Keystone Stopped For Now - But Why Are So Many Dumb Americans For It?

"Every dollar that we spend today in developing and using more fossil fuels, is another dollar spent in digging the graves of our grandchildren. I don't want to dig that grave anymore" - Sen. Tom Harkin, on the Senate floor in debate over the Keystone XL pipeline

As the news was revealed recently  that the Keystone XL pipeline approval fell one vote short, one wonders just how much longer it will be before this Canadian abomination materializes. How many Dems will hold out before turning whore, and how long can Obama sustain a spine and use veto power - especially come January? These are questions that keep me up at night, and should also keep you up too,  given how the approval of this monstrosity would allow likely deposition -via spills- of some of the most polluted effluent as well as sky high CO2 emissions. If you think the emergency snow event in Buffalo has been a disaster, wait until even bigger and more prolonged polar vortices are formed (as a result of global warming), and the icy air encounters warm lakes!

What is even more incredible to me is how the Democrats could have wasted so much precious lame duck time dealing with this issue (all to try to secure the Senate seat of Mary Landrieu - which is hopeless, imho) when they could have instead been approving Loretta Lynch, Obama's choice for Attorney General. Do they really believe her chances will be better when the Reepos have a 54 vote majority? As Rachel Maddow put it, she'd like to know what they're smoking. I would too, since it sounds a lot more powerful than what's on offer her in Colorado.

Back to the Keystone: Another gripe I have is how many Americans have consumed the bullshit that this pipeline will actually provide any benefit. According to current polls, cited on Chris Hayes' 'All In', some 59 percent of Americans (the 'Dumbo' brigade)  approve of the Keystone XL, and only 31% are against it. Which means the majority have swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

These bozos have no clue, not one,  that virtually no benefits redound to our nation's favor- and the few paltry benefits that do, are grossly exaggerated. The pipeline is essentially Trans Canada's and to be put in using OUR land (which will also be at dire risk for spills) and piped to the Gulf where it will be offloaded to tankers and sold ELSE WHERE - not here in the U.S. Most likely to places like China and India. Hence, the crappola that it "lowers energy costs" and "promotes energy independence" is blatant bull pockey. Only a halfwit or ignoramus would buy that! So, it looks like 59% of 'Muricans are halfwits or ignoramuses.

What about the jobs hype? As reported by Chris Hayes, a State Dept. review showed that nearly all the projected jobs (maximum 42,100 or barely enough to satisfy the needs of a town like Pueblo, CO) nearly all would fill only one position for ONE year. In other words, they'd be gone, as in vamonosed at the end of a year. Big deal, all temp jobs! A grand total of 35 permanent employees would be needed once  the pipeline commences service. This is about half the staff needed for your average mid-level department store. Yeah, the pay will be much better, but the health costs will also be a lot higher - and one wonders if that pay will cover all the pancreatic and liver cancers when they appear.

The hype that costs will go down is also bullshit. A study out of Cornell, cited by Hayes, shows that consumers in the Midwest alone could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel if the Keystone is approved.

Obama last week hit the nail on the head when he stated:

"Understand what this project is. It is providing the ability for Canada to pump their oil and send it through our land, down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else."

So, in non-euphemistic terms, one is led to ask why so many Americans (the 59 % for) are willing to bend over and allow their nation to be so egregiously used.  Do they really want our country to be reduced to being a "bitch" for the Canadians? On the future promise of thirty five permanent jobs? Come on! Seems that they do! I can understand the Repukes' stand on this - but 59 percent of the people? Give me a freaking break! And as Chris noted, the biggest beneficiaries of the pipeline would be the fossil fuel companies who are increasingly spooked by plummeting oil prices. Thus, it's evident the approval of Keystone assures them of a way to jack the costs up again, and when dumbo 'Muricans howl it will be too late.

Idiot John Boehner, of course, has warned Obama not to use his veto against it, which is exactly why he must.

Boehner bloviated in a recent appearance aired on Hayes' show:

"A pipeline veto would send the signal that this President has no interest in listening to the American people. Vetoing an overwhelming popular bill would be a clear indication that he doesn't care about the American people's priorities. It would be the equivalent of calling the American people 'stupid'"

Sorry to have to bust your nuts, Johnno, but the American people in favor of it ARE stupid! If they haven't read about the consequences, and don't know enough of who is really benefiting, then why the hell should Obama follow the 'stupid' sector and allow this nutso pipeline to pass?

We the opponents, then, are the ones that need to be listened to, since we know  - based on all the facts available- that it is sheer madness to assume the development of new sources of carbon-intensive tar sands oil. This is when we know we can only burn about one fifth of all the known reserves of existing sources and hope to keep the planet from frying in the runaway greenhouse..

John Kerry's Clarion Call for Climate Action - And Confronting U.S. Hypocrisy

Secretary of State John Kerry's recent calls for action on climate change were notable as he referred to climate change as "the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction". In this he wasn't exaggerating, not one bit, despite the fact oblivious 'Muricans (in a recent poll) rated global warming - climate change is only 19th on the list of Americans' concerns.   This is pathetic, but I'm not terribly surprised given that too many fellow citizens remain woefully uninformed, or mal-informed!

In his speech in Jakarta, Indonesia, addressing a group of students and government officials, Kerry also said that  scientists predicted that melting ice caps could push sea levels up by more than three feet by the end of the century, putting half of Jakarta underwater and displacing hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Also, changes in ocean temperatures and acidification of the seas could also reduce fish catches in Indonesia by as much as 40 percent, he said, while typhoons such as the one that struck the Philippines last year could become the norm and “wipe out entire communities.”

All of which is true, and not an issue of contention for 97% of climate scientists, researchers. Indeed, Kerry took pains to identify and isolate those yahoo researchers who aren't serious when he referred to those who denied the evidence of climate change as “shoddy scientists and extreme ideologues.”

Though I am not sure about "shoddy" scientists, it's more like bought out scientists!  See e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/03/at-least-we-now-know-why-this-guy-spins.html

Kerry also went on to say:

"It’s absolutely true that industrialized countries have to play a leading role in reducing emissions, but that doesn’t mean other nations have the right to repeat the mistakes of the past. It’s not enough for one country or even a few countries to reduce emissions when other countries continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon pollution as they see fit

If even one or two major economies neglects to respond to this threat, it will counteract all of the good work that the rest of the world does. When I say we need a global solution, I mean we need a global solution.”

Which elicits the question of why he more or less overlooked the U.S. own shoddy record on climate change.  I mean, we're senselessly fracking so much land now, with injection wells, that there's a definite tie in to the 94 earthquakes Oklahoma experienced last month alone - if Rachel Maddow's report last night is to be believed. 

Then there is the disturbing recent report, 'How the U.S. Exports Global Warming' in Rolling Stone, (Feb. 13, p.32.).  the U.S. is now outsourcing, exporting high polluting, cut-rate, climate damaging fuels to other nations! In other words, while we portray ourselves as the cleaner and cleaner nice guys, we are happy to foul up the rest of the planet as we embrace the error that "there's no fossil fuel we will leave in the ground".

I've already noted the fracking obsession which is destroying the country from one end to the other, polluting water sources (even in drought-stricken areas like here in Colo.) as well as ravaging the landscape and fouling the air. For more on that see: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/07/gasland-ii-too-intense-for-wifey-to.html

and:  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/07/gasland-ii-fracking-is-worse-than-you.html

In the RS piece, we learn (p. 32):

"Despite the controversy over Keystone XL - the stalled pipeline project that would move diluted tar sands bitumen to refineries on the Gulf coast - the Canadian crude is already a large and growing part of our energy mix. American refineries, primarily in the Midwest, processed 1.65 billion barrels a day in 2012, up 40 percent from 2010."

How many even know of this? Until reading the RS article, I didn't!  And let's get clear what we are talking about here, some of the most vile stuff ever to emerge from the ground. Think of tons of coal, then think of it being melted and pumped out. That is what you have with this crap.  The RS piece referred to its evidence in play as "heaping piles along the Calumet River". It's the latest toxic effluent, that goes by the name "pet -coke" for petroleum coke - a "filthy byproduct of refining gasoline and diesel from Canadian tar sands."

The article goes on to note:

"Petcoke is like concentrated coal - denser and dirtier than anything that comes out of a mine. It can be burned just like coal to produce power, but petcoke emits up to 15 percent more climate pollution. It also contains up to 12 times as much sulfur not to mention a slew of heavy metals."

The article notes that in Canada "the stuff is largely treated as a waste product, the country has stockpiled nearly 80 million tons of it".

Meanwhile:

"Here in the U..S., petcoke is sometimes burned in coal plants, but it's so filthy the EPA has stopped issuing any new licenses for its use as fuel. Literally, "it's the dirtiest fuel on the planet".

So where does this crap go if it's of no use, or legal use, here?  Well, it's exported overseas!

As noted (ibid.)

"American companies have seized on the substance as a coal alternative to export. The market price is about one third that for coal"

In other words, the perfect fuel to dump on poor nations that can't afford anything better....or other nations that want to build their industrial base on cheap energy. According to RS (ibid.) : "Petcoke exports have surged by one third since 2008 to 33.4 million metric tons. China is now the top consumer and the demand is exploding."

Now, before anyone jumps on China's ass here, let's try to get our bearings.  China is the largest holder of U.S. debt and also anything they can buy from us, lowers our debt burden with respect to them. Hence, one can easily see why the administration would go for broke in selling this petcoke as a means to minimize trading liability. It's a way to also offset the tons of stuff Americans buy, made in China.

While the monetary factors are partly understandable, the article points out that "despite the dangers of petcoke, the Obama administration turned a blind eye to its proliferation". The piece also references a 2011 State Dept. report that actually "treated petcoke as if it were an inert byproduct".

The gist of it is that Kerry's speech in Jakarta rings hollow if these things aren't known - or (as the case here) they ARE known and nothing is done about it. (Kerry certainly had to be aware of the State Dept. report treating petcoke as an inert product. And if he's able to spiel on climate change, one presumes he knows that's false!)

If indeed, the State Dept. and Kerry are serious about climate change being "the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction" then what about petcoke exports?  Given it's the "dirtiest fuel on the planet" why do we continue to export it which, in effect, means we are offloading massive CO2 loads to other nations?

If Mr. Kerry (or anyone else in this country) is going to next bloviate about the dangers of climate change, especially the rest of the world's responsibilities, they better damned well make sure our own house is in order first!

That means NO more petcoke exports!