Billionaire U.S. activist (Tom Steyer) kicks off campaign to turn Obama against Keystone

[Newsjock]

Source: The Globe and Mail

Billionaire anti-Keystone activist Tom Steyer brought a jar of thick Canadian oil sands crude to Washington Thursday and said he was confident a new social media campaign could convince President Barack Obama to reject the controversial pipeline intended to funnel Alberta oil to Gulf Coast refineries.

“I think he is very smart, I know he understands our energy and climate crisis,” said Mr. Steyer, an ardent supporter and major financial backer of the President. “That’s why I’m confident he will turn down the Keystone pipeline,” he added, even as he acknowledged “that’s not the betting here in Washington, D.C.”

Mr. Steyer announced the launch of a social media campaign, intended to galvanize millions of Obama supporters to pressure the President to reject Keystone or risk losing key segments of his base in the run-up to critical midterm elections.

“We’re going to call this campaign ‘We love our land’ and it is going to take from today through Labour Day and hopefully it will mobilize supporters who want to help the President fight for forward-looking climate policies and start that by blocking the Keystone pipeline that threatens our nation,” said Mr. Steyer.


Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/billionaire-us-activist-kicks-off-campaign-to-turn-obama-against-keystone/article12714035/

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Good for him.

Sounds like a winning campaign to me.

I sure hope Obama is listening!

[Lugal Zaggesi]

2. We should definitely greenlight the pipeline

It will create hundreds of millions of jobs !

It will bring the cost of gasoline down to $1/gallon for Americans - Hummer, come'on back !

It will tap directly into Canada's two-thousand-year supply of cheap, economy-boosting black gold !

[Buzz Clik]

4. Okay. Nobody is saying any of that.

[progressoid]

12. While clearly exagerated and hyperbolic, those claims have been touted for support

of the Keystone XL.

[Buzz Clik]

13. Ok. I agree. They exaggerated the number of jobs.

I never heard any of the rest.

[karynnj]

6. LOL - Problem is I suspect we will see someone on the right

quoting Lugai Zaggesi to argue that thie is just too good an opportunity to miss!

[Buzz Clik]

3. His efforts would be better spent lobbying for stronger regulations.

-- Better monitors for oil and gas pipelines
-- Gas leaks in petroleum and fracking wells
-- Water reuse regulations for fracking industry

etc etc.

Fossil fuels aren't going away. Drawing a line in the sand for Keystone XL is totally misguided.

[truedelphi]

5. It is heart breaking to see people

As to the value of a "D" after someone's anme.

If anyone supporting Keystone had been a Republican, you loyalists would have been out in the streets, with "McCain Must Go!" as your rallying cry.

but whatever Obama does is fine. His Secretary of State's department declares we need the Keystone XL Pipeline, and Obama tells reporters in San Francisco that he has to do it for the sake of the poor people, who otherwise can't afford their utilities.

We need people who will reform this sorry state of affairs and get us back to what the Party of the "Big D" used to mean. And believe me, there was a time when it did not mean endless wars, give aways and under the table deals for Wall Street, and punitive measures and loss of environment for everyone else.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Obama has not done anything, and I will be pissed if he rejects the pipeline.

We have only so much political capital to burn, and this is the wrong place.

Oh yes, the mainstream totally uninformed leftwing environmentalists are making this THE big environmental issue, when it should rank totally off the radar. We got the damned thing out of the Sandhills, now move on.

Yeah, I have a Big D after my name, and it doesn't mean dumb-as-hell.

This isn't hard, but so few people understand.

[U4ikLefty]

9. So you are pro-Monsanto AND pro-Keystone pipeline?

Sickening, buit not surprising.

[Buzz Clik]

11. That's what you took away from my comments?

Damn.

No. I find the whole tar sands mess to be ridiculous. Canada really screwed the pooch on that one. Maybe someday we'll be as stupid as to start mining oil shale in Colorado.

But, the Canadians are doing it, and they will extract the tar and they will refine the resulting crude and nothing we do with Keystone XL will change that. Nothing. So, we waste political capital stopping a meaningless pipeline? Seems really dumb to me.

Pro-Monsanto? Nope. Just anti-stupid in that case, too.

I am real tired of uninformed people making non-scientific arguments when the science exists to contradict them.

So, EuphoricLefty -- where do you stand? Stop XL at all costs and Monsanto is the devil?

[karynnj]

20. A "meaningless pipe" that could by leaking be an environmental calamity. nt

[Buzz Clik]

22. Exactly. So, tighten up the regs on ALL pipelines. External leak detectors on all pipelines...

... even those in use.

[karynnj]

28. I agree with external leak detectors on all pipelines - it is the least the companies using people's

lands should be required to do.

With Keystone, I don't get what we gain. Thiryfive permanent jobs? I do see that what we could lose is with a spill, this gunk is toxic and very hard to clean up. At minimum, will we require TransCanada to buy ADEQUATE insurance from a reputable company to pay for any clean up and the impacts on people affected? This is NOT a case where self insuring is acceptable. Does anyone know what responsibility they need to accept and what insurance they need to show the US? Seriously, a bank will not give you a mortgage unless their investment is protected. Here you have a private company proposing a pipeline the full North South length of the United States that will take their dirty tar sand oil - that was obtained by destroying part of Canada, the entire length to be refined in Texas then shipped out because it is too dirty for use here. I see what the company gains, I don't see what we gain or what the world gains.

[Buzz Clik]

29. " I don't see what we gain"

1. More crude for refineries
2. More petroleum products

That's what we get.

Otherwise, I fully agree with your post.

[ReRe]

21. Frankly...

... and conversely, many of us REAL Democrats are real tired of false profits like you who call yourselves a Democrat. You're not a Democrat, Buzz Clik. You're not a Democrat.

[Buzz Clik]

23. "False profits"? Gettin' all Biblical on my ass? Okay, I'll play.

But let's provide the entire context:

Matthew 7,

1. Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. 2. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.

3. And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eyec when you have a log in your own? 4. How can you think of saying to your friend, "Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye," when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? 5. Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.

6. Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don’t throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

7. Keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. 8. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.

9. You parents—if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead? 10. Or if they ask for a fish, do you give them a snake? Of course not! 11. So if you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to those who ask him.

12. Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.

13. You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. 14. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it.

15. Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. 16. You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17. A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. 18. A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. 19. So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. 20. Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions.

21. Not everyone who calls out to me, "Lord! Lord!" will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. 22. On judgment day many will say to me, "Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name." 23. But I will reply, "I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws."

24. Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock. 25. Though the rain comes in torrents and the floodwaters rise and the winds beat against that house, it won’t collapse because it is built on bedrock. 26. But anyone who hears my teaching and doesn’t obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand. 27. When the rains and floods come and the winds beat against that house, it will collapse with a mighty crash.

28. When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29. for he taught with real authority—quite unlike their teachers of religious law.

So, if we're playing by Jeebus's cool rules, I'd advise you to quit judging, and I'll quit casting my pearls of wisdom before pigs. Deal?

[ReRe]

24. I'm so glad you had fun doing that... I didn't read it. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

25. Read this:

You don't get to say who is a Democrat and who is not. That is the kind of low-level bullshit that a fargin' cave dwelling, knuckledragging neanderthal pulls when he calls someone a RINO. A Democrat never says that to another Dem because that doesn't work here, and it surely does not work on me.

Democrats used to rely on science and did not rely on irrational fear to motivate. Somewhere, somehow that all changed, but not for me.

[ReRe]

26. BS n/t

[truedelphi]

15. So many many Democrats pretend that

A President's appointments don't matter, or else that his "hand's off, let someone else figure it out" attitude is A-okay as well.

But unfortunately for most of us, having appointments made from a short list of pro-Wall Street, pro-Monsanto, pro-Big Oil and pro-Big MIC means the middle class is getting screwed, (while bailing everyone else out!) and the food will soon be inedible.

[karynnj]

8. The Secretary of State has yet to say anything

The report, that was finished before he came to office is out and I think we are in a period where comments are coming in. I did not hear Obama say that - if he did I am concerned as Keystone will not lower the utility prices at all. First of all, oil is a global commodity and this would not be a major increase in supply. In fact, the oil company related people who wrote the report ASSUME as fact that the pipeline's existence does not change how much tar sand oil is produced. If you buy this premise (I don't), then there is no change in supply - so why exactly does this lower cost?

[truedelphi]

14. It was Hillary Clinton's State Dept that proposed the Keystone XL Pipeline !!!!!

My goodness, there was also a time when people had memories that were more than one week long!

Of course, maybe you weren't in the USA in 2011, but I was, and that was when Hillary's State Department took it upon themselves to propose it.

And Hillary waited until things looked shaky in the House and Senate (Republican control, or at least enough people to thwart environmentalism) and then and only then did she come out against it. Since she headed State at the time of the original proposal, if she really had not wanted this, she could have done a number of things to stop the proposal.

[karynnj]

16. The US State Department did not "propose it" - TransCanada did

because it crosses the border the state department must recommend/or not reccomend the project to Obama. The State department commissioned the environmental impact report - but the problem is the people who wrote it are linked to big oil.

Your sarcasm is rather silly, when you are not correct on almost anything here.

What happened in 2011 is that the Republicans pushed Obama for an immediate decision - he gave it and it no. Nebraska - red state that it is - objected to the path through the larger aquifer. At that point THAT route was rejected. However, Obama approved building the bottom section of the pipeline. However before completing it Obama must approve - and before that the current SOS must advice him - advise he can take or reject.

I don't think Hillary has come out for or against it - and if she comes out against it, then it is all politics because it was her team that wrote the report that assumes away the production of the shale oil itself and ignores the potential for leaks. Here is the most recent article I could find quickly - December 2012 - and she was for it - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/09/hilary-clinton-and-obama-s-dismal-record-on-the-environment.html

[truedelphi]

17. What??

Next you'll be demanding that we discuss what "it " is.

OI stand by my statements. As not only did the State Department propose it, (as they are in collusion with Trans Canada,) their idea of an Environmental Impact review, et al, is a scandal, and contrary to what our government and its State department should do, which is why Sierra Club is now suing State Department!

http://rt.com/usa/lawsuit-state-department-keystone-pipeline-557/


The Sierra Club, along with many other environmental organizations that oppose construction of the pipeline, maintain that the company that conducted the government's impact report had a significant conflict of interest as it had “financial ties to the pipeline company and the American Petroleum Institute, one of Keystone XL’s most active and vocal lobbyists.”

The Environmental Protection Agency has also called into question the report. In April, EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Cynthia Giles wrote to the State Department to say that that agency’s March 2013 environmental impact report was “insufficient.”

A major portion of the pipeline requires a cross-border permit, and the environmental impact report produced by Environmental Resources Management will be key in finalizing the State Department’s review of the project. The State Department signaled via a draft review in summer 2011 that it intended to grant the project a passing environmental grade.

Unlike the section of the pipeline that will cross the Canada-US border, the Oklahoma-to-Texas section does not require special permits, and has already been laid down. As Inside Climate News reported only a few days ago, sections of that new pipeline, which is not yet operational, were recently dug up after TransCanada identified 40 “anomalies” along a 60-to-70 mile stretch in east Texas.

[karynnj]

19. Nothing said there disagrees with anything I wrote

The fact is that TransCanada proposed it. Can you find an actual link that says that the State Department had anything to do with the original plan. It is bad enough that they had the company they did do the environmental analysis. This is not just semantics. To propose something means something - and IF that were the case it would be a huge story.

[DonCoquixote]

27. and she sure as hell did not stop her Billy

from coming out for it.

[truedelphi]

30. No she sure as heck did not.

Of course, when politicians make deals ensuring that they will receive some $ 100K per speech in front of a Corporate podium, that limits the politician's ability to be for the environment and clean drinking water, and to stand with Us People against The Big Corporations.

[Cha]

10. Good on Tom Steyer!

thanks Newsjock

[watoos]

18. I hope Mr Steyer is squeaky clean

he will be examined under a microscope.
A lot of people don't realize what will go through that pipeline; sulfur, arsenic, and mercury to name a few. We also know that a spill in a lake or river can't be cleaned up; see Kalamazoo river. What can go wrong?