Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Republicans Refuse to Admit that Keystone XL will Bring Oil Through America, Not to It
Politicians who lack factual data to make their point on an issue often use fallacies as a rhetorical tool, and they can be used purposefully to win arguments because they appeal to emotion and not reason. Devoid of facts to back up their arguments, Republicans have little option but appealing to emotions, but instead of fallacies, they intentionally deliver false statements and the payoff is nearly always not in the public’s best interest. For the past year, the GOP has lied to the American people about the benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline, and as the President and Congress work to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, there is little mystery that Republicans will use the pipeline’s approval as a bargaining chip to give the oil industry greater subsidies even as they attempt to cut their taxes. The President and Democrats could protect the environment and Americans’ health if they informed the people that Canadian tar sand is not coming to America, but through it on its way to China and Europe.
As organizations such as the World Bank, the United Nations, World Meteorological Organization, and an alliance of the world’s largest investors appealed to governments to boost clean-energy investment and ramp up action on climate change, Republicans and some Democrats are pressuring President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline without regard for global warming. Ignoring reports that greenhouse gas levels reached a new record, the pipeline’s proponents concern for big oil’s profits supersede their disregard for the environment and the population’s health. The potential for an ecological disaster is so great that a single spill could have devastating consequences for generations, and a University of Nebraska at Lincoln analysis of the pipeline finds that it could have 91 major spills in 50 years. A tar sands leak in Michigan two years ago has cost taxpayers over $800 million so far, and engineers still are unsure how to clean up tar sand crude that sinks making cleanup all the more difficult; if possible at all.
TransCanada, the pipeline’s owner, has been exposed by a former TransCanada engineer who raised alarms about lax inspections and shoddy work that prompted the Canadian government to send an open letter admonishing TransCanada that an investigation was launched for noncompliance and that future lapses will not be tolerated. Canada’s energy regulator announced a sweeping audit of TransCanada’s operations after a long series of accidents, shutdowns and pipeline safety infractions that plagued the pipeline after TransCanada was forced to shut its leak-prone Keystone I tar sands pipeline down for four days after finding cracks, corrosion and other defects that lead to ruptures. TransCanada has a sordid history as a pipeline operator, but congressional representatives loyal to the oil industry are desperate to approve construction of the pipeline between Canada and Texas to enrich the oil industry.
There are myriad reasons to deny TransCanada’s application to build a certain ecological disaster through the center of the nation, but proponents are ill-inclined to tell the public the truth about Keystone XL. One of the advertised benefits of the pipeline is that it will bring gas prices down, but TransCanada and industry experts agree that Keystone XL tar sands will increase domestic gas prices. When John Boehner touted the pipeline’s construction creating hundreds-of-thousands of jobs, it turned out that TransCanada gave U.S. officials a job number that was 67 times higher than number they used in Canada, and it was revealed that Boehner invested in 7 tar sand companies the previous year leading the SEC to consider an investigation of share price manipulation and to bolster his portfolio’s worth. Besides only creating 2,500 temporary and 50 permanent jobs, industry professionals agree that clean energy jobs far outweigh the potential for temporary dirty oil jobs.
President Obama has been an advocate for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and emphasized the importance of climate change and renewable energy and he made it a part of his campaign, but approving Keystone XL is a step in the wrong direction. To be fair, there are benefits associated with building the pipeline, but they are the hundreds-of-millions of dollars flowing to oil companies like ConocoPhillips and Valero Energy for selling the refined tar sand to Asia. Every other aspect of the pipeline is a detriment including poisoning a crucial natural resource, Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer, which is the country’s largest source of freshwater for drinking and irrigation for millions of Americans throughout the country. Add to that the devastation to agriculture, and besides dehydrating millions of Americans, the food supply would be adversely impacted for decades, if not longer.
The task for President Obama is incredibly easy, and he can garner major support for denying TransCanada a permit to begin construction of the pipeline if he dispenses with rhetoric and tells the American people there is no value in building the pipeline. Americans will hardly support jeopardizing precious clean drinking water and a stable food supply if they realize that the pipeline will exist to enrich a couple of oil companies, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and provide a steady supply of gasoline to China.
Americans who follow politics understand that Republicans have no conviction except enriching the wealth ...
In a statement today, Sen. Bernie Sanders urged President Obama call the Republicans' bluff and reject t ...
The emotion of lust for inordinate wealth and power, with the intention to keep it for one's self ...
According to Republicans, America is a truly exceptional nation which is highly debatable, and it is pos ...
In the never-ending fight for government control, the oil industry continues wielding inordinate power a ...
sandy reid
Nov. 26th, 2012 at 10:30 am
this is absolutely unacceptable. take your tar sands and shove it. no more going to bed with the rich by anyone, to include my president. this is just one of the ways of killing this country and making it an oil slick. no way. this is all for the super rich, no looking out for anyone to include our environment.
Jonathan
Nov. 26th, 2012 at 10:44 am
This is a threat to our national security in so many ways. This is an assault on this nation and the world at large, the future of all of mankind. We are at WAR! We must defend our right to live free of sickness, disease and financial instability. We must accept no compromise in ending the war on renewable energy and the propping up of the filthy oil and coal industry. Worried about jobs lost? Not me, not in the coal and oil sectors. We can create 7 times the jobs in renewables than we can in coal and oil dollar for dollar spent. The youth of this nation MUST rise up and demand a future and demand it NOW!
Ronin
Nov. 27th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
This is worse.
Forget the oil we will never see.
This is about poisoning the water we will not be able to drink!
Jonathan
Nov. 26th, 2012 at 10:39 am
It makes so much sense to exploit an old, filthy, and detrimental source of energy that will strengthen our neighboring country to the north making us dependent on them for the next 60+ years. It certainly is a better idea than investing in clean and renewable sources of energy technology that could provide 7 times the number of secure jobs in this country and give our nation an edge in energy independence. NOT! I pray for the safety and success of those who are putting their lives on the line to protest the coffin nail of this nation and the world at large. It is already way too late for us to benefit from a large sectoin of the renewable energy sector as other countries have far surpassed ourpitiful efforts to make renewables profitable and readilly usable. I want to vomit.
Anne
Nov. 26th, 2012 at 11:30 am
They try to pretend that it’s all about jobs, but it’s only their predictable way of defending the oil industry at the expense of Americans. But this revelation only makes their lack of concern for the rest of us even more unconscionable.
A Walkaway
Nov. 26th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
I know this from being an archaeologist and having done a pipeline survey:
A new pipeline corridor will employ people like myself for a period of time. It will be temporary, and I expect there will be a lot of pressure to cut corners and blow right through, for instance, prehistoric sites that might otherwise be preserved. I also expect that there will be pressure to do the same with ecologically sensitive areas. That’s SOP and normal in America’s business environment. Cut costs no matter what the risks or damage to possibly important things.
I learned shortly after this started “showing on radar” so to speak that there are already pipelines to refineries, and that it would be far cheaper to put additional pipelines to those refineries and increase their capacity. That would help LOWER American costs and make life a lot easier for a lot of people. They wouldn’t have to have another environmental impact assessment done (which includes an archaeological survey), and it would give the companies a chance to check their existing pipelines. Lots of good reasons to go that route.
The benefits for this proposed pipeline – only to the rich investors and corporate moguls. People such as myself would see some decent temporary employment (that is, if the House doesn’t try to strip doing surveys from the law). At the end, however, we’d see much higher fuel prices, which would hurt us.
We need to think at different levels and scales. Life is tough enough as it is and anything we do should work to make life easier for the poor. We need to think about the long term – completely self-sufficient and completely renewable resources. We also MUST think about how we get there from where we are now. If we don’t think about all three, we risk failing.
We don’t want that to happen.
A Walkaway
Nov. 26th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Correction – an environmental impact study would still have to be done, but because there are already pipelines in place, it would be minimal.
Earl Richards
Nov. 27th, 2012 at 4:49 am
The Keystone XL Pipeline should be permitted to cross an aquifer.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 27th, 2012 at 8:54 am
Why?
Earl Richards
Nov. 27th, 2012 at 9:32 am
If there was a pipeline leak and the tar sands got down into the aquifer, it would be impossible to remove and the fresh water for the great plains states would be polluted, thus, destroying the entire region.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 27th, 2012 at 9:43 am
You wrote
Then you either are for or against destroying the entire region. Which is it? Did you mean “Shouldnt”?
Earl Richards
Nov. 27th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
CORRECTION. The Keystone XL Pipeline should NOT be permitted to cross an aquifer.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 27th, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Now we are in complete agreement!