White House: Not So Fast On that Keystone XL Pipeline, Cause “Climate Change”

So, the President with a carbon footprint around 41K metric tons, and a Sec of State who constantly takes fossil fueled flights all over the world, and also owns several homes and multiple fossil fueled vehicles, are telling us to hold our horses on Keystone XL

(Fox News) A new environmental assessment from the State Department that raised no major environmental concerns on long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline isn’t the last step in deciding whether the pipeline can be built, the White House said late Friday.

The long-delayed pipeline got a major boost as it cleared a major hurdle toward approval, a serious blow to environmentalists’ hopes that President Obama will block the controversial project running more than 1,000 miles from Canada through the heart of the U.S.

The White House released a statement pushing back on the notion that the pipeline is now headed for speedy approval, saying Sec. of State John Kerry and other agency heads will “closely evaluate” the report in the coming weeks.

“The president has clearly stated that the project will be in the national interest only if it does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich said.

Amazing. Kerry’s own State Dept releases a report stating that Keystone will have negligible impacts on the environment, and, from that link

The department’s long-awaited environmental impact statement appears to indicate that the project could pass the criteria Mr. Obama set forth in a speech last summer when he said he would approve the 1,700-mile pipeline if it would not “significantly exacerbate” the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, the report appears to indicate that if it were not built, carbon-heavy oil would still be extracted at the same rate from pristine Alberta forest and transported to refineries by rail instead.

One way or another, that oil will flow. Either the US can get it, or Canada will send it to China and other countries. Why would the American President and his SecState not want Americans to have inexpensive energy? Well, because they are far left hyper-partisans, for one thing. Also, massive climahypocrites.

(From Fox News link) “A decision on whether the project is in the national interest will be made only after careful consideration of the SEIS and other pertinent information, comments from the public, and views of other agency heads.”

In other words, Obama and Kerry will stonewall this for months, if not years. There’s no way they’ll approve it prior to the 2014 mid-terms, not wanting to keep the unhinged far left base from showing up to vote “D”.

Obama also said in a New York Times interview last year that there was “no evidence” the pipeline would be a “big jobs generator,” claiming it might create 2,000 jobs in the construction phase and far fewer permanent jobs.

Even if that were true, it would still be more permanent jobs than all his “green jobs” programs, quite a few which have gone bust, others which took the loans and created far, far fewer jobs than they initially stated.

Which is more important? Energy for Americans, which can help with reducing consumer costs, or the fake issue of “carbon pollution”, of which Obama and Kerry are in the top 1% of offenders?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “White House: Not So Fast On that Keystone XL Pipeline, Cause “Climate Change””

  1. Jeffery says:

    Pirate:

    Your understanding of the world oil markets exemplifies your ignorance.

    Even at full flow the Keystone pipeline would have an infinitesimally small impact on gas prices. Period.

    Obama’s touting of US energy independence is just so much political propaganda.

  2. Cold_Spring_Gumballs says:

    “The president has clearly stated that the project will be in the national interest only if it does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution,”

    Someone please tell me how oil in an underground steel pipeline can cause carbon particulate pollution of the atmosphere?!?!?

    Which is more important? Energy for Americans, which can help with reducing consumer costs, or the fake issue of “carbon pollution”,

    … the appearance of doing some thing about the world-ending impacts of a particulate of carbon.

  3. Jeffery says:

    gumballs,

    You’re confused. No one but you mentioned particulates. The concern is about the gas CO2, the most abundant pollutant created when you burn oil.

    That said, whether the pipeline is built or not will have little impact on either gasoline prices or carbon pollution. The major impact will be on wallets of the owners, which is OK, too.

  4. Monday morning links

    Comedians Make Weird, Horrifying ‘Stay in School’ PSA, Media Thinks It’s The Real Deal New York Times: Is waxing your pubic hair déclassé? Sippican’s Greatest Hits: Hostile Workplace Feminism’s Insane Leftist Race War Whit

Bad Behavior has blocked 6039 access attempts in the last 7 days.