Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline with Joe Biden and John Kerry at his side. (White House photo)
Never let the facts get in the way of the optics.
Obama has rejected construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, it was in all the papers.
The wire story that bannered the front of the Las Vegas newspaper accurately quoted Obama as saying the debate over the pipeline proposals was overinflated and, “All of this obscured the fact that this pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others.”
The story also stated matter-of-factly that the “pipeline would have little impact on greenhouse gas emissions.”
Define little. The State Department actually said that not building the pipeline would increase greenhouse emissions by 28 to 42 percent more than if the pipeline were built, because the tar sands oil would still be produced but shipped in a less clean manner.
The rejection of the pipeline has nothing to do with whether it would be clean or dirty or produce good jobs, but perception. Obama said:
America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change. And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that’s the biggest risk we face — not acting.
Today, we’re continuing to lead by example. Because ultimately, if we’re going to prevent large parts of this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.
Uninhabitable in our lifetimes? The predicted warming is 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 70 years.
The pipeline would have created 9,000 construction jobs and 40,000 ancillary jobs, but that does not cast a shadow over the optics.
Of course there were hosannas from the front pews of the church of green. “That gives him new stature as an environmental leader, and it eloquently confirms the five years and millions of hours of work that people of every kind put into this fight,” said Bill McKibben, founder of the climate group 350.org.
But nobody in the press is correcting them.
4TH ST8 
Reblogged this on Nevada State Personnel Watch.
I know who WON’T be “correcting” them (since they’ve known about it, and propagated lies about to for decades)
“The investigation comes on top of reports last month by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times that the company’s own scientists had raised concerns about global warming decades ago that the company executives contradicted.
Under the Martin Act, the state must prove that a company deceived the public by misrepresenting or omitting a material fact in the offering of securities.”
Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/07/us-exxon-mobil-climatechange-case-idUSKCN0SW01M20151107#mAMFELJdTletwHGh.99
One small factual correction: The article states that the pipeline would create 9,000 jobs. That figure is way low. Time says it will create 42,000 jobs during construction, but once construction is over, it’s good for a whopping 50 jobs. 9,000 must be some kind of goofed up average. http://time.com/4102868/president-obama-rejects-keystone-xl-pipeline/
Seems to me that just as Conservatives argue that we shouldn’t act on emissions until the science is settled, we shouldn’t act on the pipeline until the science is settled.
For those of us who actually care about what we hand future generations, nixing the pipeline is necessary to building our nearly nonexistent credibility. We can hardly ask other nations to do the heavy lifting while we refuse to lift a finger.
I would rather have seen Obama indicate a willingness to approve the pipeline in exchange for a small fossil fuel tax.
“The most baffling part of this decision is that this administration would rather continue importing oil from countries that fund terrorism than from our very own resources and our Canadian allies,” Kari Cutting. Referring to the same type of heavy crude (dirty oil) from Venezuela currently being imported and refined in facilities along the US Gulf Coast. Importing (more) Canadian oil would have enabled much harsher economic influence on countries like Venezuela who rely on the US importing oil for their economic survival.
No national security interest? This decision actually supports regimes in our own hemisphere that openly hate us.
Fun fact:
The U.S. imports more crude oil from Canada than from any other country, about 3.4 million barrels a day as of August, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Another thing for the new Republican President to take care of on day one…
http://theweek.com/cartoons/587070/editorial-cartoon-world-climate-change-al-gore
Your point about Venezuelan oil is well taken. Haven’t read of that before. Turns out that energy efficiency for Alberta sands is greater than in the past as well. A small fossil fuel tax (while reducing income tax) or better yet, reducing subsidies for oil, could have made the deal carbon neutral and helped wean us off Mideast oil at the same time. I think a compromise might have been for the best. Unfortunately, there is no compromise these days. The Democrats win this round, but there was an opportunity for everybody to win. As usual, when there is no compromise, the nation loses.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/cartoons/2015/11/beeler1108.html
NY Times, Oct. 26, 2105:
the end of this century, areas of the Persian Gulf could be hit by waves of heat and humidity so severe that simply being outside for several hours could threaten human life, according to a study published Monday. Because of humanity’s contribution to climate change, the authors wrote, some population centers in the Middle East “are likely to experience temperature levels that are intolerable to humans.”
The dangerously muggy summer conditions predicted for places near the warm waters of the gulf could overwhelm the ability of the human body to reduce its temperature through sweating and ventilation. That threatens anyone without air-conditioning, including the poor, but also those who work outdoors in professions like agriculture and construction.
The paper, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, was written by Jeremy S. Pal of the department of civil engineering and environmental science at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles and Elfatih A. B. Eltahir of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Previous studies had suggested that such conditions might be reached within 200 years. But the new research, which depends on climate models that focus on regional topography and conditions, foresees a shorter timeline.
Once again, nyp picks only those bits of the story that appear to support his beliefs.
“Human activities, such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use, influenced specific extreme weather and climate events in 2014,”
Note the word “influenced” and the words “land use”. This stood out right away.
Included later in the release;
“Understanding our influence on specific extreme weather events is ground-breaking science that will help us adapt to climate change,” said Stephanie C. Herring, Ph.D., lead editor for the report at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. “As the field of climate attribution science grows, resource managers, the insurance industry, and many others can use the information more effectively for improved decision making and to help communities better prepare for future extreme events.”
This is a new field and is just getting started. I find one thing most disturbing about the release,they do say “influenced” but they do not try to come up with a percentage of influence they would attribute to human activities vs natural events.
It comes as no surprise that nyp would leave these bits of the release out of his post.
Here is a complete, in context write up, from an unbiased source.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151107202528.htm
You’re both out of line. For science to attempt to assess risk is highly worthwhile. Claiming to know with certainty that either Armageddon will come or that there will be no major impact. is unsupportable.
All I am asking for is to what extent of influence human activity is having on climate, this new field of of climate attribution science is a great step in the right (correct) direction.
I (unlike the liberal doomsayers) do not predict anything.
You should read the Science Daily article.
Washington Post, Nov. 8, 2015:
By Joby Warrick November 8 at 10:35 PM
Greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere reached another grim milestone earlier this year as carbon dioxide levels surpassed the symbolic threshold of 400 parts per million across much of the planet, the premier global meteorological association confirmed in a report to be released Monday.
Figures compiled by the World Meteorological Organization showed strong growth — and new records — in the concentrations of all three of the most important heat-trapping gases, continuing a long-term trend with ominous implications for climate change, the group said.
The report is likely to add to concerns about global warming in a year that climate experts say is almost certain to surpass 2014 as the hottest year in recorded history.
“I (unlike the liberal doomsayers) do not predict anything.” By advocating inaction, you are implicitly predicting that minimizing emissions now is not necessary to protect our future, and you have been saying it for 20 years. Modest action at this time is not a prediction of the future. Instead, it is the recognition of a risk.
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?id=779428
“By advocating inaction”
I advocate nothing of the sort when I state “this new field of of climate attribution science is a great step in the right (correct) direction.”
I implicitly maintain and have previously stated, to do anything at all we need more information like the new field of climate attribution appears to be seeking to provide.
So you’ve been saying “do nothing for now” for 40 years and you’re still saying it, but you don’t advocate inaction. Riiiiight!
So you’ve been saying “do nothing for now”
Again you presume to know all about someone (me) by basing your conclusions on your prejudiced political views.
But you also show you have a short memory, Rincon. Have you been replacing your CFL’s with LED’s? (I was a very early adopter on those, skipping the mercury bulbs entirely in favor of LED’s I purchased from manufacturers (via Ebay) and we discussed that months ago maybe even a year or more.
For another example look up CMM1000….I have had one of those since 1999 and the company stands behind it enough to issue and honor safety recalls even 20 years later.
Just a couple examples….though you should not my reasons are for these things are not based on unicorns and rainbows.
Do nothing for now means what you advocate at a societal level. On the individual level, I have news for you: Almost everybody today has CFLs and LEDs. Nice that you were in the vanguard. The lawn mower is nice, although it would be much better if you didn’t have a lawn at all like many of your neighbors. It is a desert, you know. But it’s better than many. Unfortunately, all of it and way more is negated by how you vote and what you advocate.
How much grass do you THINK I have, Rincon. I told you I didn’t do these things for unicorns and rainbows.
Moreover, Clark county is the best user of river water in the west, recycling more than any other population center that draws water from the Colorado.
“societal level”
So the fact that NVEnergy dumping all coal and my opting in for TOU is NOT a “societal level” oh…I didn’t tell you about that.
Guess you just insist on going with your prejudice. Sorry, I thought there was hope for you.
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?id=779901
Prejudice? So now you’re on board about reducing greenhouse gas emissions? I mean in a way other than allowing technology to take its natural course as it would have if there was never an issue about warming. CFLs and LEDs are generally superior to the old bulbs and would have replaced them regardless. If your lawn is tiny, then the amount of carbon reduction from your choice of lawn mower was miniscule and therefore an unimpressive example. Nevertheless, I like the spirit! Perhaps you have some ideas as to how we should proceed as a society?
hyperbole suits you.