Keystone and everything after

by Aaron Wherry

The State Department apparently saw little to be excited about. The Liberal party is carefully neutral. John Bennett welcomes the news. Nebraska’s governor is disappointed. Mitt Romney is shocked. Newt Gingrich is displeased. John Boehner is sad. Robert Redford is happy. Politico pronounces victory for both Democrats and Republicans.The New York Times editors praise the President’s decision.

Republicans intent on scoring campaign points immediately repeated their fallacious cries that “tens of thousands of jobs” would be lost by not instantly approving the project. They made no mention of the risks inherent in the project: harm to the Canadian boreal forests and threats to water supplies in the Midwest. Bipartisan opposition to the pipeline has notably been led by Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican … Far more important to the nation’s energy and environmental future is the development of renewable and alternative energy sources. This is the winning case that Mr. Obama should make to voters in rejecting the Republicans’ craven indulgence of Big Oil.

Gabriela and Gustavo provide a timeline. Paul recalls when Mr. Harper thought it was the Prime Minister’s responsibility to make sure he was respected in Washington.




Browse

Keystone and everything after

  1. I know it is difficult for those who look for any reason to interperet any decision by a foreign leader as a slam against the Canadian gov`t, but this might be a good time to look beyond the end of your noses and imagine a situation where imported oil was cut off from the US and what the resultant situation would look like.

    Without a steady supply of Alberta oil coming down a pipeline to Texas refineries, the U.S. will find themselves in a desperate situation. Whether that is in 5 months time or 5 years time, Americans will remember the short-sighted decision of Obama and the naive rejoicing of those looking at the end of their noses.

    • Now you’re threatening the US?

      PS…the US is not in need of oil. They are, in fact, exporting it.

      The Keystone pipeline was going to Texas for export as well.

      • Naivete speaks.

        • LOL then stop speaking.

        • Isn’t believing that the oil companies intend to ship the bitumen to Texas, refine it, and then export it overseas for a profit “cynicism” as opposed to ”naivete”?

          I would have though that “naivete” would be something like believing the oil companies when they argue that the pipeline is all about domestic energy consumption and national security and not, say, profits.

  2. Go figure – an Op-Ed piece in the NYT???

    As soon as I read “harm to the Canadian boreal forests” you know that this is written by Susan Casey-Lefkowitz = enviro-facist. She will say anything to close down the oil sands.

    • So then we can call Steve Harper a petro-fascist?  He will saying anything to make a buck for the oil sands.

    • S.Harper protected vast swathes of our un-beetled Boreal Forest.  Only part of the most carbon-intensive soils, but is a good start.  Are the rockies still pretty?  Haven’t been in years.

  3. This comment was deleted.

    • Using a Chunnel or a rocketship?  AB has good aerospace and geoexcavation.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *