Shady Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 Yah been hearing a lot of that yet they seem to hate Harper because of somethings he said pretty early as PM. I think what will happen if they don't build the pipeline is the oil companies will be forced to refine in Canada and ship from there. Nope. China's already indicated their interest in the project. They can walk and chew gum at the same time. And so can we. So stop killing jobs. Quote
punked Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Nope. China's already indicated their interest in the project. They can walk and chew gum at the same time. And so can we. So stop killing jobs. Didn't we already go through how your jobs claim was greatly exaggerated? Yet there we are again disingenuous and wrong as always Shady even going back to claims after you admit yourself they are wrong. No one is killing jobs however taking a measured approach as to not corrupt peoples ground water that is another thing. I am sure you wont care if these people can't drink or farm but I bet they will. As for screaming "BUT CHINA WILL TAKE THE OIL". Well why hasn't Harper tried? He must be a do nothing conservative eh? Edited December 21, 2011 by punked Quote
Shady Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 Didn't we already go through how your jobs claim was greatly exaggerated? Using waldo's conservative job numbers, it's still 2000 - 3000 jobs. Why are you trying to kill jobs during a bad recession? No one is killing jobs however taking a measured approach as to not corrupt peoples ground water that is another thing. There are already wells drilled right through the aquifer. Yet, concern trolls are worried about something above it. It's just an excuse from environmentalist extremists. If they had their way, they'd shut down all oil and natural gas development. As for screaming "BUT CHINA WILL TAKE THE OIL". China won't take the oil. They'll step in as a partner in America's absense. It's not rocket science. They've already indicated interest in the project. Why are you being so obtuse? Quote
punked Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 Using waldo's conservative job numbers, it's still 2000 - 3000 jobs. Why are you trying to kill jobs during a bad recession? The number is closer to 500 temporary jobs. In fact Cornell did a study of the pipeline taken with its offsets this pipeline would actually have a net negative effect on the economy and jobs. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf So what else you got now that an independent study has shown it will have a negative effect in the long run Shady? I know you hate the American economy plus the right dictates what you say sooo.... Quote
TimG Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 Sure but again those finite sources, like it or not if we plan in sustaining our life in this planet we will run out of finite sources.And when they run out the market will provide the necessary incentive to move to alternate technologies. The "leaders" (if you define "leaders" as countries who piss away billions on useless technology) will have no special advantage. Look at solar panels and China: none of the technology was developed there but they are doing most of the manufacturing because that is where it is cheapest. How can you seriously argue that there is any benefit to being a "leader" in such things? Quote
waldo Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 This is why studies that look at "green jobs" conclude that 2 jobs are destroyed for every "green job" created. citation request Quote
TimG Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 The number is closer to 500 temporary jobs. In fact Cornell did a study of the pipeline taken with its offsets this pipeline would actually have a net negative effect on the economy and jobs.The existing pipeline created 2000-3000 jobs. This is historical fact and worth more than any "study" peddled by enviros. If you use the multipliers that Obama uses for his stimulus spending you get much larger numbers. If you dispute those multipliers you are basically saying Obama claims about stimulus spending are nonsense. You can't have it both ways - either the multipliers are real or they are not. Quote
Shady Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 The number is closer to 500 temporary jobs. In fact Cornell did a study of the pipeline taken with its offsets this pipeline would actually have a net negative effect on the economy and jobs. According to the study you cited, KXL Will Generate 2,500-4,650 construction Jobs. Do you not read your own links? And most of them will be temporary, as all construction jobs are. When building is complete, the job ends. That's how construction works. Are you unaware of that? And so what? So you're ok with killing good paying construction jobs why? Because it's not a permanent construction job? As if such thing exists. Come'on man, enough with the BS. Quote
waldo Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 According to the study you cited, KXL Will Generate 2,500-4,650 construction Jobs. Do you not read your own links? And most of them will be temporary, as all construction jobs are. When building is complete, the job ends. That's how construction works. Are you unaware of that? And so what? So you're ok with killing good paying construction jobs why? Because it's not a permanent construction job? As if such thing exists. Come'on man, enough with the BS. notwithstanding a few thousand jobs is... mice-nuts... why do you get so hyped up over insignificant U.S. job impact numbers? Quote
Shady Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 notwithstanding a few thousand jobs is... mice-nuts... why do you get so hyped up over insignificant U.S. job impact numbers? It's not mice-nuts to 3000 families with a provider with a good paying job. I'm hyped for job creation, especially in a bad recession. Why do you want to kill 3000, or more good paying jobs? In my opinion, there's never a good time to be picking and choosing which jobs should be created and which shouldn't. It should be left up to markets and the economy itself. But under our current economic situation, now's especially not an appropriate time to be purposely killing jobs because one doesn't approve of the industry. You're the perfect example of the no-growth, flat-earth environmental extremist. And you illustrate perfectly the willingness to damage our economy, and people's standard of living and their jobs based. This is just more proof. Quote
waldo Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 It's not mice-nuts to 3000 families with a provider with a good paying job. other than it feeds your wannabe persona, why do you get so heated and bluster over a few thousand... American... jobs? I thought your main schtick was scurrying about for examples of a "weaker" economy so you feed your Obama Derangement Syndrome? (notwithstanding, of course, a few thousand jobs has no impact on the American economy, at large). You're the perfect example of the no-growth, flat-earth environmental extremist. And you illustrate perfectly the willingness to damage our economy, and people's standard of living and their jobs based. This is just more proof. no - all I've done is counter your perpetuation of the inflated numbers being tossed around so liberally. The rest is just Shady being Shady... Quote
Shady Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 other than it feeds your wannabe persona, why do you get so heated and bluster over a few thousand... American... jobs? Because a growing US economy helps Canada substantially. It helps the world. It's basic economics. A growing manufacturing and construction base is vital for the middle class, and expansion for the economy. Stop fighting to kill jobs. For the love of God. no - all I've done is counter your perpetuation of the inflated numbers being tossed around so liberally. Nonsense. I've been using the numbers provided by the study ever since you posted it. Quote
waldo Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 Because a growing US economy helps Canada substantially. It helps the world. It's basic economics. A growing manufacturing and construction base is vital for the middle class, and expansion for the economy. Stop fighting to kill jobs. For the love of God. minimal (temporary) jobs; with minimal/no impact on the U.S. economy, at large. MLW poster 'punked' linked to the same Cornell University study I did... he highlighted points I didn't bother with. However, that same study... the study you now accept the possible job creation numbers from, that study also speaks to a scenario where Keystone could actually destroy more jobs than it creates through higher fuel costs and environmental damage. We touched on the issue of "manipulating" midwest gas prices in an earlier MLW Keystone related thread: ...TransCanada's Keystone application (section 3.4.3), reflecting upon pricing impacts to the U.S. Midwest (PADD II)... additionally, do you interpret U.S. Senator Wyden's call for a Federal Trade Commission investigation as simple 'politicking'; i.e., that there's really no foundation to suggestions of collusion towards impacting increased U.S. Midwest retail pricing? More pointedly, with all this "to-do" about the PADD III refinery production being targeted at Gulf ports to open up the tar sands to the global/China market, do you recognize any of that market penetration having a corollary impact on domestic retail pricing, U.S. and/or Canada? A U.S. Senator is urging Washington’s competition commission to investigate what he suggests is evidence that Canadian oil sands producers colluded with TransCanada Corp. to manipulate prices in Midwestern petroleum markets. Senator Ron Wyden cited evidence given before Canada’s National Energy Board some time ago that TransCanada and the oil companies saw the proposed Keystone XL pipeline as a way to end the glut of Canadian crude in the Midwest by diverting supplies to the U.S. Gulf Coast. In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission released Wednesday, the Oregon Democrat said TransCanada and a seven-company shippers’ group may have violated U.S. anti-trust laws. Among the companies named were Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., ConocoPhillips Co., and Royal Dutch Shell PLC. “It has been brought to my attention that documents and testimony indicate that at least seven Canadian oil shippers have agreed to incur increased near-term shipping costs on the new pipeline in order to impact market supply in the existing markets so as to drive up the overall price of their product for U.S. refiners,” Mr. Wyden wrote. Quote
waldo Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 *bump* This is why studies that look at "green jobs" conclude that 2 jobs are destroyed for every "green job" created. citation request Quote
Bonam Posted December 22, 2011 Report Posted December 22, 2011 Sure but again those finite sources, like it or not if we plan in sustaining our life in this planet we will run out of finite sources. All resources are finite. All. That's fundamentally true by the very underpinnings of physics. Quote
August1991 Posted December 22, 2011 Author Report Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) notwithstanding a few thousand jobs is... mice-nuts... why do you get so hyped up over insignificant U.S. job impact numbers? so... as I said, the Obama statement is quite 'matter-of-fact'... the only questionable item is how much time is required to complete the environmental assessments. I see you haven't taken up my challenge: to show that a years period is an inordinate process time frame for environmental assessments of this KXL significance/profile. Accordingly, your unwillingness to accept the quoted Obama statement is done so with prejudice, extreme prejudice. ---- Waldo, I think you misunderstand my OP and the (potential) relevance of the Keystone pipeline to the US presidential election. You are debating the merits of the project in terms of job creation or its environmental impact. That's all fine and good, and I'll look at it in a second, but it's not really the issue here. To win the election, Obama has to get the vote of the proverbial median voter. Obama (and the Republicans) understand that if Obama takes a clear position on the Keystone project, he risks losing that voter. If he is in favour, he will lose the environmental Democrats. If he is against, he risks losing Democrats who want the economy to grow. Republicans are unanimously in favour of this project and don't face this dilemma. Hence Keystone is a classic wedge issue. And understandably, Obama wants to put the issue off to 2013. In the grand scheme of things, I don't know how much of a factor this pipeline will play in the US 2012 presidential election but I can see the potential for it to become a Willie Horton type issue. If this happens, you can be sure that many Democrats will be seeking Canadian opinion against the oil sands as support for Obama's position. And Canada will be drawn into the election. ----- As to the project itself, I agree with you that construction of the pipeline will create relatively few jobs given the size of the US labour market. But what kind of message is Obama sending about fiscal stimulus when he delays this project? Did Roosevelt hesitate about the Tennessee Valley dams in the 1930s? OTOH, I disagree with you about environmental assessment. This pipeline project has been studied for years and has met all requirements. The delay now is political, not because of any environmental problems. It's just a pipeline. Compared to extraction of shale gas, the environmental impact of a pipeline is negligible. As to oil sands, from data that I have seen, they produce about 25% more CO2 emissions than oil from Saudi Arabia. IMHO, that is not a critical difference. I would argue that the environmental effects of producing oil in Fort McMurray are far less than producing oil in, say, Nigeria, Mexico, Venezuela or Russia. IMV, the Keystone project is a no-brainer. This pipeline means that the US will have a secure, safe source of oil far into the future. North Americans will get energy more easily, and it will increase productivity. I have no doubt that it will be built because whoever is in the White House in 2013 will approve the project. (BTW, I'm even betting money on the project.) In my mind, the only question is whether the Republicans can or will use the Keystone project to divide the Democratic vote in 2012. Edited December 22, 2011 by August1991 Quote
sharkman Posted December 22, 2011 Report Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) It's quite obvious that Obama's main considerations on delaying the decision on Keystone are political. He has an uphill battle coming to win in 2012 and every major issue that comes across his desk will be analyzed as to its possible effects on the election. This behavior is a great disservice to the American people, who need effective decision making and leadership, not some scared clutz who won't make a call on something or puts his finger in the air before every decision. But that's what Americans are going to get for the next year. When you mix in a congress who will vote down anything that Obama does finally want passed(which will be based on advancing his political career), you will see very little done in the next year. Edited December 22, 2011 by sharkman Quote
punked Posted December 22, 2011 Report Posted December 22, 2011 It's quite obvious that Obama's main considerations on delaying the decision on Keystone are political. He has an uphill battle coming to win in 2012 and every major issue that comes across his desk will be analyzed as to its possible effects on the election. This behavior is a great disservice to the American people, who need effective decision making and leadership, not some scared clutz who won't make a call on something or puts his finger in the air before every decision. But that's what Americans are going to get for the next year. When you mix in a congress who will vote down anything that Obama does finally want passed(which will be based on advancing his political career), you will see very little done in the next year. Yah because the GOP has been effective decision making, heck their own Senators are at the throats of their congressmen because they can't even agree right now. Now there is a party that can't do any decision making. Quote
waldo Posted December 22, 2011 Report Posted December 22, 2011 *bump* ... is there a study out there... anyone, anyone, Bueller! *bump* This is why studies that look at "green jobs" conclude that 2 jobs are destroyed for every "green job" created. citation request Quote
punked Posted December 22, 2011 Report Posted December 22, 2011 *bump* ... is there a study out there... anyone, anyone, Bueller! Waldo only the people on the left cite things don't you know that, the people on the right just believe facts they make up in their heads. Quote
sharkman Posted December 22, 2011 Report Posted December 22, 2011 Yah because the GOP has been effective decision making, heck their own Senators are at the throats of their congressmen because they can't even agree right now. Now there is a party that can't do any decision making. I suppose you are not disagreeing with my take on Obama, merely saying that the other side does it too? Quote
punked Posted December 22, 2011 Report Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) I suppose you are not disagreeing with my take on Obama, merely saying that the other side does it too? No I am saying the other side doesn't even know what direction they want to go in. At least Obama has a direction. I am saying the other choice is so much worse then Obama that what else can you do. I mean when it gets so bad that the Speaker of the house has to cut the CSPAN feed because he doesn't want the public to see his side shut down the debate it is crazy bad. Seriously the Republicans won the house showed us how they would govern and have done the worst job in American History. I mean 7% approval rating heck even Obama is close to 50. Edited December 22, 2011 by punked Quote
sharkman Posted December 22, 2011 Report Posted December 22, 2011 Okay, so you are not disagreeing with my take on Obama, you are saying that the other side is worse. Why didn't you simply say that in the first place at the end of your post on what the Reps are doing? At any rate, there are many things at play here and what you hear on CNN is pretty one sided. I also read a report yesterday on the whole issue. In this MSM report, they didn't bother to get even one response/quote from the speaker or any republican at all. They simply printed what the Dems were saying about the situation. It was another hatchet job. Why do you suppose the speaker did the several things that he's done recently? Is he simply an idiot who after decades in service doesn't have the slightest clue what he's doing? Quote
punked Posted December 22, 2011 Report Posted December 22, 2011 Okay, so you are not disagreeing with my take on Obama, you are saying that the other side is worse. Why didn't you simply say that in the first place at the end of your post on what the Reps are doing? At any rate, there are many things at play here and what you hear on CNN is pretty one sided. I also read a report yesterday on the whole issue. In this MSM report, they didn't bother to get even one response/quote from the speaker or any republican at all. They simply printed what the Dems were saying about the situation. It was another hatchet job. Why do you suppose the speaker did the several things that he's done recently? Is he simply an idiot who after decades in service doesn't have the slightest clue what he's doing? Nope I am not even taking your argument into consideration because house Republicans show that the leadership of the Republican Party is beyond nuts. Right now Obama is all America has because the Republicans have gone off the deep end. Well the Speaker just caved and gave Obama everything he wanted so.......... Guy must have been an idiot because he just admitted he was wrong. Quote
waldo Posted December 22, 2011 Report Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) Why do you suppose the speaker did the several things that he's done recently? Is he simply an idiot who after decades in service doesn't have the slightest clue what he's doing? Boehner has lost control of the House, long ago... the Tea-Party extremists within the Republican side have managed to realize gridlock on almost anything the Democrats/Obama have tried to do. It's called the 'party of NO' for this very reason. Sticking with the theme of this thread, the Republicans tried to bundle everything/anything into a payroll-cut bill... including Keystone. It's the job of the Speaker to coordinate with his party counterparts in the Senate... Senate passes the bill and it faces the Tea-Party gauntlet in the House. We see a week of heightened media frenzy and it just now culminates in Boehner finally stating an agreement has been met. Edited December 22, 2011 by waldo Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.