Politix

Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

ENVIRONMENT

Nebraska Gov. Approves New Keystone Pipeline Route

The decision resurrects a controversial environmental issue for Obama

Next>

by Lisa Fine

Staff Writer t

Image: AP

President Barack Obama's inauguration pledge to respond to the threat of climate change is about to get tested in the eyes of environmentalists as he faces the decision of whether to approve a controversial oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman announced Tuesday his approval of a revised route for the Keystone XL Pipeline that he says avoids environmentally sensitive areas in his state that had been a key obstacle to Obama approving the project last year, Fox News reports.

This decision brings back to life a controversial issue for Obama. Supporters of the project say the $7 billion pipeline would help achieve energy independence for North America and create thousands of jobs. Heineman, a Republican, said Tuesday that construction in Nebraska would yield $418 million in economic benefits. Opponents claim the pipeline project would transport "dirty oil" from tar sands in Alberta, Canada, and produce emissions that contribute to global warming. Environmentalists have also raised concerns about the impact from a potential spill, the Associated Press reports.

"Starting with rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline, the president must make fighting global warming a central priority," Margie Alt, executive director of Environment America, told the AP.

Via the Associated Press and Fox News
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Should Obama approve the Keystone XL pipeline project?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • twinertia
    !
    The tar sands pollution is just the start of problems with Keystone. Afterwards, the results get dumped into tankers that'll take it straight to China (or, worse, thrown onto the world market). Factoring in the clean-up costs for leaks and tanker spills, it's not even worth the effort to do it.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    Further I can support no project that allows the Oil companies to export north American oil in order to drive up the price of a barrel of oil. The clean up costs will be constant and devastating for America.
  • marine1
    !
    @jessejaymes some people would bitch if they were being hanged with a new rope. We can do this and we can do it right and it is going to happen, so get to it and put people back to work. Bitch later if we have to.
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    @woodtick57 Like the natural gas pipelines that mysteriously explode in remote areas. and the oil refineries and platforms that explode without warning, you mean?
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    @dances-weebles Paranoid that Al Qaeda is intent on attacking the United States? Not at all. I also believe that the arson wildfires set around Southern California are the actions of solitary firebugs. We are not at war. There has been no successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Oh wait, I forgot... that was a conspiracy by the US Government, right?
  • dances-weebles
    !
    @Dan_Tien oh, wow... is alqaeda 'intent on attacking the united states? we've never seen any evidence of that. in fact, i've seen a whole lot more evidence that says that the u.s. is intent on attacking them.
    get off your ego.
  • View all 11 replies >
  • u
    AceLuby
    !
    One $7 billion pipeline will save us exactly how much on energy costs? Can anyone answer this?

    If we took that $7 billion pipeline and instead invested in solar we could cut electricity usage for 1,000,000 homes in half, twice as many if used as a subsidy. Funny how we have money to spend on energy when it benefits big oil despite not knowing if and how much energy savings this would produce, but using that money to drive a new technology that absolutely will save Americans money on their electricity bill can't even be brought up.
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  • u
    AceLuby
    !
    @Thunderchicken You are correct, however we will be giving billions in subsidies and tax breaks to the refineries so I think it would still be good to discuss other things that will have a tangible effect on energy costs. While being 'North American' energy dependent is a fine goal, what does it provide the common citizen? What effect is this going to have on US consumers? And if this will have a 'job creating' effect, why couldn't the same thing be done BY the govt so that our tax dollars are being actually used to both lower the cost of energy to its citizens while creating jobs and helping the overall economy?
  • View all 15 replies >
  • harold_lloyd
    !
    If it were the last source available to be tapped, it might have been needed, but with the new abundance of natural gas, it's economically obsolete. Nobody will pay for the oil it's designed to transport.
  • u
    CaryNickel
    !
    If the states that the pipeline travels through approve the project, then the Federal government should stay out of it. Canada WILL build a pipeline to somewhere..and it can be through the U.S., and create U.S. jobs, or it can be west to the Pacific entirely through Canada and create no U.S. jobs. Every bit of oil produced and sent to market will help level out pricing worldwide. That is an unchangeable law of supply and demand. Add to that the fact that Canada is a friendly nation to the United States and deserves our support, and the Keystone Pipeline is a "win, win".
  • Roco
    !
    I'm not too sure it's simple as supply and demand when it comes to oil. Over the past several months, gas demands in the US has dropped due to the economy. Has gas prices dropped? No they are on the rise. As for putting more oil on the market and reducing the price of it does not always work that way. US may not buy it but other countries will and will pay a higher price for it. India wants more oil. At the present China is seeking more oil with its middle class having the characteristics of what our middle class use to be. Dumping more oil on the market will only reduce the worldwide price if all other world economies slow down and no new "conflicts" pop up in any of the oil producing countries causing speculators to foam at the mouth. How long will it take to produce this pipe line in relationship to the jobs it creates?
  • Brownie
    !
    I believe, they'll fine some way to up energy cost. Businesses is out to make a profit. My problem is trust. Will energy cost actually go down? Or will they stick us with high bills and tell us some crap about there will be a price increase for up keeps, and ect. And we still end up paying the same rates we have now. But, only time will tell.
  • scotta
    !
    First let me state this again,"There is no global warming." This was a made up lie in England. It has already been proven allrhe scares were devised by 2 sciencetist. They found all this false reports on the fine fellows computers. Second. They worried so much about the pipeline in Alaska, and now it has been proven that it actually helps the caraboo beards. So if them majority of this pipe line runs through the States we should not have some of the problems they ran into with the frozen tundra. I may be wrong but I don't recall a spill from the pipe line up north. Had a drunk captain navagate a tanker to run aground and cause a spill. So explain to me what is the problem with the pipe line that will cause new jobs ' not shovel ready" as was promised but that means a paycheck which means income which means spending which means income. Thus causing.taxes which causes revenue for the cities, counties, states, and the federal government. This will give the ass clowns in D.C. more of our tax dollars to blow.
  • Russell797
    !
    The oil will go on the world market and will do nothing to increase our energy independence. Tar sand oil is carbon intensive and will insure a continued rise in global warming pollution. To benefit energy independence, job creation and reduce emissions and pollution we should instead invest in clean renewables and a rebuilding of the electrical grid to a new smart and efficient system.
  • Roco
    !
    What I don't understand is the mentioning of making the US oil independent with the Canadian oil company has already pointed out that most of the oil will be shipped to a Texas oil export facility to be immediately exported. If we are not having any of that oil sold to us, how is that making us oil independent? Sounds to me like giving Canada a cheap way to export their oil to other markets besides ours.
  • RedFloppyShoes
    !
    More energy independence, means more money for American workers and more jobs. There are far fewer problems than solutions with this pipeline, just like there would be if SE drilled in ANWAR and the shale in Colorado.