Pipeline decision will signal future energy policy
December 2, 2012 at 6:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
It’s a decision President Obama put off during the 2012 campaign, but now that he’s won a second term, his next move on a proposed oil pipeline between the U.S. and Canada may signal how he will deal with climate and energy issues in the next four years.
Continue Reading
This is just the start of the Obama/Clinton dynasty,,,,,,,,,,,, you have seen NOTHING yet !!!
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
28
In review- The pipeline is needed so the shareholders can access the world market for oil products where price is set based on world wide supply. Please take this question out of the concept that it will help energy independence or keep the US price at the pump more affordable. That is just the nature of this business. The question is whether the US allows a foreign company to put both private and public lands and resources at long term risk for the profits of a foreign company and the temporary construction jobs it will bring. If you want long term energy jobs that involve big chunks of steel and lower cost in the future try rebuilding the electrical grid.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
12
Probably the best comment of the bunch. Transcanada already built one pipeline down the eastern dakotas and nebraska. They are good at it. It provided a few thousand jobs for less than 2 years and it takes fewer than 100 to run it so it is not the big job creator everyone thinks it will be. Second, even if the pipeline is built, it will go to refineries, then exported rather than have any effect on gas prices. The rest of the world is willing to pay more for gas than we are. Third, I expect the pipeline will be approved. The state of Nebraska was the one who pulled the plug and asked for the changes, not Obama. Those who complain Obama did it are delusional. Don’t you believe in state’s rights and agree that the Nebraska could do so. Once the new route is reviewed and approved, I bet the pipeline is approved. As to Texas, the pipeline ran into a combination of environmental groups combined with the Not In My Backyard conservatives who all voted for Bush and Romney. I just find it laughable, but common, that many want it both ways. Build the pipeline but not in my backyard (just like arguments over the siting of high voltage power lines up here).
Like or Dislike:
16 
4
Gee, I wonder how all those protesters got to the site if they didn’t consume “dirty energy”?
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
20
I’ll bet they use toilet paper too, therefore it must come from old growth forests, right? Nothing like putting your conclusion before your premise.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
22
Let’s see–an environmentally destructive product that creates more environmental disruption and destruction. I don’t get it, what’s not to like?
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
26
You’ve just got to love the environmentalist’s attitude that allows them to waltz through life without even leaving footprints. These bozos are so deluded that they don’t/can’t see their own hypocrisy. Until that day comes when they actually stop using fossil fuels, stop using electricity, stop burning any fuels to keep warm(including wood), and stop producing sewage, they lack any basis for pointing fingers at others. They don’t seem to have a problem using gadgets produced by the dirtiest of all industries, AKA, electronics. But then again, when has their own hypocrisy and ignorance ever stopped them from making a fool of themselves, either.
Hot debate. What do you think?
33 
20
The only way for environmentalists to avoid hypocrisy and avoid using fossil fuels is to keep pushing for change and new energy solutions.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
19
Pushing for change while continuing to use it, the very definition of hypocrisy. These very same folk also rail against poverty, but are not to be found when it comes time to actually GIVE some of THEIR money to support the cause. All they want to do is protest and stand in the limelight, while the real worker, most of whom are conservatives, quietly go about the business of helping the poor. They realize that it is better to help by actually giving and serving, than to make a public spectacle of themselves pretending to be outraged.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
23
You clearly don’t have any idea how much fossil fuels these people use, or how much time or money they donate to charity, because you don’t know them. You are just making things up.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
24
Using numbers from a nationally recognized survey on charitable giving, the surveyors found that conservatives gave more than liberals, and that the lower the conservative’s income, the more they gave as a percentage of their income. Curiously, the most affluent(effluential) liberals were also the stingiest with their own money, choosing to spend other people’s money, or at least dictate how it was spent. I also find it amusing that the self appointed messiah of globull warming, Al “I invented the internet” Gore spends more annually on utilities for his palatial mansion than I make in my retirement. Not to mention the tons of CO2 he needlessly adds to the environment with his personal jet. How can any sane individual claim to follow this clown when he doesn’t even practice what he preaches? And what do you call the followers of an exposed cultic lead like Gore other than mindless minions? You guys have lost face and are trying to restore it by following the wrong path. Wake up! Cut your losses! Think for yourselves before it’s too late.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
22
@Hugh
I’ve seen the study. I’ve also seen the many times people have debunked its findings. In the study, many of the most Republican states have the highest charitable deductions. And Utah leads the way by a lot. Which led many to wonder why. Turns out, if you factor out donations to support your church (which Mormons in Utah do quite a bit and folks in the southern Red states do a lot) the numbers twist around and the top givers left are the ones from the blue states.
Always good to do a little research on talking points before they explode.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
16
Rick, by your response it’s pretty clear you did NOT read the whole article because it specifically addressed some of your preconceived biases. But then again, you have just acted out a typical liberal reaction: if you can’t refute the content with facts, demagogue it, demonize it, lie about it, and do whatever you can to distract the reader. Nice try, but you’ll find that people are beginning to catch on to your (the Left’s) tactics.
BTW, this article was published in that bastion of liberalism, the NY Times. Now ask yourself, why would they publish something that isn’t true? Are they lying now? Or have they always been dishonest? Either way, the Left’s most prestigious mouthpiece would appear to have a credibility problem if what you claim is true. On the whole of it, I think I’ll place my bets with an organization with at least a little more credibility than you.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
20
Sorry Hugh, I have had the advantage of reading Arthur Brooks’ book and the many criticisms since it was originally published. Shortcomings of the book that have been cited include:
* Failure to consider discretionary income as affected by urban vs rural populations
* Reliance on only a couple of sources of data
* Not noting the contradictions in the data actually used
* Misfactoring many of the analyses
* Not including significant aspects of charity not easily measurable (the value of volunteerism)
I can point you to four of five research responses regarding the problems with the book. Don’t get me wrong, it isn’t as cherry-picked as your average Ann Coulter book, but the authors pretty clearly started with a viewpoint and then found (limited data) to support their point-of-view. You know that it is a weak case when within days of it being released others who write in the field were using their own data to show how the book does not conclude what it suggests.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
16
I wouldn’t call giving to your church charity. Even if that church uses a portion of that money for a charitable cause I still wouldn’t count it. Too many strings attached. If the person receiving aid from the church has to listen to a bunch of dogma in return, did they not then pay?
With that in mind like Rick said it would invalidate those statistics. True giving would be to give with no stipulations. No pushing of your own beliefs.
Like or Dislike:
13 
13
of course conservatives give more to charity because none of them actually need it. Thats like saying conservatives invest/save more…yah they should be able to.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
“Pushing for change will continuing to use it, the very definition of hypocracy”
People in America use dirty energy, because energy producers, auto companies, and the politicians they support have created a built environment that makes it impossible to get around without using fossil fuels. Google the Great American streetcar scandal.
Like or Dislike:
16 
2
Merv, once again I find myself agreeing with you. Yes the streetcar fiasco was committed by big corporations that could only make money if the streetcars were eleiminated and replaced by buses (made by one of the partners in the crime) that used gas or diesel (made by another of the partners in the crime) and used tires (made by yet another of the partners in the crime). I didn’t read your link but I recall that Rockefeller was one of the key players in the change-over. However I must wonder just how profitable streetcars would be if they hadn’t been phased out. Americans grew to love the freedom that cars offered, and rail guided streetcars would have had a tough time on todays busy streets. Mass transit of all kinds struggles nowdays because the individual loves their freedom (and please don’t get me going on bicycle usage, which for the most part is not desirable.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7
So middle man, hypocracy is acceptable if you are a liberal or an enviromental wacko. You only hold people with views opposing yours responsible for hypocracy. Did you ever hear of a double standard? Your views are worthless unless you hold both sides to the same standards.
Like or Dislike:
11 
17
The hypocrisy of environmentalists is irrelevant and those who are bringing it up are just distracting from the issue. We must find new sources of energy. There are people who talk about clean energy who also use a lot of fossil fuels. OK. We still must find new sources of energy. See how when I admitted there where Hypocrites we still need to find new sources of energy. Let’s try again; there are people who talk about clean energy but use a lot themselves….fracking is terrible for the environment and the worst idea for energy I have ever heard of. Unconscionable. I use too much fossil fuels. We are going to run out of oil. We could go on like this all day and it won’t change the fact that we need to protect the environment and research new energy.
Like or Dislike:
16 
4
“….fracking is terrible for the environment and the worst idea for energy I have ever heard of….”
I’m tired of the leftists making claims without being able to back them up. Example: the obama campaign ran an ad where a widower claimed that Romney killed his wife. A patently false accusation, but the left stood by it.
Now we have middleman claiming that fracking is terrible for the environment. PROVE IT! And prove how the manufacture of batteries used in electric cars IS NOT one of the dirtiest, most polluting processes associated with the automotive industry. Only a mor-on believes that electric cars don’t pollute.
Like or Dislike:
6 
13
The end of the world must be getting near, because yes I find my self agreeing…even with you. The envirowackos diety, Al Gore, has a carbon footprint bigger than some entire neighborhoods or even some small communities. That is what destroys the believability of the envirowackos claim that we should listen to them and their suggestions as to how we should live. True climate change is happening and resource depletion is happening but to raise and raise energy costs to deter their usage will indeed deter their usage but will also slam the brakes on our economy. Our economy still hasn’t recovered from the $4.00 per gallon pricing experienced during the third year of Bushes second term. To increase prices without providing an alternative comparably priced energy source to which people and industry can switch will only drain more and more money from the economy furthering the economic slowdown. Slow down this economy any more and you will see a serious depression from which we may never recover. For this reason I believe the envirowackos are playing right into the hands of the super greedy corporations and the greedy government, both of which will benefit extravagantly from higher energy pricing. The envirowackos should be pushing for development of new energy sources rather than pushing to just disuade people from using our current energy sources. Wind and solar have been proven to be fiscal fiascos so maybe it is time we seriously explored other energy development.
Like or Dislike:
4 
11
The environmentalists and anti-corporationists are too dim to see that their anti fossil fuel campaign BENEFITS the oil industry. By fighting to shut down expansion and exploration, they are guaranteeing a higher profit for those resources already tapped. It’s a simple supply and demand thing. If we don’t allow access to our untapped resources, only those already tapped can reach market. They were tapped and produced at a cost of X dollars per barrel, but are now worth $10X per barrel. DO the math, people. Waitaminute, that’s always been a problem, liberals doing math. As in obama’s taxing of the top 10% will raise $400 billion, more than enough to offset his $1.4 TRILLION increase in spending, right?
Like or Dislike:
4 
11
to hugh ….we cant prove fracking is dangerous outright since their chemicals in the fracking fluid are secret and harm their competitiveness if revealed. And if you think its so fine and dandy tell that to all the people whose water can be set on fire due to fracking in their watersheds.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
So Ulysses do you want to see us develop new energy or do you want to sit in your ugly Barcolounger and cry about liberals?
Like or Dislike:
13 
3
middleman, To repeat what my previous post to you said: We absolutely need to develop alternative energy sources. Yes indeed. But we will not be able to do so if the economy is hemoraging dollars as a result of playing into the greedy hands of government or the few corporations that will benefit hugely from increases in our current energy sources. We must keep the economy functioning properly while new energy development is encouraged. And no I don’t even own a Barcolounger…or any other old mans recliner. I may be old but I’m not a couch potato…yet.
Like or Dislike:
5 
8
The pipeline doesn’t matter anyway. If we build it a few will get temporary jobs. It may or may not leak. Oil will run through it. AND in a short amount of time it will be obsolete because there will be no more oil. Then we will need to find a new source of energy.
People worry about fuel costs rising, but I never do because it is the only way things will ever change. I gladly drop $4 a gallon on gas. It should cost even more because it does cost us more. Cry all you want and we still need change. There will be a time when this become more uncomfortable….TOO BAD BABY
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
Maybe we should continue to funnel hundreds of billions of US tax dollars into projects like solydra that never produced a single item brought to market. They were only paybacks and kick backs benefiting obama campaign contributors. Does anyone remember obama’s pledge to be the most open, transparent, and honest administration? I guess he violated that pledge simply by making it. And the left wonders why they have a credibility problem among people who actually use their brains?
Like or Dislike:
6 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
19
TRD stands for Toyota Racing Developement
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
Lets be smart about switching to alternative fuels. America currently runs on oil. If Obama limits or cuts off the supply of oil to the US, he is just costing the average American more for gasoline and heating oil. The rich and the 2% can afford to buy a new Prius or move to a warmer climate. These decisions on energy policies, like using a food sources such as corn to make ethanol, increases the price of food for everyone. And putting more regulations on coal will increase the cost of electricity for everyone. We need to be smart about switching to alternative energy sources so the average American isn’t hurt by this transition. Put in the oil pipeline to keep the prices of gasoline low while trying to create cheaper electric car batteries that don’t hurt our environment. We have to figure out how to get cheap electricity, even when the wind isn’t blowing, from natural gas, coal or nuclear plants. Obama’s $80 Billion funding of companies like Solyndra would have been taxpayer money better spent in research rather than as failed businesses owners. The average Americans are left picking up the tab.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
15
You didn’t mention reducing our use once, so this essay gets a C-.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
17
KM- its not about reduced use. Sure we can use energy more effectively, but we are still going to use energy. For example, you have to use some fuel to heat your home this year, even it you set your home thermostat at 50. People still have to turn on the lights and the computer at work or just to make comments on a story in the DNT. So I rate your comment; “irrelevant” .
Like or Dislike:
16 
13
The points all you anti-environmentalists miss with your hypocrisy comments are two:
1.You have no idea of the energy use of the average environmental activist. For some they may be as low as possible given current options.
2. The only way to stop using fossil fuels is to create alternatives. People working towards that have no choice but to use what is available to achieve that goal.
Like or Dislike:
16 
10
@BT
You know, even this news article made note of the fact that a lot of the people opposed to the pipeline are not particularly environmentalists, they just don’t want a pipeline in their backyard (or where their home is now). To review, the pipeline seems unlikely to create many permanent jobs, the money goes to other places, we are stuck with a potential environmental hazard (plus people along the pipeline route will be forced to sell their homes), AND, the pipeline won’t add one gallon to supply. If the supply doesn’t go through a pipeline it will be taken in other ways to refineries. Remember, just because it goes to US refineries doesn’t mean it will be sold in the US, it just means it will be added to the world supply from US refineries.
Like or Dislike:
14 
13
Just trying to follow the line of thought here. Energy has been cheap, therefore we need to keep energy cheap.?.?
Coal regulations have been in the pipeline for over a decade. Utilities have had the option of complying and starting a slow phase in with little price disruption, or they could whine and complain and buy stupid tv commercials to make you think these are new regulations that are being forced down their throats which will mean jacking up the cost of electricity to all of us because now we need to comply to these ‘new’ regulations overnight.
Coal as an electrical source is going to go through the roof in the next decade, but not because of ‘new’ regulations. Everyone take a little time and Google ‘stripping ratios, powder river basin’ and then ‘US coal exports overseas’ then maybe peek at the 2008 US Geological Survey’s summary on the amount of economically recoverable coal in the country and how it varies from the ‘Saudia Arabia’ line from the bosses. The playbook says to complain about the government first, and then to complain about the government. Following the playbook has gotten us into some serious trouble, people are going to be hurt economically as well as health wise. Assigning responsibility is not as important as getting a new playbook.
Like or Dislike:
14 
8
I’m sure you won’t mind giving us a reference for this “nationally recognized” survey then, right Hugh?
BTW, I did not vote for Gore for the very reasons you mentioned. I think he is a hypocrite. I voted Nader, reluctantly. I think there are a lot of enviro-hypocrites but that doesn’t make all of us hypocrites. I don’t have a jet, I have never been in a jet, I live very modestly and my cars have 8 combined cylinders. Using modest amounts of fossil fuels because there are no affordable alternatives for me (I walk and bike and motorcycle when possible), while working toward reducing our collective and personal dependence is not hypocrisy, its putting your money where your mouth is. Criticizing anyone who works for change while doing nothing, is hypocrisy.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
14
Here’s an oped article that does a pretty good job of summarizing things. Read it only if you can handle getting you bubble burst. …And I already expect you to dismiss it’s finding because it doesn’t support the myth that liberals are truly the compassionate ones.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?hp&_r=0
Like or Dislike:
12 
16
As noted above, the survey has been debunked. There are other better ones, and generally the conclusions are that if you leave giving to your church out, liberals are *slightly* more generous than conservatives (the caveat about the percentage turns out to be a misstatement in the article you quote — especially because the surveys they relied on did not look at low income individuals much).
In any case, its pretty silly to suggest that either group is particularly more charitable than the other.
Now, a good question is why we let gigantic organizations, most of them with clear political agendas, gather funding and give people deductions for those donations. (Yes, churches.) Eliminate those deductions and put all church lands back on the tax rolls and that might help our deficit problems.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
15
Again, read the article. It specifically addresses the church issue and counters it with liberals giving to colleges, museums, the arts, etc. And the benefactor of the museums and arts can hardly qualify as poverty stricken. And the college donations go largely to legacy scholarships, not grants/scholarships for the needy. In a nutshell, Rick m, you’re blowing smoke.
Like or Dislike:
12 
15
Again, as I note above, I have the advantage of not only having read the article but having read the book and the many criticisms of it. I am glad you rediscovered the book through this old Kristof editorial on it, but its not a book a lot of people take seriously anymore. Just as the conclusion is not taken seriously anymore (remember, the author’s conclusion is that there are *slight* differences between the groups, and that’s WITH his cooked data).
In any case, we have probably talked about this enough. Conservatives are NOT more virtuous than liberals. And liberals are not more virtuous than conservatives. Let it go. Make your arguments about the pipeline based on facts. If you can’t muster arguments based on facts simply falling back on a “my side is more virtuous” is basically conceding that even YOU can’t defend your side.
Like or Dislike:
15 
10
“Eliminate those deductions and put all church lands back on the tax rolls and that might help our deficit problems.”
OK, I’m game, but then I want to open the churches up for the freedom of (political)expression, and remove/revoke the tax exempt status from all of the non-profits that engage in political advocacy. Any museum, art gallery, or other non-profit not directly associated with a school should also lose their tax exempt status. In addition to not paying taxes, these outfits suck revenue away from those who really need help, AKA, the indigent and poor.
Like or Dislike:
12 
13
That is wonderfully funny. Yes, I suppose churches technically are supposed to stay out of lobbying activity. Of course, the IRS would actually have to audit a church to try and enforce that, and they appear to have suspended all church audits for the foreseeable future. This is what makes the yearly Pulpit Freedom Sunday, which really WANTS to get audited to fight the issue in the Supreme Court and can’t get the government to actually give them a case to fight on.
In any case, I have no problem with churches speaking out. This was in fact the conclusion of the Supreme Court the last time they looked at the law, they told the churches they could lobby on political issues or they could get the tax deduction, but they couldn’t have both, since if they get the tax deduction they are taking money from me and using it to advocate for things I don’t agree with. But, hey, Republicans really like that wealth distribution thing when it is going to things they like, right??
Like or Dislike:
14 
9
You’re conspicuously mute on the second half of my comment concerning the tax exempt status of museums, the arts, etc. And why should many community activist groups, groups that openly advocate for political issues, receive tax exempt status while churches must, in theory anyway, remain silent? Is this the same old liberal double standard at play here?
Like or Dislike:
7 
12
Usage surely has nothing to do with population growth.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
Hugh is entertaining, you got to give him that. And he tries hard and that is worthy. And he is helping out with the learning curve of independents too. Thanks Hugh.
Like or Dislike:
11 
13
Ranger, you’d better be careful. Rick claims to be able to hear what we think. (I’m going straight out and buying a new roll of aluminum foil to line my hat.)
Like or Dislike:
10 
11
No need to hear it, I can smell it. Just have to be careful where I step.
That and I can’t imagine how a many years old, discredited book on a purported virtue of conservatives and an editorial from back then relates to building a pipeline that lots of the blue collar workers in the places where it is to be built don’t want.
Like or Dislike:
12 
9
These kind of stories are worthless reads. Of course Obama will kill this pipeline, as he has already many times – even Romney made light of it in a national debate and Republicans lost, so it is a non-story. Not only does this tar sand oil not fall inline with his policies on oil, but it has been championed by the king himself, Al Gore, to kill any hope of bringing the biggest find in recent history of dirty tar sand oils to the states. This election has provided positive reinforcement to Obama to go full steam ahead as he pleases, irregardless if anyone really fully understood his policies and beliefs or not.
How Ironic that the ’47%’ overwhelmingly supported Obama, when it is that very same 47% that will feel the blunt of high energy prices the most.
Like or Dislike:
11 
18
*Regardless* of how you state it, I am not sure how increased oil prices would hit seniors, students, working poor families with kids and the extremely rich whose income comes almost completely from capital gains (you know, the 47%) any harder than it would hit the rest of us. There is a good chance the 47% will include Mitt Romney next year (gotta figure he is going to take it easy next year and live on his investments, and there were over 4000 families that made more than $1 million last year who were in the 47%, he would be in good company), so why would it hit these rich folks so hard? Inquiring minds want to know.
Not that building the pipeline or not building the pipeline would have an effect on oil prices, but hey, I’m willing to go with it if you can give a reason why it would hit the 47% particularly hard.
Like or Dislike:
10 
11
As a percentage of income. Low income earners or receivers, such as many that make up the 47%, will be hit harder because they have less disposable income to absorb the increases at the pumps.
Building pipelines, oil exploration, developing new extraction technologies, and expanded drilling capabilities are all part of an ongoing energy supply chain that our country needs for survival now and in the future. Regardless of when the oil dry up, right now this country runs on oil and if you (Obama) put a stop in any part of this chain of events it will greatly impact the future price of oil because all of these events take many years to develop. Much like the country’s debt and deficit problems, I would expect that the left could care less about how our children and their children will be dealing with these problems. It’s just like Senator Mary Landrieu, D-La said, “It’s a no brainer”, and it is to anyone who wants this country to thrive.
Like or Dislike:
10 
13
Don~ “Building pipelines, oil exploration, developing new extraction technologies, and expanded drilling capabilities are all part of an ongoing energy supply chain that our country needs for survival now and in the future. ”
Not if we cut back on demand. The key isn’t producing more, it’s using less. We got our first warning shot with the 1978 energy crises. Instead of being smart, we traded in big gas guzzling cars for huge gas guzzling SUV’s. We started to consume more plastic. We used to get water from one place, the tap, now we buy it in plastic bottles that’s imported here and most just throw away the plastic bottles as but one awesome example.
Pursue alternate energy and will drive down demand and also the prices. One of the big problems is that trying to ensure we have clean air and clean water which is essential for our survival on this planet is considered by the conservative pro oil, burn and drill group, as some asinine liberal hairbrain scheme. So adled on the topic of environment are conservatives that despite all know darn well that if stood in garage for 15 minutes with doors closed and car running would kill them, will nonetheless holler and argue all day and night that billions of cars running endlessly for decades upon decades isn’t harming our environment at all.
It’s about our health and survival at heart of all environmental issues. That shouldn’t be considered a liberal agenda…THAT should be considered a no-brainer. But big oil is what greases the GOP and so they defend big oil…but we’re not the winners in that game, just big oil is. To wit…Clinton on right track when implemented CAFE requirement, a law requiring all auto makers to have a specific average MPG among ALL their vehicles. In the 90′s GM, Ford and Chrysler all were heavily invested with running develpment programs for electric vehicles. Bush being the big buddy of oil tycoons practically very first act as President…scraped the CAFE requirement and all three auto makers scuttled their electric vehicle programs instantly. Then in few years, with folks now driving around in Hummers and Excursions the size of houses just to go a couple blocks to pick up a gallon of milk….the whole country is shocked when gas hits $4 a gallon. DUH!!!
Same on wind energy. Conservatives are against it because it’s pictured as some socialist crazy Obama scheme by them. Yet the single largest contributor to mercury poisoning is coal power generation plants, they account for 43% of all mercury water and air contamination and we’re surrounded up here by nothing but antiquated coal generation plants. We’re told not to eat fish more then once a week because of mercury contamination and a study found last year that 1 of 10 children in twin ports had elevated levels of mercury in their system. Which causes neurological damage and stymies proper brain development. But…switch to a green energy, wind power? Naw…that’s some crazy liberal Obama unnecessary thing.
We keep escalating our demand which puts strain on oil companies to get and refine more and impacts prices. They do and prices fall a little and then we consume and demand even more….and on and on and on this game been going on. It’s time to get off the big oil merry-go-round….and start being smart about it and looking at what we consume…and start looking for alternatives…then not only will the prices fall but we won’t need more pipelines and us and the planet may…just may..be a little healthier for it.
Concerns of ensuring we have basic ingredients needed for our survival is not a liberal thing…it’s a species survival thing.
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
Thanks Don, Hugh needs all the help he can get in influencing the independent voters of this country, and you are Da Man! If you repeat the same thing enough times it must be true-
The pipeline will make energy prices go down.
There is not 100% scientific consensus in understanding climate change therefore it does not exist.
And the country runs on oil now so why change that for heavens sake.
And unlike the coal companies who are now exporting our coal to foreign countries like China (gasp) as opposed to keeping it here for cheap electricity for future generations,,, we can trust the oil companies who run the refineries in the quoted politicians home state.
……….
But Don, you hint at an item that may get you tossed out of Club Hugh, “regardless of when the oil dries up”. Wow, dude, do you realize you are maybe accepting of the concept that there is such a thing as resource depletion, and oil just might be one of those resources that is going to be depleted?
If oil is only getting more scarce on a global scale, the price is not going to be going down in the good old supply/demand equation. And even if there are lots of things we use oil for besides energy, we should use it up as fast as possible because the alternative would be to change. CONSERVing the resource that we have for all its useful and rapidly more urgent needs, is not on the table because the CONSERVatives want to use up fossil fuels at an increased rate to serve a profit requirement now. Slowing down the depletion of the natural resource that you, DON, admit might be happening, is not an option. To do any different would be to accept that all those leftist environmental whack-os might of been on to something all along. Thanks Don. You Da Man!
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
“Wow, dude, do you realize you are maybe accepting of the concept that there is such a thing as resource depletion….”
Ranger, if you are such a fan of sustainability, why are you so mute when it comes to obummers unsustainable spending? You again wax hypocritical. Big Surprise? Sadly, no.
Like or Dislike:
7 
13
Hugh~ Just wanted to compliment you on your masterful posts…this thread alone is proof that you are the king of misdirects off point and the master of ensuring that every question is answered with questions which drags discussion down a rabbit hole…No doubt at all you are the undisputed King of tap dancing and misdirection….you’re like a combination of Gregory Hines and Penn and Teller all wrapped into one on a message board.
Just thought should be pointed out because not sure everyone gets all the skillz you really have….and pure poetry how you toss red herring at one poster lambasting him for his ability to read minds…yet nobody picked up that you posted that you were aware of every detail of every protesters daily lifes, their political beleifs, their daily habits…and that’s just one example…and almost every post rings with that masterful response when proven wrong or asked question to nail you on previous question your responses are akin to~ oh, yeah…look over there…there’s a chicken…and you have folks scrambling around looking for the chicken that crossed the road and trying to figure out why…outstanding body of work Hugh…well done.
Like or Dislike:
13 
3
Yawn. I’m sorry. Was somebody saying something?
Like or Dislike:
4 
10
Everything was fine until fasttalker showed up and started gripping about mercury being used in vaccines or something like that.
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
Don~ Nothing like posting proof you don’t know what talking about…~shrugs~…but hey, Thanks… I appreciate the shout out….
Mercury is a poison to us btw…SMH!
“When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth, they will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” Unknown
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
Don, maybe FO got a vaccination that was a bit heavy on the heavy metal and thus is a bit compromised?
Like or Dislike:
1 
8
I believe you are talking about thimerosal, which contains mercury.
However, thimerosal was eliminated from most (admittedly not all) vaccines in 2001.
More information can be found here: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
For the most part this pipeline will not change fuel price one cent either way here in the northland or for the most part anywhere in the US.. Just gives the Dem/Libs something to protest.
Like or Dislike:
11 
10
..and it provides some protesters for conservative protest-protesters to protest. Sort of the sour milk on their personal freedom cereal.
Like or Dislike:
13 
9
I guess I am to dumb to understand your choice and structure of words. I guess I protest your remarks.
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
All nonprofits are subject to the laws regarding limits on lobbying expenditures and the rules against advocating for candidates, etc. There are many organizations that flout this, my personal favorite being ALEC, which has given us so many wonderful laws at the state level. Again, at this point, given that the IRS has indicated they will not audit churches, a church would have to go way out on a limb to get its status threatened, while other nonprofits have to be more careful.
And I thought it was obvious that if I want to eliminate tax exempt status for churches everything else would have to lose this status as well. Given the relative size of the two piles of money (hint, the vast majority of charitable donations go to churches), its a great trade off.
Like or Dislike:
6 
11
Whups, that was a response to HughJ, did not get it slotted correctly.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
Should the FDL band of Ojibwa be tax exempt when they resell gasoline?
Like or Dislike:
6 
10
The Fond Du Lac reservation was established by treaty over 150 years ago. And while the US government does not have much of a record of adhering to its treaties, it would seem appropriate to try and keep up the few that are left. And, as noted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs: “Federal Indian reservations are generally exempt from state jurisdiction, including taxation, except when Congress specifically authorizes such jurisdiction.”
Note that our treaties were made as government-to-government negotiations and (at least at times) are recognized as such. So, no, violating the sovereignty of the reservation is not something I support at this time. Now, if the government wanted to negotiate a new deal and offered compensation for the changes and all parties came to an agreement, that would be fine with me. On the other hand, in cases where I think the two parties made an agreement that is no longer being upheld (such as with the downtown casino), I don’t think it would be unreasonable for the city to move to get rid of the casino, if it can legally do so.
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
More specifically, I should have stated gas tax. Unless the fuel isn’t burned on public roads, it should be taxed just like any other fuel.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9
Weirdly enough, if people decide to get their gas in an area with lower taxes, there isn’t much you can do about it. So when people get their gas in NJ and drive in PA because its 20 cents cheaper AND you don’t have to get out of your car, there is not much PA can do. The reservation is considered sovereign in some sense, same logic applies. These rights are defined by treaty and laws, not sure how we get around that.
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
One of the only ways American can save itself is by making a MASSIVE investment in wind and solar. I’m talking upwards of a trillion dollars. Spend too little and it’s a waste of money. If we spend a trillion on wind and solar, at least the government will have made an investment in something renewable. Otherwise another decade will go by, and the government will spend the same trillion dollars anyway just to defend our access to Gulf oil with nothing to show for it in the end.
Like or Dislike:
14 
6
Being that wind and solar have proven to be fiscal fiascos, I would prefer to see our country invest in hydrogen or fusion or maybe something the general public has yet to hear about.
Like or Dislike:
5 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
13
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter16.html
“As of 1999, there were 11,368 wind turbines in California. These turbines are grouped together in what are called wind “farms,” like those in Palm Springs.
These wind farms are located mostly in the three windiest areas of the state:
•Altamont Pass, east of San Francisco
•San Gorgonio Pass, near Palm Springs
•Tehachapi, south of Bakersfield
Together these three places in California make enough electricity to supply an entire city the size of San Francisco! About 11 percent of the entire world’s wind-generated electricity is found in California.”
<<<<<<<<<
That's just as of 1999. The mandate in California you refer to is NOT for all wind power generated energy. It's that 1/3 of California's energy must come from a renewable source by 2020. Wind is certainly a huge part of that and completely contrary to your rant of course, they are doing extremely well in wind power generation surpassing Texas and Iowa as wind power leaders and now are number 1 in nation in generating power from wind. The very mandate you claim makes that impossible is actually what has made that possible…SMH!
This quote always kinda reminds me of conservatives position on environment and energy policies…"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth, they will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." Unknown
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
It’s pretty clear that you haven’t a clue as to how much energy CA uses, or how little these turbines produce. There just ain’t enough area to site enough windfarms to power CA. DUH!
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
Hugh~ Are you deaf as well? I already posted that you were wrong about wind energy. “The mandate in California you refer to is NOT for all wind power generated energy. It’s that 1/3 of California’s energy must come from a renewable source by 2020″
That would include power rectifier storage grids as well as solar as but two other sources California is also pursuing. Which completely already throws your whole nonsense position out window anyway. You incorrectly cited that their mandate is solely for wind power. Also as cited they had enough wind power generation in 1999 to power San Francisco.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
Pretty typical FO answer. Make a statement, get caught in a lie/misrepresentation, lack the facts to back it up, and then blame the guy who called you on it. I suppose you could be forgiven for your ignorance, but because you so proudly flaunt it (your ignorance), I’m less inclined to do so. I spent my career in an engineering/ technical field. I’ve been dealing with pretenders like you since before you were born. What you lack in knowledge, you make up for with factiods, half truths, and bluster.
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
Thank you Hugh for proving my quote so admirely …I did actually think of you in particular when I first saw this…”When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth, they will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” Unknown
Hugh~ “Pretty typical FO answer. Make a statement, get caught in a lie/misrepresentation, lack the facts to back it up, and then blame the guy who called you on it”
There isn’t even a single grain of truth in that statement and is nothing but a purely fabricated lie, unless I was posting it regarding your comments. You made the statement regarding California’s wind power mandate. Which there isn’t one. It’s a mandate for clean energy not wind power alone. You’ve posted repeatedly statement’s you haven’t backed up regarding California’s wind power generation and I posted link showing already had enough in 1999 to power all of San Francisco. You’ve never proven that the mandate for 1/3 of their energy by 2020 be solely from wind power…because that’s not true. You haven’t proven anything and you certainly NEVER proved I misrepresented anything and you’re the one that completely ignoring my statements regarding the clean energy mandate, wind power and alternate energy sources.
You don’t got lie Hugh, you don’t gotta lie…or is that all the game you have left? Trying to play little trollish inversion games!….tsk, tsk…Trix are for kids.
From LA Times not two months ago regarding their wind power and conservatives and Koch brothers fight against it…with excerpt at end regarding wind power.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/23/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20121024
“Since its enactment in 1992, wind generation in the United States has grown from almost zero to about 47,000 megawatts, according to a study done by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for the Energy Department. That has made the U.S. the second-biggest generator of wind energy in the world, behind China. But in terms of the national energy portfolio there’s still a long way to go: Wind generation in the U.S. is equal to only 3.3% of our electricity consumption, well behind Denmark (29%), Portugal (19%) and Germany (11%).
“Wind has accounted for more than 30% of new electricity generation in this country over last five years,” says Gregory Wetstone, government affairs director for Terra-Gen Power, owner of the 1,020-megawatt Alta Wind Energy Center near Tehachapi, the nation’s largest wind farm. “Without a production tax credit … we’d be suddenly saying we don’t want wind anymore.”
If the renewal goes through, he says, Terra-Gen would move ahead with plans to expand its Kern County wind farm by 300 to 400 megawatts.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hugh, you took the absurd position that California’s energy mandate is solely for wind power. Pointing out that was wrong, you come back and lie about it. You stated they can’t make enough electricity through wind power, another absurd position as they already produce a lot and it doesn’t have to all come from wind, so you lied about it. I posted with link showing they had enough in 1999 from wind power alone to power all of San Francisco…and you come back and lie and claim you’ve proven my statements as false and that I’m lying….you have no credibility…
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
fastone: Wind proponents always cite generating capacity of the windmills, but if you look into the real facts you will discover the windmills do not generate at capacity. In fact they very rarely get even close to their rated capacity. So in fact actual output varies between 5% and about 50%. Do your homework before you start to blab. We realize that some people, fastone, talk just to hear themselves talk but talking without first engaging ones brain is a sign of a fool.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9
Ulysses~ Tis’ odd you and Hugh taking same line that I’m blabbling without checking my facts while neither of you have cited anything, not backed up your statements and just blabbling nonsense…
You claim that can’t produce enough wind energy to power anything…yet claim I’m not checking my facts? Below is excerpt from article with link on source from below it. Scientific America has also run article that there is possible project in works to put wind farm in Atlantic that may power the whole east coast. Denmark produces almost a third of all their power for whole country from wind power. Wind power is only one possible source of renewable energy but in last 5 years 30% of all new power generation has come from wind farms….
>>>>>>>>>
“President Obama challenged us in his [2012] State of the Union address to authorize 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy on our public lands by the end of the year – enough to meet the needs of more than three million homes – and today we are making good on that promise,” Salazar said.
Since 2009, the Interior Department has authorized 33 renewable energy projects, including 18 utility-scale solar facilities, seven wind farms and eight geothermal plants, with associated transmission corridors and infrastructure that will enable the projects to connect to established power grids.
When built, these projects will provide more than 10,000 megawatts of power, or enough electricity to power more than 3.5 million homes, and will support an estimated 13,000 construction and operations jobs, according to project developers.
Salazar said, “These achievements build on the historic expansion of renewable energy under President Obama, with energy from sources like wind and solar doubling since the President took office.”
Environment News Service (http://s.tt/1uCr0)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
While you and Hugh are claiming that it can’t be done…it is nonetheless…being accomplished and being done.
“When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth, they will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” Unknown
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
“About 11 percent of the entire world’s wind-generated electricity is found in California.” Yes, and that doesn’t provide even 3% of what they need. Are you being intentionally thick? Or just dishonest in your misrepresentations?
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
Hugh, an engineer? Now it makes sense. Graduated prior to 1975 I am guessing.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
Did I say I was an engineer? Or did I say I spent my career working in an engineering/technical field? And I’ve probably been retire longer than many posters here have held real jobs (sorry, Micky D’s of star bucks aint a real job).
Like or Dislike:
3 
9
i can tell you are retired thats for sure….nothing better to do than to comment on every article hundreds of times…and finally i get a conservative to say that a mcdonalds or starbucks job isnt a REAL job lol…..thank you we have been trying to tell you guys that for god knows how long now. Yet you think people should settle for them and that they pay enough to live off of. Talk about hypocrisy Hugh..you are full of it. And just tell me..what exactly constitutes a real job? my guess for you would be one that doesnt require that person or that persons family from having to take government assistance of any kind. But just exactly how many of those jobs are actually left here?
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
I saw on CBC News last evening that China has invested more money in the Alberta Tar Sands. This pipeline is a means to get Canadian oil to the Chinese market via the US as I have said all along. Canada doesn’t want a pipeline through the Rockies, neither do the natives want it on their land, but it’s fine I guess to run it through land here in the US. We are so damn gullible.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
1960 179,323,175 18.5%
1970 203,211,926 13.3%
1980 226,545,805 11.5%
1990 248,709,873 9.8%
2000 281,421,906 13.2%
2010 308,745,538
Dang, population growth has nothing to do with the increased usage.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0