Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)
Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:41 AM Feb 2013

NYT's Andy Revkin: accept Keystone, there's nothing we can do about it.

[div style="float: left; margin-right: 12px;"]
"...the Keystone XL pipeline – which, if not blocked by President Obama, would carry the crudest form of oil from Canadian tar sand deposits to Gulf Coast fuel refineries — it seems there’s little room for varied stances, at least according to some protesters.

As I wrote in 2011, a tight focus on Obama’s decision over the pipeline could be counterproductive if the hope is to build policies that might someday reduce the need for oil, whether the source is Alberta oil sands, the floor of the Gulf of Mexico or the Niger River delta. (A solid review of the climate impact was provided by Raymond Pierrehumbert on Realclimate.org in 2011.)"

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/is-there-room-fo-varied-approaches-to-energy-and-climate-progress/

Dave Roberts proceeded to dispatch this "peace in our time" blather post-haste in Grist:

"A couple things have happened since then. One, Obama got reelected, pretty easily. Two, it’s become clear that literally anything Obama does will be distorted as anti-jobs by congressional Republicans, which is one reason they are so widely hated.

Obama’s reelection is no longer at risk. He’s got nothing to lose and no reason to trim his sails to please an unpleasable opposition. Has that changed Revkin’s calculus? (Or Walsh’s? Or Grunwald’s?) If so, I haven’t heard it.

Instead, we continue to hear vague references to things Obama could be doing if he weren’t stuck with these meddling Keystone kids. Revkin says Keystone is a “distraction.” (Distracting whom? What would they be doing if they weren’t distracted? He doesn’t say.) Professional wanker Matt Nisbet says it “distracts” and “limits” Obama’s ability to broker a deal. (A deal on what? With whom? He doesn’t say.) Michael Levi says it makes 60 Senate votes for a price on carbon less likely. (Less likely than impossible?) I could cite a dozen more examples, people casually accusing Keystone activism of impeding or draining energy from other solutions.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-virtues-of-being-unreasonable-on-keystone/

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYT's Andy Revkin: accept Keystone, there's nothing we can do about it. (Original Post) wtmusic Feb 2013 OP
obama could have called for massive solar development in the SOTU...oh well, oil cos rule nt msongs Feb 2013 #1
NYT's Joe Nocera said essentially the same thing a couple of days ago. enough Feb 2013 #2
Saw that. Equally insane logic. wtmusic Feb 2013 #3
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»NYT's Andy Revkin: accept...