The Keystone Abomination: Trump Will Learn It's Easier To Sign Some Exec Actions Than To Carry Them Out

"President Trump will live to regret the actions he's taken today"-
Michael Brune, Executive Director, The Sierra Club.

The misfit and stooge occupying the White House, Donald J.Trump, has naturally neglected the difficult parts of the job of chief executive to do showy, signing photo ops.

After all, it's a lot easier to just put pen to paper in front of clicking cameras to fuck people out of their Medicaid benefits, rights to clean water, or reproductive choice - than to man up and to the heavy lifting needed to get this nation back on track. But for Trump, the consummate showman, it's all about carny barking and show.

No surprise then that Trump also has signed a document clearing the way to government approval of the Keystone XL pipeline as well as for another called the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota. What he will learn, however, is that millions of citizens are not prepared to just sit by and let those actually manifest - not with a planet that can ill afford any more of that crap coming out of the ground.

Proposed by a Canadian firm (Trans Canada), the Keystone pipeline would carry 800,000 barrels a day from the Canadian oil sands to the Gulf Coast. Republicans and some Democrats argued that the project would create jobs and expand energy resources, while environmentalists said it would encourage a form of oil extraction that produces more gases that warm the planet than normal petroleum

As noted in an earlier blog: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/bill-mckibbens-prediction-of-nightmare.html

Climate scientist Bill McKibben has developed models disclosing mathematical limits showing we have roughly 550 gigatons (gT) left of carbon we can deposit anthropogenically into the atmosphere before earthly Hell is unleashed. That “hell” includes the runaway greenhouse effect, to turn our planet into an endlessly burning pile of ash and refuse. Give a current 30 gT/year deposition rate - and assuming we don't add to it, don't increase its rate - that leaves us roughly 18 years- give or take a fraction, before we end up in a likely runaway greenhouse world. It's a world no one or their offspring would want to inhabit.

McKibben,  as early as 2011, noted the major contributor to push us into this hothouse hell is none other than implementation of the Keystone XL pipeline because of the concentrated carbon it will unleash over years. To remind readers, this pipeline will deliver tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Gulf Coast refineries for export to an international market. The pipeline would have an initial capacity of 830,000 barrels per day and would leave a carbon footprint equivalent to building more than seven new coal-fired plants. By the time it reaches full capacity the enhanced carbon deposition will be nearly 3 gT/yr. In other words accelerating the timeline to reach the 550 gT maximum carbon load the planet can bear.

Despite misleading claims of “benefits” by TransCanada, the downsides of this ill-conceived project remain the same and include:

1)  Building a future of dirty energy,  hastening our pace toward an uninhabitable world. The fact is the Keystone XL is a massively detrimental dirty energy project that would open a major export artery for toxic tar sands oil across the U.S. for at least 50 years. In that interval, massive spills and contamination of our water supply (already threatened by fracking) will accelerate cancers and other endemic health problems.

2)  It’s an unnecessary risk. The U.S. itself doesn’t need this crap oil especially since we’ve reduced our oil consumption by nearly two billion barrels per day over the past five years. This stat will continue to improve with the growing number of electric and hybrid cars.

3) Water pollution: A planned Keystone XL pipeline would pass through Nebraska’s Sandhills region, endangering the Ogallala Aquifer, which forms the drinking water for millions as well the water source for one third of American agriculture. In other words, a massive tar sands oil spill could pollute not only the water but crops used for food consumption. During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of water are needed to separate the extracted product, bitumen, from sand, silt, and clay. It takes three barrels of water to extract each single barrel of oil. At this rate, tar sands operations use roughly 400 million gallons of water a day. Ninety percent of this polluted water is dumped into large human-made pools, known as tailing ponds, after it’s used. These ponds are home to toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, which has worked its way into neighboring clean water supplies.


4) Higher gas and food prices: TransCanada has admitted one of its goals is to raise oil prices in 12 midwestern U.S. states thereby increasing revenue to the Canadian oil industry by $2b to $4b. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers, who’ve already spent $12.4 b on fuel (in 2009) could see expenses rise to $15b  if the pipeline goes through,  a cost which will surely be passed on to Americans as higher food prices.

5) Increased respiratory disease and cancer: The pollutants released by mining and refining tar sands will incept acid rain, smog and haze as well as other effects associated with lung disease and cancer. The solid or semi-solid waste, embedded in the toxic sludge, will unleash astronomic rates of kidney, breast, colon, pancreatic and liver cancers by the ingestion of the water soiled by the tailing ponds.

6) Climate disaster: Any future tar sands development – say via Keystone XL- will mean “game over” for the planet according to NASA climate scientist James Hanson. I already noted earlier how much extra load of carbon will be added and how it impinges the 550 gT critical threshold.

All of this ought to inspire furious opposition, the same sort as transpired when  Obama had contemplated bringing it forth. The same goes for the Dakota Access pipeline which threatens the water sources on Indian lands and has seen thousands - even Army vets- motivated to protest. That is bound to occur again, as the battle lines have formed thanks to Trump's stodgy, stumpy fingers signing these criminal orders.

Trump has also signed an order that begins to unravel Mr. Obama’s  (ACA) health care program, reversed his policies on abortion and housing and ordered a freeze of any pending regulations left behind by the outgoing administration.  The cumulative effect of these barbaric signings is not difficult to parse and will include: increased cancers from lowered clean water testing and protections, increased incidence of all forms of cancer as well as water-borne diseases like cryptosporidium, much greater medical  burden thereby imposed on citizens who will now face these diseases without medical insurance. This on top of increased frequency of abortions due to less access to birth control.  His climate depredations including signing approval for Keystone XL, will lead to a world no human will be able to inhabit within very few years.

Does Trump give a damn? Nope, only about his poll ratings or whether he really won the popular vote. His ego rules all and he cares not a whit about millions becoming ill or pregnant when they can't afford the costs. As long as he does the bidding of knaves and fools that's all that matters. This is Trump World, and welcome to it.

The Trump team, to promote these pipelines, is pushing the "new jobs" bunkum on the dumb Trumpies who believed the Donald was their deliverance. But not so fast. A 2014 State Dept. review of Keystone 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. Especially for people who will no longer have the ACA to lean on.

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.

And we haven't even covered the calamity that can follow from a massive leak that can lead to widespread water contamination.  For more about this, and what can happen see:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/25/487357502/canadian-oil-spill-threatens-drinking-water


In the wake of a potential rupture leading to a crude spill of this tar sands crap,  this is a clarion call for all out protests. These may even necessitate occupying the locations for pipeline construction to prevent enormous environmental transgressions that will undermine citizen well being. Once that water is contaminated  - as the previous link shows - it will be the devil's own job getting it back to its original potable condition.

.

A Bad Omen Emerges From Senate Dems : Voting for Keystone Pipeline to Try To Save Landrieu

The idea that a minor political gain can create an opportunity for environmental catastrophe is one that now must be reckoned in by Democratic voters, as they behold Senate Dems prepared to cave in on the Keystone XL pipeline in order to (hope) Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu can retain her seat as that state election moves to a runoff. This was announced this morning on CBS Early Show as we learn - incredibly - that a number of Senate Democrats have "changed their minds" on the pipeline and the reason appears to be to toss their female D-counterpart a bone in the hopes she can keep her seat. (Louisiana is a huge oil and gas state as I can attest, having worked two plus years in New Orleans for an oil company in the late 60s).

But if this is what we can expect from the Dems as the Reepos assume a majority in the Senate next year, then we are all for the high jump. We can likely expect them to turn on a dollar on a number of key votes (maybe even the "Ryan Budget"), giving the Repukes the filibuster- proof majorities they need to even survive Obama vetoes. Sickening is the word that comes to mind, but again, why I left the Democrats to become an independent. (Back in 2002-03 when Tom Daschle's Senate Dems gave in to Bush on almost everything- from wars to budget -busting tax cuts.)

Why is this a misbegotten move?  As noted in an earlier blog: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/bill-mckibbens-prediction-of-nightmare.html

Climate scientist Bill McKibben has developed models disclosing mathematical limits showing we have roughly 550 gigatons (gT) left of carbon we can deposit anthropogenically into the atmosphere before earthly hell is unleashed. That “hell” includes the runaway greenhouse effect, to turn our planet into an endlessly burning pile of ash and refuse. Given a current 30 gT/year deposition rate - and assuming we don't add to it, don't increase its rate - that leaves us roughly 18 years- give or take a fraction, before we end up in a likely runaway greenhouse world. It's a world no one or their offspring would want to inhabit.

Prof. McKibben,  in his November, 2012 appearance on Chris Hayes’ 'UP', noted the major contributor to push us into this hothouse hell is none other than implementation of the Keystone XL pipeline because of the concentrated carbon (from tar sands oil) it will unleash over years. To remind readers, this pipeline will deliver tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Gulf Coast refineries for export to an international market. The pipeline would have an initial capacity of 830,000 barrels per day and would leave a carbon footprint equivalent to building more than seven new coal-fired plants. By the time it reaches full capacity the enhanced carbon deposition will be nearly 3 gT/yr. In other words accelerating the timeline to reach the 550 gT maximum carbon load the planet can bear.

Despite misleading claims of “benefits” by TransCanada, the downsides of this ill-conceived project remain the same and include:

1)  Building a future of dirty energy,  hastening our pace toward an uninhabitable world. The fact is the Keystone XL is a massively detrimental dirty energy project that would open a major export artery for toxic tar sands oil across the U.S. for at least 50 years. In that interval, massive spills and contamination of our water supply (already threatened by fracking) will accelerate cancers and other endemic health problems.

2)  It’s an unnecessary risk. The U.S. itself doesn’t need this crap oil especially since we’ve reduced our oil consumption by nearly two billion barrels per day over the past five years. This stat will continue to improve with the growing number of electric and hybrid cars.

3) Water pollution: A planned Keystone XL pipeline would pass through Nebraska’s Sandhills region, endangering the Ogallala Aquifer, which forms the drinking water for millions as well the water source for one third of American agriculture. In other words, a massive tar sands oil spill could pollute not only the water but crops used for food consumption. During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of water are needed to separate the extracted product, bitumen, from sand, silt, and clay. It takes three barrels of water to extract each single barrel of oil. At this rate, tar sands operations use roughly 400 million gallons of water a day. Ninety percent of this polluted water is dumped into large human-made pools, known as tailing ponds, after it’s used. These ponds are home to toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, which has worked its way into neighboring clean water supplies.

4)Higher gas and food prices: TransCanada has admitted one of its goals is to raise oil prices in 12 midwestern U.S. states thereby increasing revenue to the Canadian oil industry by $2b to $4b. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers, who’ve already spent $12.4 b/ yr on fuel, could see expenses rise to $15b  if the pipeline goes through,  a cost which will surely be passed on to Americans as higher food prices.

5) Increased respiratory disease and cancer: The pollutants released by mining and refining tar sands will incept acid rain, smog and haze as well as other effects associated with lung disease and cancer. The solid or semi-solid waste, embedded in the toxic sludge, will unleash astronomic rates of kidney, breast, colon, pancreatic and liver cancers by the ingestion of the water soiled by the tailing ponds.

6) Climate disaster: Any future tar sands development – say via Keystone XL- will mean “game over” for the planet according to NASA climate scientist James Hanson. I already noted earlier how much extra load of carbon will be added and how it impinges the 550 gT critical threshold.

To his credit Obama has so far nixed this odious deal, which will only bring jobs for the very few (maybe 21,000 if that) and major hellacious environmental costs that would be a hundred times greater than the Exxon Valdez disaster if major leaks occur. Now, Obama must use his full authority (which no repug can stop) to kill this project once and for all, i.e. if the Senate vote falls short of the filibuster proof majority of 60 votes.

Just WHO is pushing this abomination on us? Giant oil corporations invested in Canada's tar sands and who have, as Bill Moyers stated in an April, 2012 appearance in on Bill Maher's Real Time, already contributed more than $47 million of campaign donations to Repukes and lobbying money to try to make it so. They are hoping that Americans will be too dumb or dense to see the hidden (and not so hidden) costs that will be extracted.

But evidently the Senate Dems don't see it that way. According to the CBS account:

"Louisiana is an oil and gas state and pipeline is very popular there. So Democratic leaders thought that giving Mary Landrieu something that she has been demanding might boost her chances back at home."

In other words, fuck the planet to (try to) preserve a Senatorial seat for the Dems. What kind of malignant political calculus is that? It's one that only a compromised political party - by too much corporate cash infusion- could dream up.  Even now the Repukes in the House are grabbing the language advantage for their own version of the bill by calling it the "Cassidy Keystone Solution" after Landrieu's opponent.

Make no mistake that this is serious. Approving this abomination (especially in a blatantly cynical political move)  will speed this planet toward an earthly hell partly captured in the initial scenes of the scifi flick 'Interstellar' and will be a threshold from which there is no turning back.

At that point the polar vortex, connected to instability of the Arctic ice cap from global warming, will be the least of your worries.

Raise the Minimum Wage in Return for Approving Keystone XL? A Bad Deal

John Thune on 'Morning Joe' two weeks ago tossed around the possible idea (with other guests, errr......political poltroons) of having a "deal" in which a raise in the minimum wage (to $10.15 an hour) might be effected in return for the Dems allowing the Keystone XL pipeline to go through. (Let's forget for the moment the hike in the minimum wage DID technically pass at the last Senate vote by 54-46, but the Reepos phoned in a "filibuster" because the 60 majority wasn't attained.)

Thune, in his monologue, insisted that unless the economy is expanding we can't afford a minimum wage hike. The Keystone - by providing some 50,000 odd jobs- would presumably allow such expansion, which is why this compromise deal is being knocked around by the pols. Thune added that we can't simply raise the minimum wage by itself if the jobs aren't there and companies aren't experiencing demand for their goods.

What he doesn't get is that there is little demand because people aren't being paid the income that allows them to spend, given their other obligations (mortgages, rents, utilities, groceries etc). Even now, 6 years after the financial collapse, 14.5 percent of families are food-challenged. They are having difficulty paying for food in the richest nation on Earth..  Hence, merely approving the Keystone will not in itself be adequate to generate aggregate demand across the board to expand the economy.

Beyond all that, approval of the Keystone would add monumental extra costs to the health and environment: more cancers, more illnesses from polluted air- water. In addition, the added carbon deposition - especially from tar sands oil - would be too much to halt the worst effects of global warming,

Bill McKibben in an appearance on Chris Hayes’ UP in 2011, noted the major contributor to push us into this hothouse hell is none other than implementation of the Keystone XL pipeline because of the concentrated carbon it will unleash over years. To remind readers, this pipeline will deliver tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Gulf Coast refineries for export to an international market. The pipeline would have an initial capacity of 830,000 barrels per day and would leave a carbon footprint equivalent to building more than seven new coal-fired plants. By the time it reaches full capacity the enhanced carbon deposition will be nearly 3 gT/yr. In other words accelerating the timeline to reach the 550 gT maximum carbon load the planet can bear.

All of this discloses that no deal should be made and the minimum wage ought to be increased based on its own value of increasing aggregate demand.  It makes no sense to approve Keystone and get 50,000 more jobs but then impose recurring costs that effectively are fifty times higher than any economic benefits.

Despite misleading claims of “benefits” by TransCanada, the downsides of this ill-conceived project remain the same and include:

1)  Building a future of dirty energy,  hastening our pace toward an uninhabitable world. The fact is the Keystone XL is a massively detrimental dirty energy project that would open a major export artery for toxic tar sands oil across the U.S. for at least 50 years. In that interval, massive spills and contamination of our water supply (already threatened by fracking) will accelerate cancers and other endemic health problems.

2)  It’s an unnecessary risk. The U.S. itself doesn’t need this crap oil especially since we’ve reduced our oil consumption by nearly two billion barrels per day over the past five years. This stat will continue to improve with the growing number of electric and hybrid cars.

3) Water pollution: A planned Keystone XL pipeline would pass through Nebraska’s Sandhills region, endangering the Ogallala Aquifer, which forms the drinking water for millions as well the water source for one third of American agriculture. In other words, a massive tar sands oil spill could pollute not only the water but crops used for food consumption. During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of water are needed to separate the extracted product, bitumesidesumaen, from sand, silt, and clay. It takes three barrels of water to extract each single barrel of oil. At this rate, tar sands operations use roughly 400 million gallons of water a day.

Higher gas and food prices: TransCanada has admitted one of its goals is to raise oil prices in 12 midwestern U.S. states thereby increasing revenue to the Canadian oil industry by $2b to $4b. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers, who’ve already spent $12.4 b on fuel (in 2009) could see expenses rise to $15b  if the pipeline goes through,  a cost which will surely be passed on to Americans as higher food prices.

5) Increased respiratory disease and cancer: The pollutants released by mining and refining tar sands will incept acid rain, smog and haze as well as other effects associated with lung disease and cancer. The solid or semi-solid waste, embedded in the toxic sludge, will unleash astronomic rates of kidney, breast, colon, pancreatic and liver cancers by the ingestion of the water soiled by the tailing ponds.

6) Climate disaster: Any future tar sands development – say via Keystone XL- will mean “game over” for the planet according to NASA climate scientist James Hanson. I already noted earlier how much extra load of carbon will be added and how it impinges the 550 gT critical threshold.


There should be no connection at all between raising the minimum wage and the Keystone XL pipeline. The latter is a horrific idea that neither the planet or the nation can afford while the former is long past due and would spark an increase in aggregate demand because it would give millions of workers the income to spend - which is what our GDP and economy is all about.  All the research done regarding effects of raising the minimum wage - except those coming from right wing think tanks - show it to be a boon for the economy - and with only minimal cost effects for most employers.

It is the right thing to do and the human thing. And besides, if we refuse to provide this increase in income we can't complain as ever more families have to go on food stamps to survive! It's either more food stamp beneficiaries or higher minimum wage. Take your pick!

Why Obama's Worst Mistake Would Be Approving the Keystone Pipeline

 

Mad Glen. Here's news. The earths orbit is always changing. Solar activity constantly changes. The earths magnetic field is weakening. Ice Age researchers claim another ice age is "inevitable". The Sun is gradually warming. Influences on our climate are in constant flux. To quantify the impact is folly, since they can't even seem to be able to accurately forecast the weather three days out.- A moron's comment at the end of a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Op -ed e.g.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/president-barack-obama-should-reject-the-keystone-xl-project-b99199410z1-243771981.html

 

 

Michael Mann, as reported in the Guardian two days ago, said it best: "if Barack Obama approves the Keystone Pipeline it would be the worst mistake of his presidency". And he means not only the political damage sustained to the Dem party, but also the environmental damage that would ensue. 

In his timely piece Mann also asks "Who is Obama protecting?" and questions why the State Dept. hasn't seen fit to incorporate the full climate impacts of the Keystone XL. Indeed, these mega-impacts have been well known since Bill McKibben exposed them and showed this is one step we cannot afford to take.

Recall, McKibben set out three threshold numbers leading to an uninhabitable Earth. The first was 551 gT (as in gigatons of carbon) which is the crossing threshold beyond which we surpass 2 degrees Celsius in mean global temperature. The effects here would be horrendous with extended heat waves, droughts, larger and more calamitous fires, and severe storms.  Give a current 30-31 gT/year deposition rate - and assuming we don't add to it, i.e. don't increase its rate - that leaves us roughly 18 years- give or take a fraction, before we end up in a pre- runaway greenhouse world, on a track from which there'll be no return.

To remind readers, this pipeline will deliver tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Gulf Coast refineries for export to an international market. The pipeline would have an initial capacity of 830,000 barrels per day and would leave a carbon footprint equivalent to building more than seven new coal-fired plants. By the time it reaches full capacity the enhanced carbon deposition will be nearly 3 gT/yr. In other words accelerating the timeline to reach the 550 gT maximum carbon load the planet can bear.

As Mann put it:

So, looking through the lens of path dependency, what does the Keystone XL project look like? It looks like decades of extracting high-CO2 fuel at a time when we should be winding down such carbon intensive resource exploitation. It looks like decades of oil spills across America's heartland written off as an acceptable side effect of making money. It looks like decades of continued political lobbying against any CO2-limiting regulations. If approved and built, it looks like the United State is failing to take climate change seriously by virtually guaranteeing the massive Canadian oil sands reserved are exploited. That, I'm afraid, is the real threat of Keystone XL – the loss of US status as a global leader.

This ought to be taken seriously. But evidently, too many remain uneducated twits and literal morons on climate change - as in the comment shown at the top from one numb nut posting in the Milwaukee-Journal Sentinel. This bozo scrambles so many obvious statements with half-truths, along with tropes and nonsense I don't think he knows what the fuck he's writing about. The Earth's orbit "is always changing"? Sure, Sparky, it's an elliptical orbit so has a nearest point to the Sun (aphelion) and closest point (perihelion), and it moves in its orbital path between these two points in 6 month intervals. So what? This has no bearing on climate change!  And "solar activity constantly changes", yeah uh, correct, it goes through an 11-year activity cycle. Again, no real revelation to do with climate change.  Sadly, the fool isn't even able to discriminate between meteorological forecasts and those to do with actual climate change (they "can't even seem to be able to accurately forecast the weather three days out ")

From there it's all downward, and this character has enough pals - also making insipid comments - that one wonders if this can really be a Milwaukee paper, and not one from say, somewhere in Mississippi.

Beyond the threat from higher CO2 concentration, none of the nitwits offering their misplaced 2 cents on the Journal site (there are a few sensible posters, but they are generally overwhelmed with 'lols' and baloney) grasp the threat of water pollution: A planned Keystone XL pipeline would pass through Nebraska’s Sandhills region, endangering the Ogallala Aquifer, which forms the drinking water for millions as well the water source for one third of American agriculture. In other words, a massive tar sands oil spill could pollute not only the water but crops used for food consumption.

Recent research discloses we need to pay attention. (See also my Feb. 4 post on the worldwide tidal wave of cancer soon to be unleashed). According to a study released Monday, the Canadian government critically underestimated emissions of a carcinogenic toxin from the country’s oil sands..

 

Researchers at the University of Toronto-Scarborough found that official estimates for concentrations of PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) in the region’s air, water and food are too low, leading us to underestimate their potential impact on human health. Jules M. Blais, a University of Ottawa chemical and toxicology professor who’s unaffiliated with the study, told Climate Central that “they’re some of the worst things out there.”

The actual emissions levels, according to the researchers, are likely two to three times higher than what’s been reported, and are present in concentrations normally found in a large city. Professor Frank Wania, one of the study’s authors, told CTV News that the toxins pose a potential cancer risk, and can also harm wildlife — particularly if the pipeline were to leak at any point along its 1,179-mile expanse. Previous research, the study also noted, has shown that exposure to oil sands water and sediment harms fish and other aquatic species.

The pollutants released by mining and refining tar sands will incept acid rain, smog and haze as well as other effects associated with lung disease and cancer. The solid or semi-solid waste, embedded in the toxic sludge, will unleash astronomic rates of kidney, breast, colon, pancreatic and liver cancers by the ingestion of the water soiled by the tailing ponds.

This means that, if approved, Keystone's long term effect will be to unleash so many cancers - of so many types- that Obamacare costs would likely bankrupt the supporting  insurance companies unless premiums are increased dramatically.  In other words, even Obama's hallmark accomplishment would be hobbled.

At the end of his piece, Michael Mann writes:

"Protecting us from Keystone XL would protect us from decades of continued foreign influence on US energy policy. Protecting us from Keystone XL would protect US land from oil spills and leaks.  Most importantly, protecting us from Keystone XL would protect our atmosphere from one of the most carbon-intensive fuels ever discovered.

If the president won't protect us, who is he protecting?"

If Obama is really serious about doing something to thwart climate change, there is no way he can approve the Keystone XL. If he does, he will have revealed his Neoliberal -market priorities once and for all.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/54062/keystone-xl-pipeline-to-america-bend-over-and-take-it

and:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/54061/diary-of-a-dying-country