Sure looks like it to me:
…
We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared…
More from a few days ago.
“The parallel of Obama to Trudeau is frightening…”
Absolutely. My Uncle’s analysis of the Trudeau years is a template for Obama’s:
“Trudeau? He was just like a big, wet fart. There was a big noise, and everyone got excited, but in the end all we were left with was a damned stink and a stain we can’t get rid of.”
I think your assessment is about right. I can’t see how any approval would be unconditional now, in light of the election result and the radical posturing in his speech today: if he thought these sorts of projects were a good thing, he’d have campaigned on them, or at least started to position an argument in support of them today.
Further to the scenario you’ve sketched, I’m very concerned that Obama will tie approval of the pipeline to Canada’s acquiescence in some costly North American-wide crony-capitalist carbon-abatement scheme that would damage the Canadian economy, benefit only a small number of former Democratic politicians, and be greeted with Tom Foreman-style salivating adulation by the opposition parties and the Canadian media.
All in due time cookie, all in due time.
The eco-fascists put all their energies into their object of hate, one object at a time. Right now, that (constructed) object is the Enbridge pipeline. Despite pipelines being the best, and safest way to transport any fluid substance, no matter how toxic it may be, the fascists are out to stop it, no matter what. A means to an end.
If Enbridge is killed, just watch, the fascists will turn their attention to the railways, and transport trucks, taking their Idler friends/useful idiots, and block highways and railways.
Their agendy is eco-green-fascism. Their goal is to stop progress, by any means, one step at a time. I agree with what you say, there has been silence regarding the transport of crude via rail. That will change, guaranteed. Its far more dangerous, and its somewhat ludicrous, the the eco-fascists haven’t said boo regarding rail transport. A derailing is far more common, than a pipeline failing.
David Southam, you’ve got a good point – that Obama might tie pipeline approval to a carbon scheme.
Now, he wouldn’t get anywhere with such a tactic with Harper. But Obama likes to destroy; it makes him feel powerful. So, he would readily interfere with the 2015 election, and he’d openly appeal to the salivating Liberals and NDP to unseat Harper.
Why? Just because he likes to destroy others; it makes him feel powerful.
Obama’s remark about protecting US technology is so much cargo cult mentality. The fact is, that once a device or technique exists, technologists (scientists and engineers) from any advanced nation will be able to build or design an equivalent (theft of secrets is useful but not essential). David Goldman discusses this at length in an article in Asia Times Online (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/OA08Ad01.html). He points out that the Chinese are masters of appropriating other people’s technologies, but are not good innovators. The greatest innovators have been the Americans, but that is past tense.
After some experiences with Captcha here, I’m beginning to feel like the suitor
in Strindberg’s “Miss Julie” every time I come to SDA. Aaron Clarey gave up Captcha on his site, for Heaven’s sake!
could you imagine if a derailment of crude rail tankers occurred?
a few tank cars might leak, but nothing like the hemorrhaging that occurs before a pipeline break can be isolated and the contents drain out. Many of N.America’s pipelines are seriously corroded and at the end of their useful lifetimes.
The Northern Railway to Alaska is still the best option for moving oilsands product to the world markets.
Think of the culture that allowed him to be elected in the first place. People have devolved and America is a poorer place because of it.
But fear not for Obama Claus cannot deliver what he promised. The greedy crowds must be sated.
Obama will never let the Keystone Pipeline go through. An independent America is not one Obama wishes to envision or allow. If it can be done over his head, good, but I don’t know if that would happen.
Both CGH and David Southam make some good points but I have a slightly different take. Obama will approve the entire American portion of XL with some modification of the northern leg. That being that it terminates (or originates) in Montana. He will not approve it crossing the 49th.
This works for Obama for a couple of reasons. As production in the Bakkan ramps up the Steele City leg can be used to move Bakken oil south. This will appease his union backers as they are only concerned about the American portion of the line anyway. This also helps him with the environmentalists as he can now claim he is cutting off the evil Canadian Tarsands bitumen from traversing American soil. This will also please the likes of the Rockefeller and HP Foundations who have sought to freeze out movement of oilsands oil to market. Vivian Krause has laid that whole angle out with her research.
The labour unions get something, the environmentalists get something and the elite money players get something. They can all claim a victory and the enviro’s with the backing of the foundations will redouble their efforts to kill the Northern Gateway project.
Watch for it.
“The Northern Railway to Alaska is still the best option for moving oilsands product to the world markets.”
Utterly insane. If you think pipelines are expensive, you should just see how much a railway there would cost. For a freight route, utilization would be relatively low, unavailability from weather very high. Going through some of the most rugged mountains in the world would be as bad as going through the Himalayas.
And given the inaccessibility of most of the terrain and lack of any local population or infrastructure, derailments would be extremely difficult to recover.
And finally, railways move a lot less product at a lot more expense than do pipelines.
“Many of N.America’s pipelines are seriously corroded and at the end of their useful lifetimes.”
Irrelevant. All this says, if true, is that a lot of infrastructure work needs to be done to upgrade them. Far less costly than building new rail infrastructure. You should understand that France went nuclear in the 1970s because the cost of rail shipping coal a relatively short distance up the Rhone valley was prohibitive.
ET: “…that Obama might tie pipeline approval to a carbon scheme.”
No he won’t. You should know by now that Obama doesn’t do deals. Perhaps for all the reasons you’ve noted about his character, Obama is the least deal-making President that the US has had, certainly in the past century and possibly ever. It’s his way or the highway, and his inauguration speech and his entire first term made this very clear.
Read my previous post. He’s going to punt this one and declare victory.
If you think pipelines are expensive, you should just see how much a railway there would cost. For a freight route, utilization would be relatively low, unavailability from weather very high. Going through some of the most rugged mountains in the world would be as bad as going through the Himalayas. And given the inaccessibility of most of the terrain and lack of any local population or infrastructure, derailments would be extremely difficult to recover.
it’s obvious this commenter hasn’t seen the proposal or even looked at the route. “as bad as going through the Himalayas” is just downright risible.
And finally, railways move a lot less product at a lot more expense than do pipelines.
…and finally railways move a lot more different items at significantly less cost, both ways. Ever tried to ride in a pipeline? Or ship grain or other dry products by pipeline.
For those with an open inquisitive mind this might be of interest.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/16/alaska-bound-rail-project-could-solve-canadas-oil-sands-problems/
“A few tank cars might leak”
Remember Lake Wabamun? And that was on flat ground, not in the mountains where the cars could go rolling down the slope into the nearest creek.
Anyway, the relative dangers of derailments or pipeline breaks isn’t the main issue. Railway construction costs under current conditions would be out of this world. Once completed, the operating costs would be much higher than a pipeline. That’s why so many railway lines have been and are being abandoned while thousands of km of new pipelines have been recently completed.
Kate,
I read Bambi’s energy comments the same as you did. Let’s hope that we’re wrong!
Railway construction costs under current conditions would be out of this world. Once completed, the operating costs would be much higher than a pipeline.
A smart individual would read the information at the link provided so they could make informed comments, instead of merely off-the-cuff opinions.
I had a different take on what Obama would do to Keystone but I think syncrodox’s is more likely. My take was thus: Obama would not *technically* block Keystone, but would instead, through the EPA, enact such lofty & impossible-to-meet environmental rules, regulations, and restrictions on the project that it would become completely cost-prohibitive. Then Obama would simply blame the oil companies for failing to protect the environment (“We have given them simple, clear environmental rules they must meet, but instead of doing so they swarm Washington with lobbyists to attempt to overturn those rules!” – the rhetoric writes itself), and gets to demonize the Republicans (*) when they inevitably object to the project’s treatment. The unions get thrown under the bus instead of the greenies.
In any event, Obama will be truly unleashed in this second term, free from any concern about reelection. He cares not one whit about what wreckage he will leave to his successor.
(*) – the Republicans had better be on full war footing for the next two years. The Obama strategy now will be to utterly destroy them so that the Democrats can retake the House in 2014 and thus regain full control of the federal government. This would give Obama the last two years of his presidency in which to pass every far-left piece of legislation the left has ever dreamed about and cement his legacy as the most progressive president America has ever seen.
America is truly entering very dark times. God help us all.
I read it and it’s garbage. But then I don’t suppose you know any better than taking your supposed facts from what is essentially an advertising flyer. You ain’t gonna build a double-track railway for $4 million/kilometre in northern Canada no matter how much you wish for it. Furthermore, by the promoters’ own estimates, it costs about 50% more per barrel in transport costs than Northern Gateway.
Railways do indeed move a lot of product other than oil and gas. That’s indeed a big advantage of rail lines. But for everything else they move, they’re not moving oil and gas.
And finally, the route ships to the US. The whole point of exporting oil and gas by pipeline is NOT having the Americans tollgate it. What, you think the Yanks will simply let us ship it for free? Truly delusional.
A smart individual would read his own links to ensure they say what he wants them to say.