Page 25 of 27 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 265

Thread: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

  1. #241
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    The way you phrase your argument has two much straw to contest:

    "one reason why that's the case" could be applied to a snowstorm or hurricane Sandy for why Congress acts the way it has. Counting the number of bills is as useless as counting the number of executive orders. The count is irrelevant, it is the content which is key.
    Funny, you say the count is irrelevant following a post where the only point you have about Obama's number of vetoes is the low count.... If it's the content, what bills should he have vetoed that he didn't?

    "if we didn't give a private, for profit, foreign company". Did we? I can't find anything to indicate that is the case, but perhaps I just didn't look in the right place. Companies are not given eminent domain powers and the creation and use of right-of-ways has a long history. Is it eminent domain, probably is, but it is for limited purpose and scope.
    Yes, property (easements) was seized all along the route via eminent domain. There is no question the company DID seize land that way - the only question is whether the "public benefit" of a pipeline from Canada to Texas to benefit a few for profit companies justified giving the company that incredibly valuable power over landowners along the route. It's aligned some principles libertarians with environmentalists against Keystone. Follow this link for examples:

    Let me google that for you

    "massive taxpayer subsidies". Again, couldn't find this, could you point me to where I can find that?
    The subsidy is the power of eminent domain - see above.

    "one way Keystone was sold". Again, the "one way" argument. Sold by whom and to whom? "shipping dirty sludge" sounds like propaganda to me, all oil is dirty to some degree.
    Not propaganda - the tar sands "oil" running through Keystone will be far more corrosive and dirty than typical oil. It's more costly to clean up, etc. And the process of extracting it produces massive amounts of toxic waste, dirty enough to kill waterfowl that simply land in the lakes made of polluted water used in the process.

    As for the vast majority of benefits going to the Keystone company, well, they are putting up most of the money.
    As I said, if they want to run a for profit business without getting the powers of Big Government Force to make it more profitable, that's fine with me. Some landowners along the route don't really want a pipeline carrying toxic oil sludge running across their property. I wouldn't either. They don't get a choice in the matter. If they refuse, they're taken to court and they lose. It's kind of interesting that the free market promoters and haters of Big Government are cheering, demanding, that we approve this project that distorts any notion of a "free market" and hands the power of big government to seize private property to a supposedly 'free market' foreign company.

    I have no stake in the Keystone argument one way or the other. If it dies, it dies. If it goes through, it isn't near me. I'm real close to the national Natural gas grid which goes along the edge of a national park. It is government land in there wasn't any debate of it going through. In fact, there are pipelines all over this country not even counting water and sewage. Somehow they manage to stay out of the news.
    The question is whether this pipeline serves the public interest or the interests of Keystone and the developers of the tar sands pits in CANADA, and a few refiners in Texas. If anyone wants to argue the PUBLIC benefit of this, have at it. I've not seen that argument made.

  2. #242
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I was talking about accepting lies.
    You're a conservative - you accept lies every day. Let's keep the discussion on the pipeline.

    Gas prices are affected by the world supply of oil. Do you think that Canadian oil is NOT part of the world supply of oil?
    Of course. Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't believe the pipeline will have an effect on global prices. And the reasons are 1) the oil companies are extracting the tar sands oil right now, and there is no Keystone, but it's getting to market. 2) If Keystone isn't approved, other routes to market WILL be found for that sludge, and 3) even if Keystone allows profitable production to ramp up in Canadian tar sands, the colluding global oil producers and refiners limit supply of product to keep prices within their desired range.

    So the primary effect is to lower cost of shipping tar sands sludge to Texas and other refiners. The big beneficiaries of that - really the only big winners - are the officers and shareholders of those companies who will make more profits from lower cost production. Little to none of those benefits will flow to individual consumers in the U.S.

  3. #243
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,811

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    You're a conservative - you accept lies every day. Let's keep the discussion on the pipeline.
    Well, you were the one who brought up lies. Perhaps you should keep your own discussion on the pipeline, eh?

    Of course. Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't believe the pipeline will have an effect on global prices. And the reasons are 1) the oil companies are extracting the tar sands oil right now, and there is no Keystone, but it's getting to market. 2) If Keystone isn't approved, other routes to market WILL be found for that sludge, and 3) even if Keystone allows profitable production to ramp up in Canadian tar sands, the colluding global oil producers and refiners limit supply of product to keep prices within their desired range.

    So the primary effect is to lower cost of shipping tar sands sludge to Texas and other refiners. The big beneficiaries of that - really the only big winners - are the officers and shareholders of those companies who will make more profits from lower cost production. Little to none of those benefits will flow to individual consumers in the U.S.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  4. #244
    stb
    Nilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Beantown
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 09:17 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    6,217

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    If it is to stay within energy, I would rather the money should go towards nuclear development than wind/solar etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    We already subsidize the oil industry. My point was that it was dumb to nix the pipeline, as it could be used as a bargaining chip. Do you need for me to clarify further?
    Maybe the issue is too important to be considered a bargaining chip or political tool.
    Last edited by Nilly; 11-21-14 at 12:53 PM.
    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK

  5. #245
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,064

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by Nilly View Post
    If it is to stay within energy, I would rather the money should go towards nuclear development than wind/solar etc.



    Maybe the issue is too important to be considered a bargaining chip or political tool.
    no, it isn't. the oil is going to get pumped and refined whether or not we build the pipeline. what we could do, though is to trade it for renewable / nuclear funding.

    we won't, though. the country is so polarized that the two sides won't work together on anything.

  6. #246
    stb
    Nilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Beantown
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 09:17 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    6,217

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    no, it isn't. the oil is going to get pumped and refined whether or not we build the pipeline. what we could do, though is to trade it for renewable / nuclear funding.

    we won't, though. the country is so polarized that the two sides won't work together on anything.
    So if the oil is going to get pumped and refined whether or not we build the pipeline, splashing $7b on it hardly seems the most prudent idea. I agree that political polarization is particularly crippling on progress in energy. Probably because it straddles the economy and the environment so much.
    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK

  7. #247
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,064

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by Nilly View Post
    So if the oil is going to get pumped and refined whether or not we build the pipeline, splashing $7b on it hardly seems the most prudent idea. I agree that political polarization is particularly crippling on progress in energy. Probably because it straddles the economy and the environment so much.
    you have to pick your battles, and this one is a stupid hill to die on. politics is give and take. give them their useless pipeline and fifty jobs or whatever, and let's build more wind farms and nuclear power plants in exchange. seems like a good trade.

  8. #248
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by Nilly View Post
    If it is to stay within energy, I would rather the money should go towards nuclear development than wind/solar etc.
    Why nuclear? It's massively subsidized and has incredible risks, see, Fukushima. I live very near a nuclear plant and don't actually have a problem with it - I'd trade more nuclear plants for coal, or fracking in my back yard, but I'd rather we spend subsidies on less dangerous forms of renewable energy. I certainly see no reason to PREFER nuclear over the others.

    If the nearby plant is hit by a domestic or foreign terrorist, I'm in big trouble, and the area just a few miles from me will be wasteland for a generation or two, and who knows how far the river it sits on will take the nuclear fallout or what the long term effects will be for many miles downstream. Etc.

  9. #249
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    you have to pick your battles, and this one is a stupid hill to die on. politics is give and take. give them their useless pipeline and fifty jobs or whatever, and let's build more wind farms and nuclear power plants in exchange. seems like a good trade.
    If that trade was on the table, I'd probably support it. I'd prefer they "give them" the pipeline and strip the foreign, for profit company of the eminent domain powers to build it, but that's not likely. The GOP House already passed a bill stripping eminent domain powers from some for profit companies, with a big exception written into it for Keystone.

  10. #250
    Student
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    10-09-17 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    290

    Re: Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

    It shows how far we've fallen as a country when "creating jobs" depends on whether or not we build a pipe!

Page 25 of 27 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •