Al Gore: Keystone XL Is 'Ridiculous'

Former Vice President Al Gore speaks during the Center for American Progress' 10th Anniversary Conference in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 24. (JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images) | Getty

108

82

8

1213

GET POLITICS NEWSLETTERS:

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON -- The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is "ridiculous" and "an atrocity," said former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday.

Speaking at an event honoring the 10th anniversary of the progressive think tank Center for American Progress, Gore praised President Barack Obama's efforts on climate change, stating that he thinks the president is sincere and that it will be a legacy issue for him. But on Keystone XL, which is waiting to hear its fate from the Obama administration, Gore was unequivocal. 

"I hope as he gets down to the licklog, as he gets down to the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, that he understands what this means," Gore said. "This should be vetoed. It's an atrocity, it's a threat."

Gore, who just concluded his third annual 24 Hours of Reality event, compared the reliance on fossil fuels -- particularly those derived from tar sands, which the Keystone pipeline would spur further development of -- to a drug addiction.

"Junkies find veins in their toes when their arms and legs go out," Gore said. "We are now at a point where we are going after dangerous and dirty fuels."

Because the proposed pipeline crosses an international border, the northern part of it must get approval from the State Department before it can go forward. The issue has been a major source of controversy for the Obama administration, as environmental groups argue that the pipeline would exacerbate global warming.

In his climate speech last June, Obama said the pipeline should be approved only if it "does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution."

Via: Huffington Post

Continue Reading.....

Keystone XL Lobbying: Too Important to Fail Again

Pipeline supporters 

must argue from strength.

It is crucially important to the security and prosperity of the United States and Canada that President Obama approve the Keystone XL pipeline, a multibillion dollar project to bring Albertan oil sands bitumen to refineries in Texas. However, with loud, well-funded climate activists in his base opposed to XL because it will encourage expansion of the oil sands, a project they are determined to kill, it is anything but certain that the president will give the green light to the pipeline.

More than anything, Obama does not want to be remembered as the president who “ruined the climate.” That science shows that practically nothing America does will have substantial impact on global climate is immaterial; it is all about perception when it comes to presidential legacies. Consequently, oil sands and pipeline supporters must present arguments that are seen to be unquestionably correct and difficult to defeat, and relate directly to Obama’s main concern — climate change. Otherwise, he will almost certainly turn down the project just as he did last year.

In the past week, pipeline proponents have seized upon the conclusion of the report by energy consultancy IHS CERA Inc. that the project will have “no material impact” on oil sands greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. But IHS’s arguments — which were essentially the same as those made by the State Department several months ago — should not be used.

They are far too easy for pipeline opponents to counter.

IHS asserted the following in a news release about the report:

In the absence of the pipeline, alternate transportation routes would result in oil sands production growth being more or less unchanged.

That is naïve. IHS is apparently assuming that climate change campaigners will be unsuccessful at blocking other proposed oil sands bitumen transportation-system expansions. In reality, all of these plans — Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline to Canada’s west coast, the expansion of the Kinder-Morgan pipeline (also to the B.C. coast), Energy East pipeline across Canada, and expanded rail transport — are under serious threat due to the actions of activists. Their disdain of new pipelines is well known, but few in the public are aware that environmentalists are fighting rail expansion as well. The Sierra Club, Greenpeace and 14 other environmental groups warned the head of CN rail in an open letter in January:

Should CN decide to try to move forward with its proposal, it would face major opposition and risks to the company. We urge you to stop any forward movement with shipping tar sands oil by rail through British Columbia.

Their opposition is not surprising. Climate campaigners want to stop all methods of transporting bitumen to refineries because they are determined to block Canada’s oil sands projects entirely. They believe GHG emissions, specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), from the oil sands will wreck the climate.

Via: PJ Media

Continue Reading... 

Coulter: Obama at Hofstra: Relatively Alert, Ergo Big Winner

The best question at the second presidential debate came from Michael Jones, an African-American who said: "Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I'm not that optimistic, as I was in 2008. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive."

To which Obama said: "Are you my half-brother?"

Actually, all Obama could say was that he had ended the war in Iraq (while pointlessly escalating the war in Afghanistan) and that Osama bin Laden is dead (and so is our ambassador). Both of which must be a great comfort to Mr. Jones as he tries to pay his bills every month.

Jones was right: Since Obama has been president, everything you own -- your home, pension, savings accounts, weekly paychecks -- are all worth less.

Meanwhile, everything you need -- gas, food, and anything else that requires fuel to be transported to you -- costs more.

Obama can't talk his way out of his record. As Romney said in response to the president's allegation that he is gung-ho about drilling for oil to lower fuel prices: "But that's not what you've done in the last four years. That's the problem."

Obama also suddenly announced: "I'm all for pipelines. I'm all for oil production." But he vetoed the Keystone pipeline.

He explained that the price of gasoline was $1.80 when he took office because the economy was in the toilet. Apparently, prices have spiked to more than $4 a gallon because all Americans are back at work now and making big bucks!

Obama said the "most important thing we can do is to make sure that we are creating jobs in this country."

So now he's going to create jobs? Because, nearly four years into his presidency, 23 million Americans are out of work and more than half of recent college graduates can't find a job.

Obama Speech: Multiply Failure, Divide the Country

What has always amazed me about Democrat policies is that they feign outrage over the need to implement them, even though they have already been championed by both parties, and have produced negative results.  Government has already invested in crony capitalism and has already micro-managed every sector of the economy; from higher education to agriculture, health care, and energy.  Many of these policies have been supported by administrations and congresses controlled by both parties.  And they have driven up costs; not lowered them.  For goodness sake, that’s why we are still debating these problems decades after those very policies have been implemented.

Obama’s speech was the same stale central-planning and class warfare, not just from his older speeches, but from every Democrat speech this century.

Every line of the speech is not grounded in reality; it would take copious pages to rebut.  Here is just the policy side from some lines and the summary of his plan that was sent out to the media:

If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.

So after 4 years of shutting down oil drilling, nuclear power, blocking the pipeline, and the war on coal, we will suddenly cut oil imports in half?  The sad thing is that Obama is not lying.  He will cut net imports in half; not by producing more oil, but by shutting down our economy and mandating the usage of ineffectual phantom fuels, such as ethanol, wood chips, switch grass, algae, and horse manure.

As for natural gas, we all know what he means.  He wants massive subsidies for an industry that is already booming.  In other words, he wants to double down on the T. Boone Pickens subsidies – a policy that Boone Pickens has already renounced.

We’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration in the last three years, and we’ll open more.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading...