Zipperfish Zipperfish:
No, just demonstrative of where a lot of people weren't necessarily lined up with the idea of "bi-partisan support." Meech Lake is another example.
Except, in this case, opinion polls align quite well with bipartisan support, with Keystone still seen as positive by a majority of Americans, even after the anti-Keystone campaign ramped up once more, using ads like this
$1:
Yeah, Tip O'Neill: "All politics is local." Probably true. My point is, though, that environmentalists are not a fringe radical element. There may well be opinion polls indicating most Americans support Keystone, but I certainly wouldn't refer to it as "overwhelming," as you did. If 30-40% of people polled oppose, that doesn't make them some radical fringe. If that 30% were homogeneously distributed, they would be a minority everywhere. Pandering to the opponents of Keystone is not pandering to the extremem left--that's where I disagree with you. It's pandering to an appreciable minority, according to polls.
Overwhelming was a bit of an exaggeration, but with the combined efforts of both bipartisan Congressional support, the constant approval of the Keystone pipeline over the last few years, support and/or of the governors of the states Keystone would cross through (Montana, Oklahoma, North and South Dakota, Kansas and Nebraska, there's hard pressed evidence that you can argue anything but continued, strong support by both the American people, and the American political leadership, with one major exception.
Certainly far better support than you, and others have been letting on, and certainly doesn't bode well for the various allegations that people (not just you) continue to make that Prime Minister Harper has soured the Americans to Keystone XL.
$1:
That Nebraskan aquifer is the Ogalla Aquifer, that covers about 8 states and upon which about 30% of agriculture relies. And it supplies drinking water to around two million people. So yeah, level of concern there. That doesn't strike me as a radical or fringe concern.
I knew what it was. I was saving myself from typing Ogallala every time I mentioned it, and more importantly, the pipeline would only be crossing the Nebraskan stretch of the Ogallala Aquifer, but, I'll keep typing it out now. The Ogallala Aquifer has already been crisscrossed by pipelines, including crude oil pipelines. A lot of pipelines. Keystone XL has been singled out out of the various existing pipelines, and expanding crude oil pipeline development over the Ogallala Aquifer...why, exactly? The risk of a leak would exist with any of them, no?
And yet, the new, approved route by the Nebraskan governor still seems to cut through the same aquifer that other pipelines also cut through. There is that strange area where there are nearly no pipelines of any sort in central Nebraska.
With a bit of research, the main issue for the Nebraskan governor was not the aquifer, but the Nebraskan Sand Hills, which the new route avoids.
Hell, right now, the Pony Express pipeline is being converted from natural gas to crude oil (started in 2013), which crosses through the Ogallala Aquifer across Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska...without barely any media attention nor environmental outrage to the same extent as Keystone XL. I never even heard of this pipeline development before this current discussion. Maybe you have.
Tell me again, how does a brand new pipeline cutting through the Ogallala Aquifer somehow pose a far more dangerous threat than the other, older pipelines that already exist and cross over the Ogallala Aquifer?
$1:
Yes, they may well be…and to get to get back to my original point…environmentalists shouldn't be characterized as radicals or some fringe element. Sure polls may show support, but that level of opposition can't be classified as extreme.
Not all environmentalists, no, but environmental NGOs can be considered a more fringe element, even to standard environmentalists. Considering those environmental NGOs have the significant wealth to fund an anti-Keystone campaign, over their views that the Keystone XL pipeline will be encouraging further use of fossil fuels over alternative energy development. If that's not an extreme position to oppose North American energy development, what is? Especially if they single out Keystone XL over US based oil sand development, and the production and expansion of oil pipeline development over Ogallala.
They are some of the major players to the anti-Keystone XL campaign. No doubt there are plenty of other environmentalists (say, the Nebraskan governor) whose environmental concern of the Keystone XL crossing through the Nebraskan Sand Hills was a concern that was addressed to his satisfaction.
How can anybody address opposition to the Keystone XL if they can't focus on the major players? Yes, not all environmentalists have extreme views on Keystone, but certainly, some of the large environmental NGOs are actively opposed to Keystone because of their opposition to oil/coal/natural gas in the modern economy, without having any major alternatives available to replace those fossil fuels. (And, one of the biggest alternatives, nuclear energy, most of those organizations are ALSO against!) I didn't exactly pick out fringe environmental groups here. The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the National Wildlife Federation? They're the ones stating their opposition quite clearly is based their opposition to fossil fuel usage and development, quite clearly not a mainstream belief.
You might have more rational reasons as to why you're concerned over Keystone XL, and we can discuss your personal views, including why you are very vocal in defending Keystone opposition (although you've said in the past you're not actually against Keystone XL) but, since you aren't the representative for the American environmental movement and their goals, opinions, and beliefs, so the American environmental NGOs are the next closest thing to gauging American environmentalist reaction to Keystone...and might I say, their positions can be easily seen as extreme, even if they support their beliefs through valid concerns.
They're not opposed to Keystone XL over the Ogallala Aquifer, or the Nebraskan Sand Hills. They're opposed because they don't like "dirty oil", as they stated quite clearly. I view that as an extreme position, but you might not. It's all subjective. I can easily label environmental NGO opposition being steeped in extreme positions, because, in my eyes, they are stating their extreme positions clearly.
$1:
Because Bush had made a decision and based his political future on it. He was invested. This is the exact opposite. Obama isn't invested. It seems to me he doesn't see much of an advantage either way. This idea that he is catering to some extreme fringe makes no sense. He's not going to get re-elected.
Oh, but Obama is invested as well. On one hand, he hints at approving the Keystone XL pipeline whenever an election is approaching (there are many, many articles over the past few years on this site that prove this) to help US Democrat representatives to gain a few votes, or, at least, not lose them (especially in those states directly affected) only for him to delay his decision to cater to the large environmentalist support within the Democratic party, consisting of major donors and fundraisers, as well as the business interests of Democrat donors who benefit from the delays in the Keystone XL (as the oil is being transported by other means).
A lot of the support for Keystone, and the direct beneficiaries are in states that go Republican anyway (Montana, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Kansas, and Texas) in federal elections, so jabbing those governors and those populations in the eye won't really hurt his political chances, especially as the rest of the United States aren't as invested in it (politics is local), compared to what might happen if President Obama jabs one of the major Democratic bases in the eye.
$1:
I was mostly talkig about Harper's reputation in Canada, but from those that are aware of him, it's probably not much better. He's not exactly considered a staunch green kind of guy.
Were you? Didn't sound like it
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
The level of cynicism of the Harper government is particularly egregious, and is probably contributing to the general level of mistrust Amercians have with respect to Keystone.
Again, either the Americans aren't aware of Harper, much less give two flying fucks about what Harper has done in Canada, or they are aware, and it's contributing to the "general level of mistrust" in Keystone XL (which is relatively small as both politicians and the American people have been supporting Keystone for quite a while now). Or, the few that are aware and care of Harper's record in Canada are the same ones who would be opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline anyway (a far more likely situation)
This has been something far too many leftists on this site has been doing lately, putting the issues of Keystone XL at Harper's feet, like if he can do much more than what he has already tried to sway Obama to approve something that would benefit the United States immensely. Problem is, the parts that benefit the most don't vote Democrat.
CKA Uber 
CKA Uber 
CKA Uber 
