Obama vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline

[United States of Conner]

I have to say, I really don't like this. Congress passed the law with a pretty large majority. Shouldn't that law then be put in place?

I'm not talking about the pipeline itself. I support it, even though I think that we should be focusing on renewables inside the country and oil in America. However, it just smells a little funky to have a president threaten to veto any Keystone XL-related bill that comes to his desk. How would those supporting Obama's action feel if a conservative president veto'd anything related to gay marriage, or abortion? Just smells a little bad, but could lead to something worse. Just my two cents, though.

[Digital Planets]

I have to say, I really don't like this. Congress passed the law with a pretty large majority. Shouldn't that law then be put in place?

I'm not talking about the pipeline itself. I support it, even though I think that we should be focusing on renewables inside the country and oil in America. However, it just smells a little funky to have a president threaten to veto any Keystone XL-related bill that comes to his desk. How would those supporting Obama's action feel if a conservative president veto'd anything related to gay marriage, or abortion? Just smells a little bad, but could lead to something worse. Just my two cents, though.

Congress can pass it, but the President is the one who actually puts it in effect. If Congress passes it, but the President vetoes it, then it's either sent back to Congress or tossed out.

[Scomagia]

I think Obama is acting like a communist/socialist which is dangerous, as he's warping the free market to pursue these personal issues. He should allow the pipeline. If it succeeds, it's good, it's helping the country. If not, than it was bad, and should fail. But Obama shouldn't decide for it.

Don't use words you don't understand.

On topic: I don't really care. This isn't going to stop the tar sands from being exploited. This is a completely meaningless gesture.

[Digital Planets]

I think Obama is acting like a communist/socialist which is dangerous, as he's warping the free market to pursue these personal issues. He should allow the pipeline. If it succeeds, it's good, it's helping the country. If not, than it was bad, and should fail. But Obama shouldn't decide for it.

Don't use words you don't understand.

[Fanosolia]

I'm glad since this is the case since the tar sands' carbon will remain in the ground. I do however wonder how this will play into my country's politics, since both the liberals, and conservatives support it.

You know the ONLY thing keeping tar sands in the ground now more than they were when the pipeline is proposed?
Low oil prices.
You know what never impeded the mining of tar sands oil these last few years when oil prices were high enough to make their production profitable? The lack of a pipeline.

The moment OPEC ends the oil-glut we're in, the tar sands (and the Bakken shale region) will go right back to pumping out barrels upon barrels of oil. Lacking a pipeline NEVER STOPPED THEM BEFORE, why in God's name do you think the lack of a pipeline will stop them in the future?
The oil will just get shipped out on tanker-trucks and railcars.

Didn't came into my mind, to be honest. Though hindsight, I should have used better phrasing or keep that out all together.

[Threlizdun]

I have to say, I really don't like this. Congress passed the law with a pretty large majority. Shouldn't that law then be put in place?

Erm... not if you have any knowledge of separation of powers and how vetoes work.

I'm not talking about the pipeline itself. I support it, even though I think that we should be focusing on renewables inside the country and oil in America. However, it just smells a little funky to have a president threaten to veto any Keystone XL-related bill that comes to his desk. How would those supporting Obama's action feel if a conservative president veto'd anything related to gay marriage, or abortion? Just smells a little bad, but could lead to something worse. Just my two cents, though.

Conservative presidents have done that before. Obama vetoed a bill that would allow for the construction of an environmentally devastating project that would actually cause Americans to lose jobs at a time when we need to be abandoning fossil fuels.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I have to say, I really don't like this. Congress passed the law with a pretty large majority. Shouldn't that law then be put in place?

I'm not talking about the pipeline itself. I support it, even though I think that we should be focusing on renewables inside the country and oil in America. However, it just smells a little funky to have a president threaten to veto any Keystone XL-related bill that comes to his desk. How would those supporting Obama's action feel if a conservative president veto'd anything related to gay marriage, or abortion? Just smells a little bad, but could lead to something worse. Just my two cents, though.

This is the sort of thing that happens pretty much all the time in our democracy. People are pretty used to it.

It's how the system works.

[New Werpland]

I'm no republican, but I don't see anything wrong with the pipeline.

[Threlizdun]

I'm no republican, but I don't see anything wrong with the pipeline.

http://www.nwf.org/pdf/Global-Warming/K ... _Facts.pdf

[Occupied Deutschland]

I'm no republican, but I don't see anything wrong with the pipeline.

http://www.nwf.org/pdf/Global-Warming/K ... _Facts.pdf

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/do ... 221135.pdf

During operation of all No Action rail scenarios, the increased number of unit trains along the scenario routes would result in GHG emissions from both diesel fuel combustion and electricity generation to support rail terminal operations (as well as for pump station operations for the Rail/Pipeline Scenario). The total annual GHG emissions (direct and indirect) attributed to the No Action scenarios range from 28 to 42 percent greater than for the proposed Project (see Table ES-6)

The number of barrels released per year for the No Action scenarios is higher than what is projected for the proposed Project or the other pipeline alternatives (as detailed in Table ES-7) because of the alternate modes of transport in the No Action scenarios.

There is also a greater potential for injuries and fatalities associated with rail transport relative to pipelines. Adding 830,000 bpd to the yearly transport mode volume would result in an estimated 49 additional injuries and six additional fatalities for the No Action rail scenarios compared to one additional injury and no fatalities for the proposed Project on an annual basis

[Atlanticatia]

I have to say, I really don't like this. Congress passed the law with a pretty large majority. Shouldn't that law then be put in place?

I'm not talking about the pipeline itself. I support it, even though I think that we should be focusing on renewables inside the country and oil in America. However, it just smells a little funky to have a president threaten to veto any Keystone XL-related bill that comes to his desk. How would those supporting Obama's action feel if a conservative president veto'd anything related to gay marriage, or abortion? Just smells a little bad, but could lead to something worse. Just my two cents, though.

We have a presidential and not parliamentary system, with strict separation of powers. One can say the same thing for the other side - Obama won a majority, why should Congress be allowed to pass a Keystone pipeline bill? It sounds just as silly. Our constitutional situation means that powers are strongly separated with very strong constitutional checks. Congress isn't a supreme legislature.

[United Russian Soviet States]

That is unfortunate. It would create jobs.

[MERIZoC]

That is unfortunate. It would create jobs.

Only 35 permanent positions. That's nothing.
http://www.newsweek.com/state-department-keystone-xl-pipeline-would-only-create-35-permanent-jobs-228898

[Norstal]

I've said this repeatedly, but apparently it bears mention again:

THE OIL IS GOING TO GET PUMPED ANYWAYS FROM BOTH THE TAR SANDS AND THE BAKKEN SHALE REGION. THERE IS A SLIGHT SLOWDOWN CURRENTLY DUE TO THE SAUDI/OPEC DUMPING IN THE OIL MARKET, BUT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAYS AND STOPPING THE FUCKING CONSTRUCTION OF A SAFER AND LESS ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING MODE OF TRANSPORTATION IS THE MOST HOLLOW, BASELESS, AND ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL BULLSHIT ANY SELF-DESCRIBED PERSON WHO CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT COULD 'ACCOMPLISH'.

Really need to come up with a new name for these types of folks, because they aren't 'extreme environmentalists'. Extreme environmentalists would perhaps actually try to minimize the damage to the environment an activity produces rather than CONSCIOUSLY KEEPING IT HIGH.
'Fucking hypocrites', is my personal proposal.

Here's the thing. The pipeline is already partially built, 3/4. The one that got vetoed was because there are concerns over it being constructed on an aquifer. How is that not a legitimate concern? They already have their damn pipeline and they want more.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I've said this repeatedly, but apparently it bears mention again:

THE OIL IS GOING TO GET PUMPED ANYWAYS FROM BOTH THE TAR SANDS AND THE BAKKEN SHALE REGION. THERE IS A SLIGHT SLOWDOWN CURRENTLY DUE TO THE SAUDI/OPEC DUMPING IN THE OIL MARKET, BUT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAYS AND STOPPING THE FUCKING CONSTRUCTION OF A SAFER AND LESS ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING MODE OF TRANSPORTATION IS THE MOST HOLLOW, BASELESS, AND ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL BULLSHIT ANY SELF-DESCRIBED PERSON WHO CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT COULD 'ACCOMPLISH'.

Really need to come up with a new name for these types of folks, because they aren't 'extreme environmentalists'. Extreme environmentalists would perhaps actually try to minimize the damage to the environment an activity produces rather than CONSCIOUSLY KEEPING IT HIGH.
'Fucking hypocrites', is my personal proposal.

Here's the thing. The pipeline is already partially built, 3/4. The one that got vetoed was because there are concerns over it being constructed on an aquifer. How is that not a legitimate concern? They already have their damn pipeline and they want more.

It is a legitimate concern, which is why the proposed pipeline was moved (to avoid the Sandhills). As for the other aquifers, well, I'd be willing to take the state department at face value:

Aquifer conditions in the NHPAQ in the proposed Project area indicate that shallow groundwater generally discharges to local surface waterbodies, and typically does not flow downward in significant amounts or flow horizontally over long distances. Analysis of historic spills and groundwater modeling indicate that contaminant plumes from a large-scale release that reaches groundwater in the NHPAQ and alluvial aquifers could be expected to affect groundwater quality up to approximately 1,000 feet downgradient of the source. This localized effect indicates that petroleum releases from the proposed Project is unlikely to extensively affect water quality in this aquifer group

Across most of the proposed pipeline area where the GPA is present, it is very unlikely that any releases from the proposed pipeline would affect groundwater quality in the aquifer because the aquifer is typically deeply buried beneath younger, water-bearing sediments and/or aquitard units. The exception is in southern Nebraska, where the aquifer is closer to the surface. Water quality in the GPA could be affected by releases in this area, but groundwater flow patterns in the vicinity of the proposed Project route make such effects unlikely. Overall, it is very unlikely that the proposed pipeline area would affect water
quality in the GPA due to weak downward gradients (downward groundwater flows) in the aquifers overlying the GPA

As with the GPA, petroleum releases from the proposed Project would only affect water quality in portions of the NGPAS near the ground surface. In the case of a large-scale release, these impacts would typically be limited to within several hundred feet of the source, and would not affect groundwater within areas that provide groundwater recharge to large portions of the NGPAS

The depth to this aquifer is several hundred feet below the ground surface in the proposed Project area; therefore, there is an extremely low probability that a petroleum release from the proposed Project would affect water quality in this aquifer.

And the 'more' is desired because it transports more oil, primarily that from the Bakken shale region. Thus lowering the amount of shipping that needs to be done by truck and railcars in the US. It's why TransCanada proposed the thing as they did (and, coincidentally, why the US was/is interested in it. Because besides the other effects, it ships oil for us that would otherwise have to be shipped by other methods).

[The Lone Alliance]

The moment OPEC ends the oil-glut we're in,

I heard one of the many reasons for the the OPEC oil-glut is to hurt the Tar Sand industry for threatening OPEC's market control.

[Greed and Death]

Not a surprise since he said he was and gas prices are low ATM.

Building oil infrastructure is never priority during times of low gas prices so I do not see the DNC taking a hit for it.

[Iwassoclose]

meh, plan b. take the pipeline west.

[Sociobiology]

good maybe someone realized burning one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet is a bad idea.

[United States of Conner]

I have to say, I really don't like this. Congress passed the law with a pretty large majority. Shouldn't that law then be put in place?

Erm... not if you have any knowledge of separation of powers and how vetoes work.

I'm not talking about the pipeline itself. I support it, even though I think that we should be focusing on renewables inside the country and oil in America. However, it just smells a little funky to have a president threaten to veto any Keystone XL-related bill that comes to his desk. How would those supporting Obama's action feel if a conservative president veto'd anything related to gay marriage, or abortion? Just smells a little bad, but could lead to something worse. Just my two cents, though.

Conservative presidents have done that before. Obama vetoed a bill that would allow for the construction of an environmentally devastating project that would actually cause Americans to lose jobs at a time when we need to be abandoning fossil fuels.

Eh... I was thinking out loud on that, not about how it is, but kind of how it should be. I went AP Social Sciences, I get it, yeah.
Regardless, the pipeline isn't great, now that I really sit down and think about it. Maybe this veto will lead to more focus on American oil and renewables, which is something we need. Maybe it will be harmful. Just gotta wait and see.

[Occupied Deutschland]

good maybe someone realized burning one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet is a bad idea.

And failed to realize that such has been happening for a multitude of years WITHOUT a pipeline to transport said fuel.
And also failed to take into account the environmental impact all the spillages and explosions and such shipping said fuel by railcar and tanker-truck has resulted in.
And generally didn't apply any semblance of analysis to the issue, didn't bother to read their own state department's environmental impact statement, and instead made a feel-good stroke of his pen in order to placate NIMBY fuckwits at the Sierra Club who couldn't environmentalist their way out of a PAPER BAG.

So in essence, you and the Sierra Club are applauding the removal of a transport option...Because it increases costs (to an unknown extent that likely won't matter once the OPEC oil glut is turned down and oil returned to $100/barrel) by forcing the transport option taken to BE THE ONE THAT SPILLS MORE OIL INTO THE ENVIRONMENT.
...
I know the so-called 'environmental' movement has always had its fair share of wackos, but I wasn't aware they'd outright morphed themselves into the VILLAINS of Captain Planet all of a sudden. Accepting environmental damage in the name of a desired economic end.

The Sierra Club, ladies and gentlemen!

[Insaeldor]

Who the fuck even cares? Democrats really need to stop fussing over this andRepublicans need to stop acting like its the savior of the American economy. This isn't going to bring that many jobs in with only a couple of months of employment and then I've read around 50-100 permanent employees to monitor the pipeline. The oil isn't going to the IS market it's being sold and shipped off. It easily the biggest nonissue turned issue I've seen in my time of conscious political awareness.

[SaintB]

I would like to tell you about the politics involved:

OBAMA:
Obama was given campaign donations by the railway that currently ships oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico

Republicans:
The Republicans were funded by the company(s) that want the keystone pipeline, so that they may make money off of it.

Quoited for the truth.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Who the fuck even cares?

Folks living in/around the Bakken shale oil region (or places where Bakken shale oil is transported). At least in the US.
Because of reasons.

[Marcurix]

So, thoughts on this NSG?

Every time someone refers to the subject in question as Tar Sands their credibility takes a dive.

And if they're so concerned with the environment they'd better approve the pipeline, because the oil isn't going to stop coming. All it's going to do is come by rail, which is far less safe and causes far more spills.

good maybe someone realized burning one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet is a bad idea.

That doesn't stop California.