Posted on 06/25/2013 2:54:48 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Some environmentalists are pumped about this announcement as an indication of President Obama’s occasional, political, unprioritized unwavering dedication to protecting the environment. But really, isn’t it just a way to send the Keystone Pipeline back into Obama’s favorite political purgatory so he doesn’t actually have to make a decision?
Didn’t we already do this? Yes, twice. In the latest State Department study of the Keystone Pipeline’s effects, released in March after EPA declared the department’s first study insufficient in 2010, State concluded that Keystone would not have a major impact on net carbon emissions:
The Obama administration today moved one step closer to approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, concluding in a draft environmental impact statement that the project would not accelerate global greenhouse gas emissions or significantly harm the natural habitats along its route.
The report, done by the State Department, suggests that the proposed 875-mile pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, has cleared a significant hurdle on its way to President Obama’s desk for final consideration…
Government analysts found that Keystone XL would each year produce the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions of 620,000 passenger cars operating for a year. But they concluded that whether or not the pipeline is approved, those emissions would still likely occur because of fuels produced and obtained from other sources.
So, that would mean we’re moving forward on this sucker, right? That’s what Tim Carney thinks, but I don’t think so. The L.A. Times says this is a “strict” new guideline even though it’s one that’s already been met. The very same environmental groups applauding the president’s announcement that the Keystone Pipeline can only go forward if it meets the standard it seems to have already met denounced the State Department’s conclusions in that draft study as “absurd.” The EPA asked for a “more thorough” examination of the pipeline yet again. I’m thinking the environmental activists know more about whether the conclusions of the revised draft study constitute an approval of the Keystone Pipeline under Obama’s rubric or we’re in for another study in stalling. They want another study, not a pipeline, and they think they got it, although their logic escapes me:
“The President definitely changed the terms of the debate on Keystone—making clear that we need to evaluate its impact on the climate,” said Navin Nayak, a vice president at the League of Conservation Voters. “So while there’s still a decision to be made, it’s definitely a game changer.”
Leadership at CREDO, the progressive group with a list of tens of thousands of people who have promised to get arrested if Keystone is approved, called Obama’s remarks a “breakthrough.” Executive Director Becky Bond said that her group will continue to pressure Obama on Keystone through public action, but suggested that the bulk of the work was now done thanks to protesters like hers.
“No one expected President Obama to address the Keystone XL pipeline in his first major climate speech. But because of massive grassroots pressure, including a Pledge of Resistance signed by over 62,000 Americans pledging to risk arrest in peaceful civil disobedience, the president announced that he could not approve Keystone XL if it increases the carbon emissions that fuel climate change,” she said. “And the consensus from EPA and scientists could not be more clear — it does.”
“Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest,” the president said in a Tuesday speech on climate change. “And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.”
I imagine there will be an announcement of another study. And, we will bicker about who’s conducting the study and how its conclusions will be calculated, and Obama will offer naught but vague entreaties that the study and result meet the “principles [he's] laid out.” During all of this, we must “wait for the facts to come in,” at which point if we have already reached the end of Obama’s second term or he requires a big decision announcement for some other political reason, there will be an announcement of a decision. More likely, we’ll be in for another round of study on this, the most studied construction project in modern humankind.
When it comes to this particular issue, it makes no difference that “Americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction” or that ignoring scientific studies conducted by his own State Department would qualify as a meeting of the “Flat Earth Society” if the person ignoring them weren’t Obama.
Follow along with the president’s plan in clip art form, here, and a critique from the left, here.
Heart-ache:
*************tweets****************
Hunter Schwarz @hunterschwarz
The Weather Channel Was The Only Channel To Air All Of President Obama’s Speech On Climate Change http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/the-weather-channel-was-the-only-channel-to-air-all-of-presi …
The Weather Channel Was The Only Channel To Air All Of President...
BuzzFeed @BuzzFeedfyi
Never mind the thousands of jobs that this pipeline would create.
His Saudi masters don’t like the American competition!
Same logic!
How does the pollution from a pipeline compare to the pollution from an endless string of ocean-going tankers?
That seems like a relatively easy calculation.
It’s OK Bam, we’re going to refine this oil into gasoline and put it in our cars, but only the aroma of fresh Skittles will come out the back end. Now sign it and go play golf or something.
Or Warren Buffet's trains.
EVER WONDER WHAT A POS LOOKS LIKE......NOW YOU KNOW
What “greenhouse gas” would that be? Water vapor? Oxygen?
Both are in VASTLY greater proportions in the earth’s atmosphere than carbon dioxide. It has NOT been shown that carbon dioxide has any effect that even remotely approaches that of water vapor when it comes to affecting the climate. At any given time, there is from 20 times to over 100 times the amount of water vapor carried in the earth’s atmosphere than there is of carbon dioxide, and water vapor has a few unique characteristics that are way beyond anything that carbon dioxide is capable of.
For one thing, it is much lighter, and rises far higher in the atmosphere, forming clouds at the surface of the earth up to 40,000 feet or more, and water vapor has a “triple point” that carbon dioxide cannot achieve at normal atmospheric pressure or at ambient temperatures as exist on the earth’s surface. The water molecule can exist as a solid (ice), liquid (come on, don’t tell me you don’t know what WATER is), and as a vapor, colorless and to our senses, tasteless and odorless. Carbon dioxide is all these things as water vapor as a gas, but it may only become a solid at extreme low temperatures, far too cold for life to sustain, and it sublimates directly to a gas under normal atmospheric conditions. Only under several atmospheres of pressure does it ever go into the liquid state.
It is this capacity for water vapor to change its state of existence readily that controls the warming and/or cooling of the earth, not carbon dioxide, which cannot move through these states of matter under surface terrestrial conditions. Anyone who tries to assert differently is either a charlatan or is hopelessly ignorant.
And the same goes for the horse you rode into town, Al Gore.
Clear and present danger, year five...
The enemy is within. :(
In a just world, protestors like Becky would have pay for my gasoline every time I had to fuel up.
How does the pollution from a pipeline compare to the pollution from an endless string of ocean-going tankers
Yea, especcially as they burn bunker oil that have to be heated to above 60c before it will ignite, must add to the carbondioxide quite a bit andthe keystone pipelineads O in tansportition, and as the carbon contentis ilar to heavy crude from the ME and less than crude oil from Venezuela
you’d think this was poitical or sumting,go figure
We don't worry about votes or campaign money.
That oil is moving one way or another. It can either go by pipeline or diesel train.
I realize we don't have the same sub rosa retirement portfolios that they have.
Bingo - I’ve got a relative in the industry - if the oil doesn’t go by pipeline, it goes by rail (numerous refineries are already gearing up for that expedient).
And it doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out which transport mode generates more CO2 (if one actually gives a rip about that canard). But don’t tell the donkeys - it’s the conservatives who are supposed to be anti-science, so the press allows the ‘rats to ignore even the most fundamental science whenever it suits their wishes.
I thought that Keystone would be likely to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Look at all the trucks and trains taken out of service when that oil starts going through the pipeline.
What’s Really Behind Obama’s New Climate Plan?
Global Warming Propaganda’s Last-Ditch Effort Week
Obama To Strap US With More Costs To Fund His New Climate Change Vision
Obama’s Climate Change Policy Is Aimed At Destroying Middle Class
Global Warming on Free Republic
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.