• Keystone Supporter Ed Schultz Now Opposes The Pipeline, Tells President Obama To Go To Nebraska
    33 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Ed Schultz, host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show, has changed his mind and become the latest prominent opponent of approving the Keystone XL pipeline. Schultz had angered Keystone opponents by taking the State Department environmental analysis at face value, arguing that the oil is going to come out of Alberta anyways, and the pipeline could be better for the climate. The report left some key context out, and over the course of the last few weeks, Schultz has had a very public — and fascinating — process of coming to grips with the arguments against the pipeline. Climate Progress’ Joe Romm was a guest as this process started. After ticking through some new supporters of the project on Tuesday, Schultz began his show on Wednesday flagging recent conservative arguments that recommended approval of the pipeline as a way to support Ukraine and oppose Russian military movements in Crimea. As those arguments make little sense, he noted this was another flag for him to take yet another look at the rationale to approve the final leg of a pipeline that would pump over 800,000 barrels of low-grade, sandy oil from Canada to refineries in Texas. While Schultz did note the very real threat of increased carbon pollution should the pipeline be approved, the argument that seems to have won out for him was the risk to the Ogallala aquifer: [I]Let me give you an absolute tonight. Something you can really hang your hat on. … The aquifer is feet deep. Not thousands of feet deep. I mean feet deep over this this territory in Nebraska. This pipeline if it’s constructed just like every other pipeline, it will leak. It’s an absolute. It will leak. … So the question is this, America. Do you want to risk — does the President of the United States want to risk damaging the aquifer, and I’m talking about irreversible damage. This isn’t something the oil companies will be able to come in and fix the aquifer. No. When that oil, if and when it does get in there, now what are we going to do? You are going to make void the farm economy in this part of the country. That’s the risk.[/I][/QUOTE] I think he brings up very valid points and concerns over this issue. [editline]6th March 2014[/editline] I forgot to add source and it won't let me edit, so here. [url]http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/05/3368171/keystone-ed-schultz-oppose/#[/url]
This pipeline is only about greed.
I hope this information really spreads, if true.
The Ogallala has been the major concern for the Keystone since it's inception and he's just now finding out?
[QUOTE=OvB;44152874]The Ogallala has been the major concern for the Keystone since it's inception and he's just now finding out?[/QUOTE] nobody seems to take it as a real threat.
[QUOTE=Aide;44148843]This pipeline is only about greed.[/QUOTE] There is a big misconception that this pipeline is somehow about American energy security. It is not. The pipeline is about taking dirty, energy-inefficient tar sands oil from Alberta down to Texas so it can be refined, pumped into tankers in the Gulf, and sold to the rest of the world. It's not going to bring more or cheaper oil to anyone in the US.
[QUOTE=Aide;44148843]This pipeline is only about greed.[/QUOTE] And creating jobs to build it, and creating jobs around the pipeline in order to maintain it, and making us less reliant on non-North American oil. [editline]6th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;44153630]There is a big misconception that this pipeline is somehow about American energy security. It is not. The pipeline is about taking dirty, energy-inefficient tar sands oil from Alberta down to Texas so it can be refined, pumped into tankers in the Gulf, and sold to the rest of the world. It's not going to bring more or cheaper oil to anyone in the US.[/QUOTE] Another misconception is that it's better to use alternative methods to transport oil. We waste far more resources transporting oil with the current methods, such as ships, trucks, and planes[very rare cases]. Not to mention the risk of possibly having a small oil spill on the ground, does not even come close to the environmental damage caused by an oil-tanker capsizing, or a truck bursting into flames in a wooded area. Any issues regarding the possibility of an oil spill can be outweighed with intensive moderation, as well as having things like concrete or simply pipe-lockdown systems for every few kilometers.
Taking the oil out is a bad idea. I hate to be one of those guys, but we're seriously going to be suffering some consequences down the road, and not that far down the road the more oil we extract and refine and use. We ship it to china, which isn't safe or going to be used under any standards of efficiency and "greenness" or we pipe it down to the states where eventually it's also used under low standards after it's sold elsewhere in the world. we also risk tainting an aquifer and damaging a huge farming area. simply not taking it out seems to not be an option at this point and that just sucks for all of us down the road a bit.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;44153630]There is a big misconception that this pipeline is somehow about American energy security. It is not. The pipeline is about taking dirty, energy-inefficient tar sands oil from Alberta down to Texas so it can be refined, pumped into tankers in the Gulf, and sold to the rest of the world. It's not going to bring more or cheaper oil to anyone in the US.[/QUOTE] If a pipeline is a concern, surely it could be shipped via train?
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;44153733]If a pipeline is a concern, surely it could be shipped via train?[/QUOTE] Trains can derail, and start massive fires. We have had quiet a few train's flip over in North Dakota in the last two years.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44153751]Trains can derail, and start massive fires. We have had quiet a few train's flip over in North Dakota in the last two years.[/QUOTE] Burning oil is better than permanent damage to an aquifer.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;44153733]If a pipeline is a concern, surely it could be shipped via train?[/QUOTE] what trains? american car industries dug them all up so you'd all buy cars instead.
[QUOTE=laserguided;44153789]Burning oil is better than permanent damage to an aquifer.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Lac_megantic_burning.jpg/800px-Lac_megantic_burning.jpg[/IMG] 45 people dead, downtown core destroyed in Lac Megantic, QC from a train derailment. Both options suck ass.
Wow, who would have guessed that anyone on MSNBC disagreed with the normative liberal position on anything?!? At least they didn't have to deal with the disagreement permanently. Research hydrogeologist James Goeke, professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska, who has spent more than 40 years studying the Ogallala Aquifer, phoned TransCanada officials and quizzed them on the project, and satisfied himself that danger to the aquifer was small, because he believes that a spill would be unlikely to penetrate down into the aquifer, and if it did, he believes that the contamination would be localized. He noted: “A lot of people in the debate about the pipeline talk about how leakage would foul the water and ruin the entire water supply in the state of Nebraska and that’s just a false,” [23] Goeke said "... a leak from the XL pipeline would pose a minimal risk to the aquifer as a whole." ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer[/url]) Is there any actual evidence that the Ogallala Aquifer would be in real risk from the pipeline?
[QUOTE=Prez;44153851][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Lac_megantic_burning.jpg/800px-Lac_megantic_burning.jpg[/IMG] 45 people dead, downtown core destroyed in Lac Megantic, QC from a train derailment. Both options suck ass.[/QUOTE] Maybe there needs to be better regulation? I'd rather humans die than have shit like this permanently useless.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44153645]And creating jobs to build it, and creating jobs around the pipeline in order to maintain it, and making us less reliant on non-North American oil. [editline]6th March 2014[/editline] Another misconception is that it's better to use alternative methods to transport oil. We waste far more resources transporting oil with the current methods, such as ships, trucks, and planes[very rare cases]. Not to mention the risk of possibly having a small oil spill on the ground, does not even come close to the environmental damage caused by an oil-tanker capsizing, or a truck bursting into flames in a wooded area. Any issues regarding the possibility of an oil spill can be outweighed with intensive moderation, as well as having things like concrete or simply pipe-lockdown systems for every few kilometers.[/QUOTE] as if there aren't better ways to create jobs
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;44153630]There is a big misconception that this pipeline is somehow about American energy security. It is not. The pipeline is about taking dirty, energy-inefficient tar sands oil from Alberta down to Texas so it can be refined, pumped into tankers in the Gulf, and sold to the rest of the world. It's not going to bring more or cheaper oil to anyone in the US.[/QUOTE] More oil on a global scale lowers the price on a global scale.
[QUOTE=laserguided;44153789]Burning oil is better than permanent damage to an aquifer.[/QUOTE] How would it be different? Regardless, oil is on the ground and its still going somewhere in the case of a spill, and it'll be dealt with in the exact same fashion as it's dealt with normally. . Even if we have a relatively small spill in comparison to an oil-tanker, truck, or train we'd be still moving a far superior amount of oil in a much more reliable method that would be more conservative of energy in the long run. Another thing to realize is that we already currently have a significant amount of oil and natural gas being dumped into our water-sources via shipping and boats, which is why whenever you are out on the water, its not uncommon to see a great amount of "rainbow water" on the top. Even if we have pipe ruptures, another thing to account for is fail-safe measures which would stop the pipe from pumping, almost immediately. First in the case of a rupture we have a system lock down the sector of pipe that has been ruptured, this means we stop all inertia and movement in the pipe, and therefore no oil is moving, nothing at all. Even if we have a slow pip of oil dripping out at say two or three liters and hour, we have effectively stopped a major catastrophe from happening, and from there it's just a matter of repair crews getting there to repair the pipe. If we have fail-safes for every 2km, we effectively null any problems that could possibly occur outside of EcoTerrorist going batty. [editline]7th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;44154823]as if there aren't better ways to create jobs[/QUOTE] As of the moment, not really. We have moved from an industrial economy to that of a service based economy. We have a serious cycle of poverty, and its not gonna stop unless we introduce basic income, two years of trade school tuition free, and a job migration program. [editline]7th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;44154154]Maybe there needs to be better regulation? I'd rather humans die than have shit like this permanently useless.[/QUOTE] But aquifers can still be used. Filtration exists for a reason.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44156623]How would it be different? Regardless, oil is on the ground and its still going somewhere in the case of a spill, and it'll be dealt with in the exact same fashion as it's dealt with normally. . Even if we have a relatively small spill in comparison to an oil-tanker, truck, or train we'd be still moving a far superior amount of oil in a much more reliable method that would be more conservative of energy in the long run. Another thing to realize is that we already currently have a significant amount of oil and natural gas being dumped into our water-sources via shipping and boats, which is why whenever you are out on the water, its not uncommon to see a great amount of "rainbow water" on the top. Even if we have pipe ruptures, another thing to account for is fail-safe measures which would stop the pipe from pumping, almost immediately. First in the case of a rupture we have a system lock down the sector of pipe that has been ruptured, this means we stop all inertia and movement in the pipe, and therefore no oil is moving, nothing at all. Even if we have a slow pip of oil dripping out at say two or three liters and hour, we have effectively stopped a major catastrophe from happening, and from there it's just a matter of repair crews getting there to repair the pipe. If we have fail-safes for every 2km, we effectively null any problems that could possibly occur outside of EcoTerrorist going batty. [editline]7th March 2014[/editline] As of the moment, not really. We have moved from an industrial economy to that of a service based economy. We have a serious cycle of poverty, and its not gonna stop unless we introduce basic income, two years of trade school tuition free, and a job migration program. [editline]7th March 2014[/editline] But aquifers can still be used. Filtration exists for a reason.[/QUOTE] Production of wind farms would make a lot of jobs
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;44157399]Production of wind farms would make a lot of jobs[/QUOTE] Yeah? So we have the 'hippies', for lack of a better term, against the pipeline. On the other hand, you have the rednecks who don't want to give up their precious farmland, especially because they are scared of the noise, light flicker and some probably think they cause cancer. They made a windfarm in my area two years ago and people are still bitching and trying to sue to get them removed.
[QUOTE=ATribeCalledQ;44158637]Yeah? So we have the 'hippies', for lack of a better term, against the pipeline. On the other hand, you have the rednecks who don't want to give up their precious farmland, especially because they are scared of the noise, light flicker and some probably think they cause cancer. They made a windfarm in my area two years ago and people are still bitching and trying to sue to get them removed.[/QUOTE] and the we have facts... like the fact that oil fucks up everything it touches, and the fact that wind farms don't cause cancer. Anyway it's not just city or farm land, there is some free space left in the world
[QUOTE=ATribeCalledQ;44158637]Yeah? So we have the 'hippies', for lack of a better term, against the pipeline. On the other hand, you have the rednecks who don't want to give up their precious farmland, especially because they are scared of the noise, light flicker and some probably think they cause cancer. They made a windfarm in my area two years ago and people are still bitching and trying to sue to get them removed.[/QUOTE] uh, why would someone want to give up their farm? You know, the thing they use to make money, use as a job, and feed the rest of us with?
Usually farm-based wind turbines are owned by the farmer/land owner and used to generate power for themselves and sell back to the grid. It's just another crop for them. [editline]7th March 2014[/editline] And they do have environmental draw backs. They tend to kill a lot of birds and [URL="http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eek-squad/wind-turbines-kill-more-600000-bats-year-what-should-we-do"]apparently explode bats. [/URL]
[QUOTE=OvB;44162368]Usually farm-based wind turbines are owned by the farmer/land owner and used to generate power for themselves and sell back to the grid. It's just another crop for them. [editline]7th March 2014[/editline] And they do have environmental draw backs. They tend to kill a lot of birds and [URL="http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eek-squad/wind-turbines-kill-more-600000-bats-year-what-should-we-do"]apparently explode bats. [/URL][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Wind turbines can kill bats in two ways: Blunt force and what’s called barotrauma. A tiny bat stands no chance against a turbine blade two train cars long, whirling at 150 MPH. [B]Even if the bat isn’t struck, spinning turbines create changes in air pressure as they move, which can essentially cause the animals’ lungs to explode.[/B] But barotrauma may be less deadly than some biologists think, according to an analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.[/QUOTE] :suicide: poor bats [IMG]http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/image_full/public/hoarybat.jpg?itok=9-yc78m2[/IMG]
[QUOTE=sgman91;44153955]Wow, who would have guessed that anyone on MSNBC disagreed with the normative liberal position on anything?!? At least they didn't have to deal with the disagreement permanently. Research hydrogeologist James Goeke, professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska, who has spent more than 40 years studying the Ogallala Aquifer, phoned TransCanada officials and quizzed them on the project, and satisfied himself that danger to the aquifer was small, because he believes that a spill would be unlikely to penetrate down into the aquifer, and if it did, he believes that the contamination would be localized. He noted: “A lot of people in the debate about the pipeline talk about how leakage would foul the water and ruin the entire water supply in the state of Nebraska and that’s just a false,” [23] Goeke said "... a leak from the XL pipeline would pose a minimal risk to the aquifer as a whole." ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer[/url]) Is there any actual evidence that the Ogallala Aquifer would be in real risk from the pipeline?[/QUOTE] I've sure gotten a lot of dumbs with no response. I've quoted the only expert so far and he clearly disagrees with the premiss. I guess sensationalism and emotion is always an easier argument than trying to actually use facts. [editline]7th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;44157399]Production of wind farms would make a lot of jobs[/QUOTE] There's nothing stopping wind farms from being built. This pipeline is privately funded. So don't compare it to government funded (through subsidies) alternatives.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44162544]I've sure gotten a lot of dumbs with no response. I've quoted the only expert so far and he clearly disagrees with the premiss. I guess sensationalism and emotion is always an easier argument than trying to actually use facts. [editline]7th March 2014[/editline] There's nothing stopping wind farms from being built. This pipeline is privately funded. So don't compare it to government funded (through subsidies) alternatives.[/QUOTE] My point was that oil isn't the only thing that can "making jobs"
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;44162781]My point was that oil isn't the only thing that can "making jobs"[/QUOTE] Government jobs =/= private jobs. Government jobs don't create overall wealth in society, they simply transfer it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44162810]Government jobs =/= private jobs. Government jobs don't create overall wealth in society, they simply transfer it.[/QUOTE] .... I'm saying there are other WAYS to make jobs, private companies could build windfarms!
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;44163265].... I'm saying there are other WAYS to make jobs, private companies could build windfarms![/QUOTE] Only if they want to lose money. That's the entire point. If money was to be made you can bet private companies would already be building them.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44163335]Only if they want to lose money. That's the entire point. If money was to be made you can bet private companies would already be building them.[/QUOTE] Private companies do build them. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_turbine_manufacturers#Alphabetical_list[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.