy, not building a pipeline that will speed the exploitation of Canada’s highly polluting tar sands.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/keystone-xl-pipeline-environmental-assessment-news

He sure talks gloomy, doesn't he?

16. OBF - March 5, 2013

We can burn less carbon based fuels if we restrict electricity to the environmentalists. First, they have to be registered…kind of like what they want to do to gun owners. Next they can only have electricity generated by solar and wind and when the wind stops blowing or the sun goes down the electricity stops flowing.

That has to be worth millions of tons of unburnt coal and natural gas. Of course the enviros wouldn’t be able to have reliable cable television, hair dryers, air conditioning and refrigerator thingies. That’s a small price to pay to keep Canadian oil in Canada.

Bunch of woosies wouldn’t last a week with warmer temperatures in July!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 176 other followers

%d bloggers like this: