with Peter Sinclair
Van Jones himself is an excellent example of President Obama’s “commitment” to the environment. Jones, appointed “Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation” by Obama, gets the McCarthy treatment from Glenn Beck for about a week, and Obama lets him resign. Way to stand tall, buddy.
Who is the “Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation” now? No one.
And how has President Obama done on creating green jobs?
Lobbyists for Canadian Pipeline Have Deep Ties to White House
by Pratap Chatterjee
The Scoundrels Scheme:
TransCanada and the provincial government of Alberta are paying former advisors to the Obama administration – as well as former staff of the Hillary Clinton and John Kerry presidential campaigns – to help them lobby for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to transport tar sands fuel to the U.S.
The Van Jones’ Counterpunch:
Activists like 350.org and the Sierra Club have campaigned heavily against the pipeline because of the global warming consequences as well as the potential pollution impact. “Tar sands is not traditional oil,” writes Van Jones, founder of Rebuild the Dream. “It is a pipe-eating, planet-cooking, water-fouling goo that nobody knows how to get out of our water.”
Over the past few years, I’ve come to admire Van Jones more and more. He’s a straight shooter and doesn’t mince words or dissemble.
I’d love to see him join forces with Alan Grayson, Ed Markey, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
Now that’s a group that could Rebuild The Dream.
Jones is very confused about the Kalamazoo oil spill. It happened less than three years ago, not four — and to all outward appearances the river is back to normal. The EPA says there’re still unrecovered pockets of submerged oil on the bottom, but the affected section of the Kalamazoo River (from Marshall to Battle Creek) is open for boating and fishing.
And Jones is wrong about other things, too. For instance, not all conventional crude floats (though most does), and “this stuff” does not “eat pipes.”
And then there’s the silly nonsense about the refusal of the companies involved in the Keystone XL project to say in advance where they’ll sell the oil. Jones thinks (or pretends to think) that means it’ll all go to China. But the reality is that where it’ll go will be determined by the market. The sellers will sell for the highest price they can get, and the buyers will buy for the lowest price they can find, as always. The sellers would be idiots to promise in advance where they’ll sell the oil. The competitive market and the fungibility of oil ensures that regardless of where any particular barrel of oil ends up, importing more oil from Canada by overland pipeline means we’ll import less from the Middle East by tanker.
But the post ironic thing I spotted in this “crude” propaganda piece was the photos of oil-killed water foul at the end. Those birds died because of oil that had to be transported over WATER. That oil was either from tanker spills or off-shore drilling — both of which are needed because there’s not enough onshore oil production in North America. This oil will be transported from Canada almost entirely over LAND, which drastically reduces the risk and and extent of spills.
America needs oil. We’ll get it from somewhere. If you’re REALLY worried about oil spills, then you should seek to maximize the amount of oil that is transported over land, by pipelines, to thereby minimize the amount of oil that is transported over water.
typo: s/post ironic/most ironic/
(it must be my bedtime)
Your spelling is quite good, actually. It’s your ability to consider the bigger picture that is impaired. There are so many examples of nitpicking detail but ignoring Van Jones’s main points in your reponse, it’s hilarious, but I’ll just take one example.
You’re correct in that the Keystone XL oil would go to the highest bidder on the open market. Tell me how building the pipeline SO that oil goes to the open market with a cheaper transport cost benefits the U.S. as far as pricing? Isn’t it in the United States’s interest to landlock that oil? Higher transport costs for bitumen oil to get to China gives the U.S. a SIGNIFICANT price advantage for that oil.
The Keystone is primarily about getting that oil to the Gulf Coast for the export markets. It’s currently going to the Midwest and its refineries now, though, and U.S. farmers are enjoying cheaper diesel costs as a result.
It’s the same dynamics with natural gas. North America has much lower NG prices than the rest of the world, because the bulk of the supply is here, and it’s rather expensive to ship it elsewhere. You’ll always hear a Republican saying we desperately need NG, but you’ll never hear a Republican saying we should limit or prevent building LNG ports to export natural gas (and thereby raise domestic prices). Why is that?
You make some extremely important points.
1) I completely agree that the sole purpose of the Keystone XL pipeline is to relieve a bottleneck in the distribution chain for Alberta dilbit.
2) This glut has kept the benchmark price of WTI at Cushing at $15 to $20 below the price of Brent at Rotterdam for at least the past two years.
3) This has meant lower prices in the Heartland as you say.
4) The goal of the Keystone pipeline is to screw the Republicans in all the red states in the center of the country but they are all too damn dumb or corrupt or hypocritical to look out for their own best interest.
5) Politics in America is weird. As weird as they’ve ever been in this nation, with the possible exception of the politics of secession circa 1860.
America needs oil???? And tobaco and drugs and ddt? What the earth needs is for you to get of the fuel adiction
You’re religious – what do you think Jesus would do?
Tar sands must be designated off-limits for commercial extraction.
The world won’t need them if it will only wake the f**k up.
1. Solar is already at parity already.
2. Mining tar sands is like a nicotine addict raiding ash trays for dog ends.
3. Mining tar sands aren’t just like burning the furniture to heat the house, they are like lighting a tyre in the living room without windows – our living room.
4. Environmental destruction is totally beyond biblical in scale and unacceptable.
Unrenewable hydrocarbons are too valuable to burn, in many more ways than just price.
All I see here is more of the same: homo fatuus brutus demonstrating a lack of vision.
Interesting. But that do you mean?
Yes, I do mean that (sic). If humanity had vision, you and I would have no need to converse at all. Instead, I would be off enjoying life, instead of prematurely mourning what may be the end of all we know.
Climate Change Is A Work of Fiction….
So says the Guardian newspaper which sees a new genre in the horror/apocalypse/sci-fi category:
ahaveland-Nice. I particularly like 2. and 3. As far as the Kalamzoo River being back to normal, take a look at recent EPA clean up activities, see the amounts spent, and decide for yourself.
Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
"The sharpest climate denier debunker on YouTube."
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 3,026 other followers