Looks like the Democrat talking point of "time to compromise" is falling on deaf ears in the White House.
As House approves Keystone pipeline bill, Obama veto grows more likely
"...in a news conference in Burma on Friday, the president rejected two of the main arguments made by pipeline proponents, saying he had “to constantly push back against this idea that somehow the Keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States or is somehow lowering gas prices.”
“It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else,” he said. “That doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...acc_story.html
Originally Posted by Whirlaway
Whirlaway with all due respect it looks like you and a lot of Republicans and Conservatives are not looking at both sides of the issue- heres an article that you as a supporter of the Keystone Pipeline can't deny::
The Keystone XL pipeline is a great test case. The disastrous environmental impact of the pipeline is obvious.
Simply mining the tar sands — let alone consuming the actual oil down the road — will release an incredible amount of carbon into the atmosphere.
Then the thick tar sands crude would go into the 1,179 mile long Keystone XL pipeline, winding past family farms and playgrounds and lakes and water reservoirs as it makes its way from Canada to Texas.
The current Keystone pipeline, which runs from Canada to the Midwest, leaked a record 12 times just in its first year of operation.
Even if you're a conservative who doesn't believe the vast majority of the world's scientists agree that climate change is both real and man-made, hopefully you still believe in facts. And the facts suggest that the Keystone XL pipeline is a bad deal not just for America's environment but also for our economy.
In 2008, in its original application to the State Department seeking pipeline approval, the company TransCanada said the Keystone XL pipeline would involve "a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel." But by 2011, when the pipeline project had become controversial, TransCanada told a House subcommittee the project would create 20,000 jobs. TransCanada and the American Petroleum Institute have also alleged that an additional 119,000 jobs would be directly or indirectly created by the pipeline. Yet an independent academic study found the project would indeed create "no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years" and that, in fact, spills and the cost of damage from the pipeline could kill more jobs than it creates in the long term.
Well, at least the pipeline would help working families in America by lowing gas prices, right? Wrong. According to analysis by both CNN and Bloomberg, the pipeline would actually raise gas prices by creating a way for oil produced in the Midwest to make it to coastal refineries for exporting.
What the Keystone XL pipeline clearly would do is divert investment away from renewable energy — and investments in renewable energy produce more bang for the buck. Every $1 million invested in fossil fuels creates just 5.3 jobs while the same amount invested in clean energy creates 16.7 jobs.
Whirlaway do you still want to support the Pipeline even after the undisputed facts that it will actually raise oil prices and damages to the ecosystems?
