Shovel Ready

Tar sands and the environment
Keystone cop-out

Once again, Barack Obama seems to have found a way to annoy everyone

IF YOU can?t think of anything nice to say, don?t say anything at all. That, more or less, seems to have been the philosophy behind the State Department?s decision, after careful consideration of the pros and cons of a proposed oil pipeline from Canada to Texas, to make no decisions until after next year?s presidential elections. Thus Barack Obama can face the voters without having passed judgment on a project that had prompted a showdown between the business lobby and environmentalists.

Businesses and the unions like the proposed Keystone XL pipeline because it would generate orders and jobs?20,000 of them, says TransCanada, the firm behind the scheme. Environmentalists dislike it because it would be filled with oil from Alberta?s tar sands, the extraction of which involves copious emissions of greenhouse gases. To bolster their case, each side has marshalled secondary arguments: that the pipeline would enhance America?s energy security by displacing imports from unfriendly places, in the case of the pros, and that it would imperil a huge aquifer in Nebraska, for the cons.

In the end, it was concerns about the aquifer that gave the State Department its out. Many Nebraskans, Democrats and Republicans alike, were unhappy with the proposed route. The governor had called a special session of the legislature to pass a law giving the state the power to modify it. Moreover, the State Department?s own inspector-general is investigating its choice of a firm that does business with TransCanada to conduct a review of the pipeline?s environmental impact. All this, said the State Department, which has pondered the pipeline?s merits since 2008, would necessitate an extra 15 months? review to consider alternative routes.

That is tremendously convenient for Mr Obama. He has offended environmentalists during his time in office by failing to push through a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases, as he had promised on the campaign trail, and more recently by delaying new rules to reduce smog. Activists decided to make the pipeline a test of Mr Obama?s verdancy. They recruited such celebrities as Daryl Hannah and the Dalai Lama to their cause, and earlier this month encircled the White House with sinister black tubing. Big green pressure groups threatened to withhold support from Mr Obama?s re-election bid unless he fell in line. He appears to have calculated that unions would back him regardless, and that the business lobby was probably lost to him, whereas environmentalists would respond to appeasement.

The greens? victory is already looking rather pyrrhic, however. TransCanada this week signalled its willingness to alter the pipeline?s route, saying it will work with the Nebraska legislature to that end. It also suggested it would press ahead with the last segment of the pipeline, from Oklahoma to Texas, which may not require the State Department?s approval because it does not cross an international frontier. That would give oil from the tar sands much easier access to refineries in Texas, even if the rest of the project remains in limbo. And by defusing the concerns of conservationists in Nebraska, TransCanada is shrewdly undermining the coalition against the pipeline.

The irony of all this is that the pipeline is not nearly as important as either its defenders or critics make it out to be. On the one hand, America already imports plenty of oil from the tar sands. The impact on the environment of pressing ahead (and on energy security, for that matter) would be marginal at best. On the other hand, the economic boost from building the pipeline would be marginal too. Most of the jobs it would create would be temporary ones, in construction. The states across which the pipeline will run already have the lowest unemployment rates in the nation. And none of them is likely to plump for Mr Obama in next year?s election?making the local politics marginal too.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

…They recruited such celebrities as Daryl Hannah and the Dalai Lama to their cause…

[/quote]

Oh boy, that there’s some folks to pay 'tention to.

When it comes to economic prosperity, energy independence, jobs, and safe efficient delivery of necessary crude oil to American refineries, let’s make sure we look to Daryl Hannah and the Dalai Lama for guidance.
[/quote]

What’s funny is, most of these celebrity fucks drive huge SUV’s and other luxury cars which burn up gas.

this president is a job KILLA …cancels programs that would help here and encourages jobs overseas. look at his record its all there. he speaks with forked tongue…we should be drilling our asses off for oil but this administration has made it so difficult to get permits that they go elsewhere to drill. pleez…in north america we are sitting on 200 yrs of energy and were still buying from countries that hate our guts. makes no sense at all…so why do we do it???hmmm

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57363033/more-nd-oil-will-be-railed-with-no-us-pipeline/

Two things I’d like to see followed up on. Trains being more environmentally dangerous than the pipeline. And…AND…

"BNSF Railway Co. hauls about 75 percent of the oil that currently leaves North Dakota by train, Kringstad said.

The railroad is a unit of billionaire Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., and Buffett is a longtime Obama adviser.

Neither BNSF officials nor Buffett at his Berkshire Hathaway office in Omaha, Neb., returned telephone calls from The Associated Press."

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Funny how the politically well connected tend to “luck out.”[/quote]

Isn’t it, though?

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The 99%'ers want the types of jobs that they imagine themselves doing, not the ones that already actually exist or that are needed for future growth.

I work in heavy industrial fabrication and our company is desperate for people with a good work ethic and even a modicum of skill.
[/quote]

What is a modicum of skill though? Are you asking for previous work experience in a similar role or making it clear that no work experience is necessary?

My nephew has been looking for basic labouring/factory work for the past 3 months and cannot find anything entry level. Almost every job wants him to have a forklift ticket and a minimum years experience in similar work.

I remember when I was young and wanted entry level work. It was so easy! I showed up, had a chat with the line manager, and started a trial day the next day. If you did alright you were good to go. Now you go along and you get told to speak to HR. HR expects you to have prior experiences, gets you to fill out a few forms, and then they tell you they will get back to you in a couple of weeks…but they rarely do.[/quote]

Modicum means being able to read a tape measure and pass a drug test (its usually the second one that gets 'em). The company even has its own weld school and 12 hrs/day on site instructor so that people can learn and practice for a couple of hours a day no matter what shift they work.

[/quote]
Wait, your offering to teach people to weld along with a job? Dammitt! If I had seen this a few years ago I’d have been on my way to PA. Crap. You know how far I have to drive for welding classes? Now I’m all bummed out.