Keystone and Warren’s Parochial View of the Environment

(Professor Warren just gave Senator Brown a large gift.  I would expect American Crossroads GpS ads to start soon. – promoted by Rob “EaBo Clipper” Eno)

As Congress continues to debate critical tax and funding issues down to the very last minute, an event that has become all too common and, in my opinion, needs to stop, the issue of whether to approve the construction of the Keystone pipeline from Canada to Houston has taken center stage.

President Obama has declared that he will defer any approval of the pipeline until 2013, conveniently after the 2012 presidential election.  The pure politics of this decision is best described by Newt when he said the following during the Thursday night debate in Sioux City:

“Once again, President Obama has demonstrated that he cares more about appeasing radical constituencies than making energy more affordable for American families and businesses, creating more American jobs, and lowering our dependence on oil from unfriendly nations.

Only days after we learned that at least 9% of Americans were unemployed for the 30th straight month, the President has made a decision that will only prolong this suffering by delaying a project that could have created 20,000 new American jobs next year.  The Keystone XL pipeline would have sent 700,000barrels of oil a day from Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, The Dakotas, and Alberta to Gulf Coast refinereries, which would lower staggering gas and diesel prices for Americans and replace oil imports from overseas.

The Keystone XL pipeline creates critical infrastructure for American economy without a single penny of taxpayer money. As part of my Day One Plan in the 21st Century Contract with America, I will approve this project on the first day of my administration.”

Whether to approve the pipeline now or ever is also an issue that places Elizabeth Warren in stark contrast.

Scott Brown has stated that he supports the approval and construction of the pipeline as it will create 1,000’s of jobs for Americans and move us closer to energy independence.

Elizabeth Warren has stated that she does not favor approving the pipeline at this time as she has serious environmental concerns.  Having heard this several times over the last few days I began to wonder is there may be something to this concern.  So I thought about the two options before us.  One, the US approves the pipeline and it is constructed pursuant to US regulatory requirements and subject to the oversight of federal, state and local governments with the oil shipped to a refinery subject to those same oversights.  The other option is that the pipeline would be built to the ocean where the oil would be sold to China, loaded on tankers, shipped across the ocean and used in Chinese refineries.  Absolutely NO oversight or control by the US government at any level.  No concern about what might happen to the environment from all this shipping and use in another control.  No concern about how the oil will get to Houston from other sources for production of products there.

So what I am left with is a feeling that Elizabeth Warren either doesn’t trust the US government to provide oversight of the construction, shipping and production processes or she only cares about the environment in the US and not internationally.  Neither one a good choice, especially when you are an out of work union worker who would love to get back to work on a project that is the very definition of shovel ready.

So come on Liz, show your faith in the US government to oversee the processes here in this country and help put some good people back to work, support the approval and construction of the Keystone pipeline.  Its good for America, our economy and our environment.

About ConsEph

  • edfactor

    I am so glad there are popular issues that show the contrast between Senator Brown and Professor Warren. We need several more of these in order to get Brown re-elected.

    He should attack her with this issue as often as possible!

  • …is their contention that the ‘accelerated’ timetable will not allow the State Department sufficient time to review.

    Set aside the time that the pipeline has ALREADY been under consideration.  Are we worried about our diplomatic relations with Canada?  If so, why are we constantly told that we shouldn’t pursue a project like Cape Wind, but should instead rely on the Sable Bay pipeline, or Canadian hydro- power?  Is that artificially cheap price designed to LURE US IN???  So the Canadians can ATTACK?  Turn OFF our electricity??

    What is Homeland Security doing to protect us from the savage Acadians???

  • Take 60 seconds to read 6 reasons why America needs to say ‘No’ to the risky and reckless Keystone XL tar sands pipeline

    http://switchboard.nrdc.org/bl

    5. Threatening America’s breadbasket and U.S. waterways.

    The pipeline would cut through the heart of the Great Plains, land of more than 250,000 ranches and farms, putting our croplands and food producers at risk of oil spills across the American heartland.  Republican leaders want an approval of the pipeline despite the fact that Nebraska has not even settled on a route to avoid the precious Ogallala Aquifer, where millions of Americans get their drinking water. Further, Keystone XL would cross more than 1,500 waterways, from the Yellowstone River in Montana to Pine Island Bayou in Texas, threatening them with  the kind of accident that dumped 42,000 gallons of oil in the Yellowstone River last summer and put 20 times that much tar sands oil in Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010, in a spill that hasn’t been cleaned up yet.

  • Karl Marx

    are fibbing about the job benefits.

    Proponents, however, offer arguments for the pipeline that are little better than are the objections. First, we hear incessantly about “tens of thousands” of new jobs (perhaps as many as 119,000 jobs according to an economic consulting firm hired by TransCanada, the firm that hopes to build the pipeline) for an economy in great need of new employment opportunities. Yet TransCanada itself acknowledges that only 2,500 to 4,650 workers would be required to build the pipeline. The remainder of the alleged jobs come from: adding jobs already created (or, in many cases, already come and gone) from Keytsone’s previous pipeline expansion investments to the jobs that would follow from letting the rest of the project go forward; dubious “multiplier effects” (the use of which is routinely attacked by free market analysts, at least in other contexts); and an ill-founded assumption that domestic rather than foreign firms will provide most of the raw materials and engineering work necessary for pipeline construction.

    The only independent economic impact study comes from researchers at Cornell. Their review of the methodology used to produce these high end job creation estimates is, for the most part, devastating. Their review of the methodology used to produce these high end job creation estimates is devastating. Their conclusion? It’s unlikely that more than 4,650 temporary new jobs would be created and only 50 of those jobs would remain after the pipeline was completed. Big deal.

    Regardless, pro-development conservatives should be leery of making these job creation arguments. The point of economic activity isn’t job creation; it’s to allow gains from trade to occur among firms, workers, and consumers. Using “jobs” as a metric to support or oppose federal action is dangerous political business for those inclined to limit the size and scope of government.