So, the first 2012 Presidential debate starts in a few minutes. I'm fairly sure Mitt Romney thinks he has an ace in the hole by using the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline against President Obama. In fact, he and his running mate Paul Ryan have said they'll approve it on day one of their administration.
I think you might hear Romney repeat that during the debate and back it up with statements not even remotely based in fact.
So let's take a quick look at what he might say and what are the actual facts:
Romney will tell you that there's no good reason to block this proposal. The fact is that this proposal would mean opening the spigot for 900,000 barrels of the world's dirtiest oil to flow through sensitive sections of America's breadbasket to the Gulf for export to foreign countries. It's that simple.
Romney will make this sound like the biggest best jobs plan American has to offer its citizens. He'll tell you it will create tens of thousands of jobs, 20,000 to be exact, as he's been saying on the campaign trail.
The truth is, it creates a negligible amount of temporary jobs with some analysis saying overall it's a wash. But even it you take the most optimistic projection from the U.S. State Dept. it'll only be 5-6,000 jobs, with a mix being temporary.
The fact is, there are many, many more jobs being created today in the clean energy sector, one of the fastest growing sectors in our economy.
Romney will tell you we need to keep the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline in America so Canada won't take it to China. The truth is, Canada doesn't have a public agreement to sell tar sands oil to China at all. This is because it lacks a way to transfer the oil to a port for export. That's right, this is about American communities taking all the risk so that Canada can get the majority of its dirty tar sands energy to China and other foreign lands. It won't stay in America, as Romney might tell you tonight.
Let's remember that everything Romney might say tonight about the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will most likely point to his thinking there is no risk involved, that it's a no brainer. This is in sharp contrast to President Obama who has said that the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment merits seeking additional information about this proposal.
And while Romney has said repeatedly he will single-handedly approve this proposal on the first day he takes office, President Obama has said, "The final decision should be guided by an open, transparent process that is informed by the best available science and the voices of the American people."
So buckle up and we should all listen very carefully.
I'm sorry that no one booked you for their show.
Even for those who promise more oil and jobs for Americans, they, too, will not benefit in the long run.
They're just too blinded by the possibilities of mo' money to realize what they are advocating for themselves and their progeny.
Yeah, but what you and much of the rest of the media hasn't told people is that Obama ALREADY approved the Keystone Pipeline project and its winding its way through the country as we speak -- Albeit in limited areas where if it's deemed "less risky" if a spill occurs! Daryl Hanna got herself arrested over this recently, where she tried to stop it.
That's why I'm voting for NEITHER of these rotten leaders. .
"Before the cheering starts, however, it might be a good idea to take a look over at the Kalamazoo River system in Michigan, where the aftereffects of a spill from another Canadian pipeline are still surfacing well over two years later. In a curious twist of timing, on the eve of the debate, the U.S. EPA announced that it had detected more evidence of submerged oil in parts of the river system and it has ordered the owner of that pipeline, Enbridge, to conduct additional new cleanup efforts." - Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1pbwr)
—Edna St. Vincent Millay ["from Renascence"]
Damn the EPA.
Damn the environment.
Damn science.
Sacrifice all.... at the altar of profit.
Further the US is a net importer of crude and refined products to the tune of 8 Million a barrels a day. Crudes from different locations are considerably different, few refineries can process the Canadian crude, the bulk of those that can are located on the gulf coast. The canadian crude will back out similar crudes from mexico and venezuella, driving the cost down. Transportation adds 5 to 10 dollars a barrel of cost sending oil from the us gulf coast to china, does not make good business sense. So, like natural gas prices which are at historic lows, more oil production in the US will lower the price we pay at the pump.