Obama administration to deny Keystone XL oil pipeline permit
1Jan 18, '12 by herring_RN Guideobama administration to deny keystone xl oil pipeline permit
...today's decision, expected from the state department, would make official what the administration has said from the outset: that under current law, it cannot accelerate the permitting process, especially in light of the need for additional environmental reviews of a new path for the pipeline through nebraska....
...it's unclear whether the administration will reject the pipeline project outright or will revert to the longer time line that it announced in november, which calls for a final decision to be made in early 2013, the people familiar with the decision said....
3Jan 21, '12 by VivaLasViejas, ASN, RN GuideObama is so predictable, it's almost laughable. Pandering to the tree-huggers and putting off a needed project indefinitely so it can be "studied" to death (and he doesn't have to deal with it at all if he fails to win a second term). Did we really expect any different?
This is getting really, really old. I have little enthusiasm for the candidates representing my own party in the pre-election festivities, but if we keep the current regime, I fear we will wind up with a nice clean environment and about 300 million Americans who are too poor to benefit from it. If I were 30 years younger and had many more working years ahead of me in which I could build savings to protect myself in old age, I might feel differently about all this. Maybe I'd be less "selfish" (a charge that has been leveled against me by some eco-warriors), and think about the world I'm leaving my grandchildren. But I'm getting older FAST and having got started too late in life, I have no such protection.......and the prospect of being elderly in a world where fuel, electricity, food, and other necessities are out of my reach just about frightens me to death.
EVERYTHING costs much more than it did when Obama took office. Gas is almost $2 a gallon more than it was three years ago; food items that cost around $5.99 a year ago are running about $9.50 now. I know it's not all his fault, but his policies certainly don't help. We are still dependent on Middle Eastern oil, and Heaven knows when some sheik so much as sneezes over there, the price of a barrel of crude jumps $10. We have our own oil and the ability to get at it, but the Sierra Club types don't want us going after it because apparently it's more important to preserve wildlife than human life. They also fail to even acknowledge the fact that even if a cheap, reliable, renewable energy source were to be ready for mass production tomorrow, we are going to need oil---and coal---for many years.
But whether they like it or not, the fact is the world still runs on these fuel sources, and there are no alternatives yet that are both available and affordable for the average Joe or Jane. Even carpooling and public transportation, which is a joke in most non-urban parts of the country, don't provide long-term solutions to dependence on oil, whether foreign or domestic. (And NO, this 53-year-old body isn't going to ride a bike 25 miles---one way---to work, in rain and wind and snow, five days a week for fifty weeks out of the year.) I'm all for developing alternative energy sources, but solar and wind are less than dependable, and electric cars are both prohibitively expensive and unrelieable, and some even have this unfortunate tendency to catch fire.
Bottom line: The pipeline needs to happen. Now, IF it is ever built, doubtless some wag will cite a "study" (here we go again) that shows people who live in the area are getting cancer. OK. According to that theory, if we don't build it, they won't get cancer, but what do you suppose happens to people who don't have jobs and can't afford food??
Sorry for the long rant. I'm just sick of the hypocrisy from the side of the political spectrum that claims to be all about the "99%"---whatever that means---but then congratulates itself on making policies that negatively impact the middle- and lower-income folks they say they want to help. Phooey.
3Jan 22, '12 by VivaLasViejas, ASN, RN GuideNo, he's just going to put it off as long as he can and THEN reject it, because that's what his environmentalist buddies want. As for piping oil from Canada: why wouldn't we do it? I'm no expert on these things, nor will I ever claim to be, but I've got to think getting oil from our friendly northern neighbors would be far preferable to being so dependent on the Middle Eastern oil cartels.
1Jan 22, '12 by lrobinson5We already pipe oil from Canada. They want to extend the line to the Gulf Coast, where many people speculate that they will sell the oil to the rest of the world (Which they will no doubt avoid paying any taxes on).
Bottom line is, we already are buying oil from Canada to use here in the States.
3Nearly 50% of the oil we import comes from the Western Hemisphere with Canada being our #1 supplier.
Where The US Gets Its Oil From
What's interesting is that we also export to Canada.
Does the U.S. export domestic oil? If so, how much, to where and why? | The Business Desk with Paul Solman | PBS NewsHour | PBS
1Quote from VivaLasViejasThat's the stereotype conservatives like to put on democratic politicians. Obama really doesn't have that many "buddies" that he's catering to. He's broken promises, moved forward with offshore drilling in Alaska, withdrawn the EPA's smog reducing proposals. His record is more like he's giving in to some other "buddies".No, he's just going to put it off as long as he can and THEN reject it, because that's what his environmentalist buddies want.
Forum: Assessing Obama
1Jan 22, '12 by VivaLasViejas, ASN, RN GuideWith all due respect, Tweety, HuffPo has about as much credibility with me (and most of the center-right population in this country) as Rush does with you lefties . But it's true that the radical-environmentalist lunatic fringe isn't any happier with Obama than conservatives are, and he's got to be feeling the heat from extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.
The president's trouble lies in his desire to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds; unfortunately, neither the hares nor the hounds will permit this, and he does not seem to have the ability to unite opposing factions nor keep them working together even when they do find common ground. That may change in November, because if neither the right nor the extreme left supports Obama, he could lose the election. (Talk about unintended consequences.) And while that wouldn't bother me personally, I think the extremists on the left would be bitterly disappointed with a Republican victory this fall.
ETA: I just thought you might like to know that I just spent over an hour perusing the Environment360 section @ HuffPo. I try to do this sort of thing more and more, because reading only information from sources one agrees with doesn't provide a balanced view. For me, it's a neverending source of fascination to see how different peoples' perspectives are; and while it's hard to look at certain issues from an opposing viewpoint, it's always worthwhile to try.Last edit by VivaLasViejas on Jan 22, '12
1Quote from vivalasviejasinteresting since huffpo is criticizing the president, but point taken and i respect your right to dismiss a source.with all due respect, tweety, huffpo has about as much credibility with me (and most of the center-right population in this country) as rush does with you lefties .
i rarely post radical left articles a la limbaugh to back myself up...left leaning sure, and huffpo is full of liberal stuff, so i understand what you're saying...to a point.
the first link wasn't huffington post.
[font=times]Quote from vivalasviejasagreed. big fail on bringing together to sides. i'm not even sure this is possible. still just like republicans and conservatives are going to unite around whomever wins the nomination so they can defeat obama, the radical left that is angry with obama certainly aren't going to allow a republican in the white house...obama certainly is better in their minds than a republican.the president's trouble lies in his desire to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds; unfortunately, neither the hares nor the hounds will permit this, and he does not seem to have the ability to unite opposing factions nor keep them working together even when they do find common ground. that may change in november, because if neither the right nor the extreme left supports obama, he could lose the election. (talk about unintended consequences.) and while that wouldn't bother me personally, i think the extremists on the left would be bitterly disappointed with a republican victory this fall.
Last edit by Tweety on Jan 22, '12