On March 8, 2012, the Keystone Pipeline Expansion project died on the Senate floor, narrowly missing the 60 votes needed to pass the project as an amendment to a transportation bill with a final count of 56-42. Republican politicians remain optimistic that the Keystone XL project will remain a hot-button issue to drive out Democrats in the 2012 elections over theoretical employment issues.
A big sticking point among Democratic politicians is keeping the tar sands oil resource for American utilization and not use it as a foreign export to support other countries, where the United States would assume all of the risk and receive none of the benefits. The Wyden amendment, proposed by Democrats to keep the oil resource for American consumption, was crushed by the Republican vote with a tally of 34-64.
What both parties are ignoring are the empirical data presented by scientists toward the magnitude of negative impact this project would have on ecological viability and planetary stability. Most notable is the commentary of Dr. James Hansen, a renowned climate scientist for NASA. His works on the greenhouse effect date back to 1981. All of his scientific assessments to planetary warming are either at fruition or in the advanced stages of systematic outcomes. His research has led to the discovery that in order to stabilize planetary conditions, carbon dioxide (CO2) needs to be drastically reduced. Even without the Keystone expansion factored into the equation, the industrial impact on the Earth is already generating an energy output equivalent to 400,000 atomic bombs detonating each day, year round. Further research has revealed that the implementation of the Keystone XL scheme would start an ecological chain reaction outside of human control.
Many Republican politicians believe that utilizing renewable green energy resources is impractical and unsustainable, foregoing evidence that fossil fuel is finite whereas solar, wind, and other natural resources are not. American constituents keep their eyes focused on job security. The pipeline expansion does not meet that need for the nation but would put a number of Canadians, Indians, and Chinese to work. Both parties are likely to find that making the Keystone Pipeline expansion a frontrunner debate for reelection will ultimately turn into a political career killer.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 27
You forgot to tell us how this would reduce the current gas prices by increasing supply. You also forgot to tell us how the president proved through his actions, how he supports higher gas prices by twisting the arms of the democrats that saw the pipelines benefits and were willing to compromise in a bipartisan fashion. 400,000 atomic bombs, really!
Yeah, the whole 4 hundred million bombs thing is scifi. But the XL pipeline is still a horrible idea.
oil is bought and sold on the open market as a commodity - and the higher bidders own it (just like ebay for those that lack comprehension)
plus to claim we need to keep the sand tar oil here in our country?
wow - didnt realize canada is part of the u.s., and that we control them ....
maybe if we had more demand for refining, we could re-open a few of the dozen or so refineries closed in the last few years. no - that woul dbe bad, would be new jobs, and more money in the us, that might cause real economic upturn, instead of the faux improvement we have now.
I am unable to respond to your comment for lack of clarity to your point. I would be happy to provide you with further information if you would please clarify your statement.
I would suggest reviewing the Dr. James Hansen link found within the article and listening to his climate lecture to see if that answers any of your questions. Thank you for reading the article and taking the time to post your comment. Your interest in the Keystone Pipeline project is appreciated.
And that is the point, isn't it? Why are they debating investment in a pipeline, which only furthers an unsustainable energy/economic orientation? No doubt, it is because fossils own so much of congress, republicans and democrats alike.
Yet, I am beginning to think that warnings about climate change are not enough to provoke political change. The voters simply are unaware of the potential jobs and energic superiority of renewable energy. Keystone is unnecessary, and if you doubt that, just go test drive one of the many new electric vehicles that are hitting the market this year. It's a very different experience than driving a clunky gas car.
That is a mischaracterization of the stance that most if not all republicans have about “Green energy”.
When the government subsidizes something it is because it is not viable in the free market. You are a smart guy, a $50 solar panel that might run my cell phone means that I would have to cover my yard in a solar panel canopy to run my refrigerator and I would not have enough power left over to run this computer. Yes I could install wind turbines and batteries that have very limited life spans and need maintenance that adds to the total cost of ownership. Ultimately, at this point the cost benefit ratio is not positive. I can imagine a day when these products are cost effective, but artificially increasing the cost of gas and giving government kickbacks, does nothing but create an artificial market that always has a negative consequence. If you took the government kickbacks out of the equation, would your electric (coal fired) car be cost effective? I have seen that a Chevy Volt costs over $100,000 to make and because of it poor sales, it may even be higher than that. You add that cost to the cost of battery maintenance, a family would be far better off buying a one year old used car, even if gas hits $5 dollars per gallon.
Thus my point and the stance of most if not all republicans:
Change is only good if you can measure an improvement, otherwise it is just a waste of time and money!
and we do nothing even tho this is a solvent that can actually eat away solid steel!
it is also a primary component of greenhouse gas and acid rain.
very scary stuff indeed.
ô ¿ ô
With that said Obama seems like he is trying to look like he is sympathetic to having the pipeline.