OBAMA’S KEYSTONE CONFUSION

[Geee]

American Spectator:

In his appearance last week on The Colbert Report, President Obama restated his approach to the Keystone XL pipeline decision, a mindset that can only be described as confused.

 

The president summarized his strange dilemma as follows: “[Keystone] could create a couple of thousand potential jobs in the initial construction of the pipeline, but we’ve got to measure that against whether or not it is going to contribute to an overall warming of the planet that could be disastrous.”

 

 

But this thinking hinges on three key — and false — assumptions.

 

First, that whatever carbon dioxide or pollution (note that I did not say “or other pollution” since CO2 is plant food, not pollution) would be generated in the building or operation of Keystone will not be generated in whatever other method ends up being used to transport oil from Canada through the United States.

 

Second, the usual climate alarmist assumptions, namely that humans are having a substantial impact on the climate and that a warming of the planet is likely to be harmful.

 

Third, and most important, the implicit assumption that climate change — even if you believe the alarmists’ claims — is the only risk worth considering.

 

[Valin]

@Geee

 

1. He's a man of the Left so it goes without saying he's confused. (contrary to what some believe he is not Hard Left, he is Center Left. Of course what is the Center of the Left was Hard Left 40-50 years ago)

 

2. "Not surprisingly, socialist senators and their friends in the environmental fear-mongering industry don’t understand even basic economics. Oil is traded worldwide with the two major benchmarks being the U.S.’s West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Europe’s Brent Crude. The prices track each other closely, though in recent years American oil has been less expensive because of large supply in the Midwest." See point #1.

 

3. A lot of Alarmism going around today, Left & Right. For some it is heart felt, but for others I believe it has more to do with acquiring power than anything else.

[Geee]

@Valin

 

On your point of the Left of 40-50 years ago - I think I've said this before - If you go back and listen to speeches of Dems of even 30 years back, you'd swear they were coming from Republicans. Just think of some of JFK's speeches.

 

As far as acquiring power vs statesmanship - "Ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country" not only is lost on most of todays citizens, but todays politicians also.

[Valin]

@Valin

 

On your point of the Left of 40-50 years ago - I think I've said this before - If you go back and listen to speeches of Dems of even 30 years back, you'd swear they were coming from Republicans. Just think of some of JFK's speeches.

 

As far as acquiring power vs statesmanship - "Ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country" not only is lost on most of todays citizens, but todays politicians also.

Two Dates come to mind Chicago 1968 (The Hard/New Left took over the Democratic Party) Jan. 20 1981 the start of the Reagan myth. A Reagan quote so many people forget ...

 

"I'm not retreating an inch from where I was. But I also recognize this: There are some people who would have you so stand on principle that if you dont get all that youve asked for from the legislature, why, you jump off the cliff with the flag flying. I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process youre not going to always get everything you want. So, I think what theyve misread is times in which I have compromised."

 

/Rambling reply