Comments (54) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Jobs? What jobs?
Tools
Instructed by Congress last month to approve or reject the Keystone XL pipeline, which would send Canadian oil to refineries in Texas, President Obama on Wednesday rejected the private-sector project and the thousands of jobs that come with it. The president's own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness issued a "Road Map to Renewal" the day before, recommending the United States build more fuel pipelines as a key component of our economic recovery.
"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," Mr. Obama said, hinting that he still might approve the pipeline at the end of this year.
But how long are the Canadians supposed to hang in limbo? The project has been under review for three years and had cleared every environmental hurdle.
The president has made a cynical political calculation that -- at least until November -- he would rather curry favor with shiver-in-the-dark environmental extremists than with the union interests the project would put to work.
American workers and consumers "should be outraged," responded Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "This political decision offers hard evidence that creating jobs is not a high priority for this administration. The president's decision sends a strong message to the business community and to investors: Keep your money on the sidelines. America is not open for business."
As for environmental concerns that extraction methods to be used by the Canadians -- underground shale fracturing -- would generate more greenhouse gases, the decision not to allow the oil to flow to Texas simply encourages the Canadians to pipe it to the Pacific and ship it directly to China. Extraction will still proceed. Who is that supposed to help?
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.
According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.
"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides," Obama said. "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it."
...Another wonderful quote from our community organizer President...'nuff said!
Watch the video, genius.
It's always worth a laugh when Liar.Jack, a proven liar, accuses others of making stuff up. Who pays you, Liar.Jack?
Independent Experts: Industry-Funded Study Seriously Flawed
Council On Foreign Relations Expert: Study's Analysis Is "Dead Wrong."
http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2011/10/27/keystone-oil-jobs/
Expert: Study Is Based On Flawed Assumptions.
http://andrewleach.ca/oilsands/if-youre-talking-jobs-or-ghgs-alternative-scenarios-matter/
Cornell University Global Labor Institute: "Based On The Figures Provided By TransCanada For The Canadian Section Of The Pipeline, The New Permanent US Pipeline Jobs In The US Number As Few As 50.
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf#page=6
NOW, watch a HILARIOUS montage of your favorite dumbstream media talking heads flat-out making $#!+ up about the number of pipeline jobs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h4r8sIMr00k#t=14s
if the canadians were sharp, they'd go ahead with the pipeline to the west coast. which is the better customer ? the empty suit regime which intentionally stabs in the back, american consumers with greater reliance on opec ? or the asians with plenty of cash ? cash talks. the asians need energy in all forms because of rapidly expanding economies. with the empty suit's "boot on the neck" jihad targeting american employers, forcing them offshore, mebbe the remaining u.s. businesses can close up. closed buildings need way less energy.
Actually it does predict job loses. Higher fuel prices for the Midwest would lead to job loses. Transcanada will not allow said crude to be given to the US. Transcanada also does not have to pay any fees on its way down from Canada to Texas. The 50 jobs is the refinery jobs that Texas would get, but the other states lose jobs beause the oil doesnt go to their refineries. Also Transcanada is actually stuck. Not only would a pipeline through BC be cost prohibitive, but it is also being blocked by that part of the country(who would figured that BC is enivo-friendly). So transcanada used inflated numbers on jobs, using mostly there own people (the person who stated that isnt the case is dead wrong). Not only that, but because of the oil will be in a foreign enterprise zone, no fees or taxes will be given to the US. All pipelines have that part at lest going for them (the fees going through their state/country). It has nothing to do with being a dem or rep actually. Look at it objectively and you see it is bad for everybody involved unless your a politician or transcanada.
@jack.webb: To be clear, this study questions industry numbers. That's reasonable. It does NOT predict a net job loss. It does suggest the possibility, but that possibility is predicated on oil spills (not a risk according to the State department) and the project causing green jobs to go away.
It is irresponsible for President Obama to stop this project. You will note that even Obama says that he was not stopping the project because of it's merits. Even Obama has not embraced the position of this paper
The title of the editorial above mentions the word "jobs" twice. The requested link to a study predicting possible net job losses resulting from moving forward with the pipeline was provided, and features the title:
"Four Ways Keystone XL Could Be A Job Killer"
It appears that the issue of jobs is the topic of the report -- and not whether those jobs are "green enough".
As we see from the video link I provided in a previous post, the dumbstream media is all over the board with their claims of numbers of pipeline jobs that would be created, and have no compunction against blurting any figures they flat out make up.
The topic of the report and of the editorial above is jobs. Not green jobs vs. not-so-green jobs.
@Jack.Webb, @beentheredonethat: Thank you for the links. This paper is at odds with the Department of State Impact study with regard to environmental concerns. The paper seems to be heavily biased by the thought that anything that could detract from the green effort is unacceptable. I reject that premise completely.
That said, you have provided links and those who want to understand your points of view can check it out.
Dang Jack; see what you done. Went and spoiled it.