Obama’s Decision on the Keystone Pipeline IS a Legacy Making or Breaking Thing (Barf Alert)

John Abraham wrote a piece in the Guardian titled Keystone XL decision will define Barack Obama’s legacy on climate change: Does the president have courage to say ‘no’ to a project that will lock us into decades of dependency on this dirty energy? in which he states:

Alberta has 1.8 [trillion] barrels of oil contained within the tar sands. Extracting and burning all of that tar will cause a global temperature increase of about 0.4 degrees C (0.7 degrees F). That is about half of the warming that humans have already caused. For perspective … the amount of oil-in-place in the Alberta tar sands is approximately seven times that of Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves.

Should [the Obama administration] approve a pipeline to export Canada’s dirty oil and be responsible for the continued environmental costs, or should they finally send a signal to the world that the US is willing to work with other nations to deal with the climate problem.

If his administration cannot say “no” to Keystone … can it say no to anything? This decision will cement Obama’s climate legacy.

I think this is one of the more important pieces anyone has put out lately because it is very specific about two things: 1) The role of major exploitation of Alberta tar sands in future climate change; and 2) The role of the Keystone XL pipeline as a virtual guarantee that the tar sands will be exploited in a major way.

The primary objection to building the pipeline is that this would open up the tar sands to major exploitation. There are other objections to the pipeline as well, having to do with the environmental effects of removing the tar sands locally in Alberta, and the environmental risks of the pipeline itself. Also, as sources of hydrocarbon fuels go, there is a spectrum of nastiness having to do with how “dirty” the fuel is to begin with and the energy required to extract, refine, and distribute it; the Alberta tar sands are on the far (dirtiest) end of that spectrum. All of these objections are valid and important, but looking just at these factors, the exploitation of Alberta tar sands overlaps to some extent with other hydrocarbon extraction ventures such as drilling in northern Alaska, off shore platforms around the world, and so on.

First of all, the fact that this discussion about the pipeline is taking place in a science publication, you already know that pseudoscience in the guise of Global Warming has everything to do with whatever the objective is, for themselves,and of course with what the President is expected to do.

What is truly amazing is that the decisions, pros and cons on whether or not the pipeline should be approved is not at all based on any economic benefit in the least. It used to be that issues dealing with pipelines were decided purely on economic conditions but not any more.

Economic issues are not decided on economics or financial consideration, whether or not people will reap economic benefits, that people will gain a better lifestyle, be a boon to the surrounding cities and municipalities. No, economic issues, issues like this pipeline is going to be based solely on how it effects the environment in terms of Global Warming, as stated in the Guardian, it titled Keystone XL decision will define Barack Obama’s legacy on climate change: Does the president have courage to say ‘no’ to a project that will lock us into decades of dependency on this dirty energy?

Reading arguments about Obama and his eventual decision on the Keystone Pipeline, it really hits you how fundamentally different the liberal mindset is from the conservative point of view. It's like comparing Neanderthals to Homo erectus or the way aliens think differently than human beings.

The arguments whether or not any decision on anything will or will not be Obama's legacy is a totally moot point. It's rather easy to determine what Obama is going to do on any one issue. It's kind of like the process of reverse engineering.

1. We know that his end game is to do the worst, most destructive harm, destruction to the United States.

2. We know that the President will not do anything that will result in him gaining a legacy for himself as president because that would violate every principle he's stands for and put off all the meticulous planning he's done to make sure his objective to do the mot harm to the US is on schedule. 3.Despite the way the media is harping about him doing what they think is right in order to deify him for having accomplished some sort of legacy for which history will remember him by and are very desperate to be able to use the word when making reference to him, he is dead set against doing anything that will earn him any legacy because it is an anathema to him that violates his principle,strategies and wastes precious time to do what he has set out to do.

So in the end if the pipeline is deemed good for America, a way for him to earn the precious legacy the media hounds can't stop barking about, you know he's going to make sure it doesn't come to pass and the best part is to h#ll with his legacy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.