Individually, no. Collectively, yes.
And I never stated that individual contributions don't count for anything, but you have to prioritize to counteract the greatest offenders first.
U.S. to re-route Keystone XL due to environmental concerns
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Individually, no. Collectively, yes.
And I never stated that individual contributions don't count for anything, but you have to prioritize to counteract the greatest offenders first.
Great.. All we need to do then is register all of the AGW enthusiasts and other assorted green-fringe community folks and pass legislation that they must buy and install green tech in every aspect of their lives.
Problem solved.
You mean like Toronto's 5 cent plastic bag fee by-law that successfully motivated consumers to start using re-usable bags?
That macroscopic motion that actually induced change instead of assuming people would do it themselves because they were soooo serious about the environment?
Indeed.
I'm taking it one step further. Much like the manner in which you feel one sector should bear the burden, I am saying that if that argument can be made, we can also extend that logic to demographic segments of the population.
Shouldn't be hard to do. If there are as many people such as yourself that are passionate about this issue, voluntary identification and the ensuing implementation of real federal legislation to force this demographic to comply should be a cinch.
Shouldn't be hard to do. If there are as many people such as yourself that are passionate about this issue, voluntary identification and the ensuing implementation of real federal legislation to force this demographic to comply should be a cinch.
Not that I agree wholeheartedly with all environmentalists, but the fact that pipelines are being heavily scrutinized now, whereas 10 years ago there would be no question, is already an indication that the voice of a collective force is having its influence on public policy.
Sorry to be the one to tell you, but the regulatory hearings are simply optics. More often than not, the decision has basically been made, the rest is a dog and pony show.
Have you ever noticed that the degrading financial situation in an individual State in the U.S. is directly proportional to the number of enviromentalists in that state???;-)
In this case it is simply me pointing out the hypocrisy of what you are trying to say is bad on one hand and using those resources as if they were "miracled" into your fuel tank.
Not at all. This is a pipeline that will transfer fuel that is going to be transfered somewhere. Politics have everything to do with it and nothing to do with the environment or if this pipeline will "leak".
I don't see how the UN has anything to do with this and they have absolutely no bearing on what Canada and the US decide upon. The fact is that the Obama killed thousands of jobs in the guise of environmental concern.
And Obama did talk about repealing tax breaks for U.S. oil companies in the State of the Union address.
In State of the Union address, Obama says ‘basic American promise’ is at risk
President Obama warned in his State of the Union address Tuesday that the nation's middle class is at risk because of growing economic inequality, and argued that the government must do more to preserve the basic American dream.
In a speech that is likely to set the theme of his 2012 re-election bid, Obama said "the basic American promise" that hard work can allow one to own a home and support a family are at risk if the government doesn't do more to balance the scale between the nation's rich and poor.
"The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important," Obama declared. "We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them."
SOTU: Obama discusses 'defining issue' (first video on source link)
In his third such address to the Congress, Obama's focus was not just on the future—as he laid out broad proposals to boost an "economy built to last, where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded."
But in a message that was unmistakably aimed at voters in the upcoming presidential election, Obama reminded his audience that the nation's economic troubles began long before he arrived at the White House, starting with the collapse of the nation's leading banks in 2008 due to lax regulation and "bad behavior."
"In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect," Obama said.
But he argued that the country is turning around under his policies, pointing to 3 million jobs created in the last 22 months. In a sign that Obama will campaign against the Republican-led Congress as much as a his eventual GOP presidential rival, the president indicated he will take a hard stand against lawmakers determined to block his economic agenda.
"The state of our union is getting stronger, and we've come too far to turn back now," Obama insisted. "As long as I'm president, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place."
SOTU: Obama on building momentum (second video on source link)
The president argued that he's laying out a "blueprint for an economy that's built to last" based on four main themes: American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers and "a renewal of American values."
Among other things, Obama called for a rollback for tax breaks for American companies that outsource jobs overseas and proposed new tax cuts for manufacturers that build their products stateside--a proposal that generated muted applause among Republican lawmakers in the House chamber. He also announced the creation of a "trade enforcement unit" that would investigate unfair trade practices in counties including China--an issue that has been a big issue on the 2012 campaign trail.
"Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you--America will always win," Obama declared.
Tackling an issue that will be big in the general election, Obama called on Republicans to pass immigration reform, including the DREAM Act. "If election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country," Obama said. "Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away."
Obama also called for aid to boost the nation's struggling housing market--proposing new tax incentives to help homeowners save $3,000 a year on their mortgages. He also announced the creation of a federal task force to monitor banks, mortgage lenders and credit card companies for fraud.
"Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same," Obama said. "It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody."
Obama sounded familiar themes on energy--calling for a rollback of tax cuts on oil companies in favor of investments in clean energy sources. He announced a federal incentive to build clean energy projects on government land.
On education, he called on states to pass laws to mandate that all minors stay in school until they graduate or turn 18. He also called on Congress to enact measures to ensure student aid--but he also warned higher education institutions to crack down on skyrocketing education costs.
"If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down," Obama said. "Higher education can't be a luxury--it's an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford."
He repeated a call for investment in the nation's crumbling infrastructure, announcing that he will sign an executive order to clear the "red tape" slowing federal construction projects. "But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home," Obama said.
The White House has been signaling for weeks that Obama would embrace populist themes about the economy, as a way of drawing a line in the sand between him and his Republican rivals ahead of his 2012 re-election push. Like other presidents before him, he was joined in the House chamber by individuals aimed at personifying elements of his speech, including Debbie Bosanek, the secretary to billionaire financier Warren Buffett, whose argument that he shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than average workers has become a rallying cry for the White House.
"We don't begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it," Obama insisted. "When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference."
But the larger message of Obama's remarks was obvious, as the president at one point returned to one of the major themes of his 2008 presidential bid: Rising above cynicism and partisan gridlock to enact real change in Washington. He noted that the "greatest blow to confidence in our economy" came during last year's combative debt ceiling talks.
"Who benefited from that fiasco?" Obama asked. "I've talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad--and it seems to get worse every year."
He called for lawmakers to "lower the temperature" and "end the notion" that Democrats and Republicans must be locked in a "perpetual campaign of mutual destruction."
At the same time, he warned again that he wouldn't wait for Congress to enact major reforms in Washington. "With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow," Obama said. "But I can do a whole lot more with your help. Because when we act together, there is nothing the United States of America can't achieve."
Source
In State of the Union address, Obama says
When you consider the bleak choices of the GOP candidates (more for big business and more war) Obama may have clinched the 2012 election with this State of the Union address alone.
The last thing we in the United States want is the U.N. telling us what we can or cannot do with our resources, we are more than capable of taking care of the situation. The Keystone XL project will be started this year, no question about it. As for the aquifer, it will be safe guarded by this new route. The method used to build the pipeline has already been approved, just needs the Presidents signature which he will sign sometime this summer if not sooner. (greenies are votesin his power base, no matter how small)
STUDY: The Press And The Pipeline
A Media Matters analysis shows that as a whole, news coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline between August 1 and December 31 favored pipeline proponents. Although the project would create few long-term employment opportunities, the pipeline was primarily portrayed as a jobs issue. Pro-pipeline voices were quoted more frequently than those opposed, and dubious industry estimates of job creation were uncritically repeated 5 times more often than they were questioned.
Meanwhile, concerns about the State Department's review process and potential environmental consequences were often overlooked, particularly by television outlets.
Pro-Pipeline Voices Were Quoted More Frequently
All But Two Major News Outlets Quoted More Pipeline Supporters Than Opponents. With the exceptions of USA Today and the Los Angeles Times, every news outlet included in this study quoted or hosted more people in favor of the pipeline than opposed.
Media Repeated Industry's Inflated Job Numbers
Industry Job Estimates Have Been Widely Discredited. TransCanada, the Canadian company behind the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, has long pushed the message that the project would "directly create more than 20,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs in 2011-2012 across the U.S." as well as "118,000 spin-off jobs," and up to 553,000 jobs "stemming from a permanent increase in stable oil supplies." At times TransCanada used the term "jobs" to refer to what was actually an estimate of "person-years of employment," and the press rarely explained the difference. Some of TransCanada's figures come from a study that independent analysts have called "dead wrong," "meaningless," "flawed and poorly documented."
A Bloomberg Government analysis found that TransCanada's estimate of direct job creation per mile is higher than what took place during construction of the pipeline TransCanada completed in 2010, indicating that the company either "intends to hire more workers [per mile] for shorter periods of time, or that the company's construction crew and jobs figures are overstated, compared with earlier stages of the Keystone project." The State Department estimated that "the construction work force would consist of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers," and said the project "would not have a significant impact on long-term employment."
Media Uncritically Repeated Industry Job Estimates 76 Times. Every news outlet included in our analysis uncritically repeated TransCanada's jobs numbers at least once. The major print outlets did so 34 times - in 29% of the Keystone XL articles mentioning jobs -- with the Associated Press accounting for almost half of those instances. The broadcast networks repeated these figures 4 times -- one third of the times jobs were mentioned. And the cable networks did so 38 times -- 45% of the coverage mentioning jobs. Fox News uncritically repeated these numbers more than all the other television networks combined.
By Contrast, Criticisms Of These Figures Were Rarely Mentioned. Criticisms of the industry job estimates were included a total of 6 times in the print coverage, or 5% of the print coverage that mentioned jobs. The cable outlets covered the criticisms a total of 9 times, or 11% of cable coverage that mentioned jobs. All together, the outlets uncritically passed along TransCanada's numbers 5 times more often than they mentioned criticisms of those numbers.
TV Media Downplayed Environmental Risks
Keystone XL Prompted Serious Environmental Concerns. The original Keystone XL pipeline route would cross through the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, a "sensitive ecosystem" sitting atop the Ogallala Aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the region. Given that the existing Keystone pipeline has "experienced 14 spills since it began operation," including a major spill of 21,000 gallons, many are concerned about the potential for groundwater contamination if the oil were to spill. This concern is amplified by reports that PHMSA, the agency responsible for overseeing pipeline safety, is chronically understaffed and toothless. Before Congressional Republicans imposed a decision deadline on the Obama administration, TransCanada, the state of Nebraska, and the State Department had agreed to consider an alternative route around the Sand Hills. Others object to the pipeline because it signifies a long-term commitment to the unconventional production of fossil fuels that drive climate change. EPA initially criticized the State Department for not fully assessing the pipeline's impact on climate change, noting that developing tar sands oil is 82% more carbon intensive than the average crude refined in the U.S.
TV Coverage Often Overlooked Environmental Risks. While the Keystone XL pipeline debate was often framed as a 'jobs versus environment' issue, specific environmental concerns were only mentioned in 34% of cable coverage and 17% of broadcast coverage. Specifically, the threat posed by the pipeline to the Ogallala Aquifer was mentioned in 16% of cable coverage and 17% of the broadcast coverage, while climate change was mentioned in 10% of cable coverage and 6% of broadcast coverage.
Media Failed To Report EPA's Criticism Of Environmental Review. The EPA repeatedly challenged the State Department's preliminary Environmental Impact Statement. Calling the State Department's draft review "inadequate," the EPA recommended a more thorough analysis of the pipeline's potential environmental impact. The State Department issued a Supplemental Draft EIS in April 2011 which addressed comments from EPA and other federal agencies, but again the EPA called the review "insufficient" and recommended further analysis. The State Department released its final EIS in August 2011 -- prior to postponing a decision on the project -- and the EPA has not commented on the document. Of the 9 television segments that mentioned the State Department's review, none mentioned EPA's earlier criticisms. Only 30% of print items mentioning the EIS noted EPA's criticisms. Excluding the New York Times, this number drops to 14%.
News Corp. Turned A Blind Eye To Pipeline Protests. A string of large demonstrations against the Keystone XL pipeline took place throughout the fall. These protests were mentioned in 29% of print coverage, 22% of broadcast coverage, and 21% of cable coverage. The Wall Street Journal and Fox News -- both owned by News Corporation -- covered the protests the least, in only 15% of their coverage.
Media Advanced Claims That The Pipeline Would Bolster Energy Security
Significance Of Pipeline To Energy Security Is Disputed. TransCanada has said that its pipeline would increase U.S. energy security by displacing imports from countries deemed less friendly to the U.S. According to the Congressional Research Service, "it may be possible for Canadian oil supplies to effectively 'push out' waterborne shipments from other countries, although this depends on a wide range of market conditions." CRS also noted that "Apart from Keystone XL, several other pipeline proposals could help carry growing Canadian crude oil supplies to the U.S. Gulf Coast," and pointed out that "even if Keystone XL is built, prices for the crude oil it carries" will "continue to be affected by international events."
Indeed, the benefit to American consumers of any shift in U.S. import sources that could be attributed to the Keystone XL pipeline is far from clear. As the Council on Foreign Relations' Michael Levi has noted, "U.S. vulnerability to turmoil in the Middle East is linked to how much oil we consume, not where we buy it from." The pipeline would do very little to shield the U.S. economy from high and volatile prices.
Print Media Frequently Touted Keystone XL As A Step Towards U.S. Energy Security. The purported contribution from the Keystone XL pipeline to American energy security was mentioned in 52% of print coverage, 22% of broadcast coverage, and 28% of cable coverage. USA Today, whose editorial board supports the pipeline, mentioned energy security in 67% of its coverage, more than any other print outlet. Fox News mentioned it more than all the other television networks combined. Only items in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times questioned the energy security benefits of the pipeline.
STUDY: The Press And The Pipeline | Media Matters for America
A Media Matters analysis shows that as a whole, news coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline between August 1 and December 31 favored pipeline proponents. Although the project would create few long-term employment opportunities, the pipeline was primarily portrayed as a jobs issue. Pro-pipeline voices were quoted more frequently than those opposed, and dubious industry estimates of job creation were uncritically repeated 5 times more often than they were questioned.
Meanwhile, concerns about the State Department's review process and potential environmental consequences were often overlooked, particularly by television outlets.
Pro-Pipeline Voices Were Quoted More Frequently
All But Two Major News Outlets Quoted More Pipeline Supporters Than Opponents. With the exceptions of USA Today and the Los Angeles Times, every news outlet included in this study quoted or hosted more people in favor of the pipeline than opposed.
- BROADCAST: Among the broadcast networks, 79% of those quoted or interviewed were in favor of the pipeline. NBC and ABC did not quote anyone opposed.
- CABLE: On Fox News, 66% of those quoted or hosted were in favor and 13% were opposed. CNN featured 54% in favor and only 14% opposed. MSNBC was the most balanced, with 38% in favor and 31% opposed.
- PRINT: Of those quoted by the major newspapers, 45% were in favor of the pipeline and 31% were opposed. The New York Times was the most balanced, quoting 35% in favor and 27% opposed. The Wall Street Journal was the least balanced, with 52% in favor and 21% opposed.
Media Repeated Industry's Inflated Job Numbers
Industry Job Estimates Have Been Widely Discredited. TransCanada, the Canadian company behind the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, has long pushed the message that the project would "directly create more than 20,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs in 2011-2012 across the U.S." as well as "118,000 spin-off jobs," and up to 553,000 jobs "stemming from a permanent increase in stable oil supplies." At times TransCanada used the term "jobs" to refer to what was actually an estimate of "person-years of employment," and the press rarely explained the difference. Some of TransCanada's figures come from a study that independent analysts have called "dead wrong," "meaningless," "flawed and poorly documented."
A Bloomberg Government analysis found that TransCanada's estimate of direct job creation per mile is higher than what took place during construction of the pipeline TransCanada completed in 2010, indicating that the company either "intends to hire more workers [per mile] for shorter periods of time, or that the company's construction crew and jobs figures are overstated, compared with earlier stages of the Keystone project." The State Department estimated that "the construction work force would consist of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers," and said the project "would not have a significant impact on long-term employment."
Media Uncritically Repeated Industry Job Estimates 76 Times. Every news outlet included in our analysis uncritically repeated TransCanada's jobs numbers at least once. The major print outlets did so 34 times - in 29% of the Keystone XL articles mentioning jobs -- with the Associated Press accounting for almost half of those instances. The broadcast networks repeated these figures 4 times -- one third of the times jobs were mentioned. And the cable networks did so 38 times -- 45% of the coverage mentioning jobs. Fox News uncritically repeated these numbers more than all the other television networks combined.
By Contrast, Criticisms Of These Figures Were Rarely Mentioned. Criticisms of the industry job estimates were included a total of 6 times in the print coverage, or 5% of the print coverage that mentioned jobs. The cable outlets covered the criticisms a total of 9 times, or 11% of cable coverage that mentioned jobs. All together, the outlets uncritically passed along TransCanada's numbers 5 times more often than they mentioned criticisms of those numbers.
TV Media Downplayed Environmental Risks
Keystone XL Prompted Serious Environmental Concerns. The original Keystone XL pipeline route would cross through the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, a "sensitive ecosystem" sitting atop the Ogallala Aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the region. Given that the existing Keystone pipeline has "experienced 14 spills since it began operation," including a major spill of 21,000 gallons, many are concerned about the potential for groundwater contamination if the oil were to spill. This concern is amplified by reports that PHMSA, the agency responsible for overseeing pipeline safety, is chronically understaffed and toothless. Before Congressional Republicans imposed a decision deadline on the Obama administration, TransCanada, the state of Nebraska, and the State Department had agreed to consider an alternative route around the Sand Hills. Others object to the pipeline because it signifies a long-term commitment to the unconventional production of fossil fuels that drive climate change. EPA initially criticized the State Department for not fully assessing the pipeline's impact on climate change, noting that developing tar sands oil is 82% more carbon intensive than the average crude refined in the U.S.
TV Coverage Often Overlooked Environmental Risks. While the Keystone XL pipeline debate was often framed as a 'jobs versus environment' issue, specific environmental concerns were only mentioned in 34% of cable coverage and 17% of broadcast coverage. Specifically, the threat posed by the pipeline to the Ogallala Aquifer was mentioned in 16% of cable coverage and 17% of the broadcast coverage, while climate change was mentioned in 10% of cable coverage and 6% of broadcast coverage.
- BROADCAST: Of the broadcast networks, ABC mentioned environmental concerns the most -- in a third (33%) of its coverage. NBC didn't mention specific environmental concerns at all. Climate change was only mentioned once, on CBS.
- CABLE: MSNBC was the only cable network to discuss environmental concerns more than any other issue -- in 50% of its coverage. CNN covered environmental concerns the least, in less than a quarter (22%) of its coverage. And while Fox News mentioned environmental factors in a third (33%) of its coverage, it was often to dismiss these concerns.
Media Failed To Report EPA's Criticism Of Environmental Review. The EPA repeatedly challenged the State Department's preliminary Environmental Impact Statement. Calling the State Department's draft review "inadequate," the EPA recommended a more thorough analysis of the pipeline's potential environmental impact. The State Department issued a Supplemental Draft EIS in April 2011 which addressed comments from EPA and other federal agencies, but again the EPA called the review "insufficient" and recommended further analysis. The State Department released its final EIS in August 2011 -- prior to postponing a decision on the project -- and the EPA has not commented on the document. Of the 9 television segments that mentioned the State Department's review, none mentioned EPA's earlier criticisms. Only 30% of print items mentioning the EIS noted EPA's criticisms. Excluding the New York Times, this number drops to 14%.
News Corp. Turned A Blind Eye To Pipeline Protests. A string of large demonstrations against the Keystone XL pipeline took place throughout the fall. These protests were mentioned in 29% of print coverage, 22% of broadcast coverage, and 21% of cable coverage. The Wall Street Journal and Fox News -- both owned by News Corporation -- covered the protests the least, in only 15% of their coverage.
Media Advanced Claims That The Pipeline Would Bolster Energy Security
Significance Of Pipeline To Energy Security Is Disputed. TransCanada has said that its pipeline would increase U.S. energy security by displacing imports from countries deemed less friendly to the U.S. According to the Congressional Research Service, "it may be possible for Canadian oil supplies to effectively 'push out' waterborne shipments from other countries, although this depends on a wide range of market conditions." CRS also noted that "Apart from Keystone XL, several other pipeline proposals could help carry growing Canadian crude oil supplies to the U.S. Gulf Coast," and pointed out that "even if Keystone XL is built, prices for the crude oil it carries" will "continue to be affected by international events."
Indeed, the benefit to American consumers of any shift in U.S. import sources that could be attributed to the Keystone XL pipeline is far from clear. As the Council on Foreign Relations' Michael Levi has noted, "U.S. vulnerability to turmoil in the Middle East is linked to how much oil we consume, not where we buy it from." The pipeline would do very little to shield the U.S. economy from high and volatile prices.
Print Media Frequently Touted Keystone XL As A Step Towards U.S. Energy Security. The purported contribution from the Keystone XL pipeline to American energy security was mentioned in 52% of print coverage, 22% of broadcast coverage, and 28% of cable coverage. USA Today, whose editorial board supports the pipeline, mentioned energy security in 67% of its coverage, more than any other print outlet. Fox News mentioned it more than all the other television networks combined. Only items in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times questioned the energy security benefits of the pipeline.
STUDY: The Press And The Pipeline | Media Matters for America
Last edited:
and the media gets you again.....I'll add a word to correct everything....
"it may be possible for Canadian HEAVY oil supplies to effectively 'push out' waterborne HEAVY OIL shipments from other countries (Venezula), although this depends on a wide range of market conditions."
You live in ON. What is it like burning unethical rain forest Orinoco Venezulan heavy crude in your car? Enjoyable?
I want to burn rainforest oil too. This grassland and boreal stuff just isn't cutting it when it comes to being unethical.
Refining might damage the environment in some ways but that is the price you pay
for a home grown industry. If we refined it and sold it and it cost more it would not
be our cost it would be someone else's. We should scrap the international deals and
sell only what we want to at the price we want to charge and if they don't want it then
we still have it to sell at a higher price later.
for a home grown industry. If we refined it and sold it and it cost more it would not
be our cost it would be someone else's. We should scrap the international deals and
sell only what we want to at the price we want to charge and if they don't want it then
we still have it to sell at a higher price later.
No I don't want one in every city but I do want them in Canada providing Canadiand
jobs for Canadians
jobs for Canadians
We don't have a refinery shortage, we have an export infrastructure shortage for our extremely high quality upgraded heavy crude.
