“This pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by a few, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others”, he said.
Advertisement
Still, congressional reactions within the Minnesota delegation remained as strident and hyperbolic as ever, reflecting the political litmus test that Keystone became.
At the moment, the biggest impediment to the flow of oil is low prices. We are now in a position where wind and solar can compete with fossil fuels.
“For seven years and study after study, this administration – including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – has failed to offer any definitive evidence to support their opposition to the construction of the Keystone pipeline”. Boeve of 350.org thinks so: “We’re looking to build on this victory, and show that if it’s wrong to build Keystone XL because of its impact on our climate, it’s wrong to build any new fossil-fuel infrastructure, period”.
ROTT: And there are numerous other pipelines that have already been built.
But if the northern half of Keystone had been completed, from Canada to Oklahoma, that would have brought an additional 130,000 barrels of crude per day here. Smaller producers in Alberta (especially those with lots of debt), who are depending more on higher oil prices, will be affected even more.
A few of Nolan’s Democratic colleagues offered starkly different conclusions.
DETROW: Well, if the Keystone XL pipeline is kind of overblown and also not critically important to the big picture energy landscape in the United States, there’s another policy that started taking place that’s kind of the opposite.
A couple of investors already said that they’re skeptical about the scenario in which the project will be approved, so they suggested TransCanada to focus on an alternative, implying building the pipeline exclusively on Canadian territory.
“We will review our options to potentially file a new application for border-crossing authority to ship our customer’s crude oil, and will now analyze the stated rationale for the denial”. Sadly, the Obama administration is catering to the small group of radical environmental activists who don’t want the pipeline.
“This project would have been an environmental disaster”, McCollum said. This is very different from the president’s taxpayer-funded green jobs plan that merely siphons resources out of the market and forces pricier energy on the American public.
New Democrats, however, were cheering Friday. “They go back to this basic idea that simply approving the pipeline would have been out of step with the larger message of the president on climate”.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar urged everyone to move on.
But recriminations seem likely to continue.
None of that help the earth’s environment or the US economy. Backers cited the economic benefits of construction jobs and a reliable transit of oil from Canada’s oil sands to Steele City, Nebraska, and then on to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The dirty tar sands oil production process alone generates three times as much global warming pollution as conventional crude oil generates.
Advertisement
This article was from Daily Camera, Boulder, Colo. and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.
