On Tuesday, November 18, 2014, the Senate’s Democrats successfully
blocked new legislation that would have allowed for the construction of the
Keystone XL Pipeline. The
Keystone XL Pipeline is an oil pipe that would have connected “Canada’s oil
sands to the Texas coast.” The debate surrounding the construction of
this pipeline has been one of the most polemical debates during Obama’s
presidency; since 2005 the GOP has thrown its full support behind the pipeline,
while most of the Democratic Party has opposed its construction. Surprisingly
on Tuesday, the Democrats were finally able to strike down the legislation by a
single vote, even though a fellow Democrat, Mary Landrieu led the metaphorical
crusade for the construction of the pipeline.
The defeat
of the Keystone XL in Congress symbolizes a great victory for the liberal
environmentalists. Through the defeat of the pipeline, the liberals are able to
draw even more attention to the issue of climate change and environmental
sustainability. However, this victory for the liberal left seems to be short
lived, as the new Republican dominated Senate intends to reintroduce the bill
in January. In fact, the Republican
Party is working harder than ever to build up a coalition that will back the
Keystone XL bill and will override the president’s veto.
Many believe
that the issue of the Keystone XL Pipeline must be laid to rest, and speculate
the Democrats opposition to the bill is “unsustainable.” Furthermore, polls
have shown that a majority of the American people support the pipeline, “despite
warnings of the environmentalists [that] it would swell carbon emissions and
threaten fragile ecosystems in its route.” Moreover, it is the belief of the
Republican Party and many oil executives that the bill will eventually be
passed, as the pipeline will provide Americans with many desperately needed
jobs and will increase energy resources.
Currently, it appears as if the president may
actually sign off on the bill in January, when it is reintroduced. While the
White House has officially claimed that it will wait for the Nebraska court to
make a final decision on the construction of a pipeline being built through that
state, it seems even more likely that the president will approve this bill as
to use it as bargaining chip with Congress. In other words, in exchange for the
president’s approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline bill, the Republicans may be
expected to approve one of Obama’s plans.
So what do
you think about the Keystone Pipeline? Should it be built even if its
construction will adversely impact the environment? Do you believe that the
Republicans will be able to amass a veto-proof majority, or do you think that
the Republicans will have to attach the pipeline bill to a pay roll tax cut
bill, as the party has done in the past? How do you think that reintroduction
of the Keystone Pipeline bill will impact American politics?
Sources
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline.html?ref=politics&_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/politics/keystone-obama/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/keystone-xl-poll_n_6186606.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-18/senate-votes-against-keystone-xl-pipeline-after-six-year-fight.html
Sources
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline.html?ref=politics&_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/politics/keystone-obama/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/keystone-xl-poll_n_6186606.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-18/senate-votes-against-keystone-xl-pipeline-after-six-year-fight.html
12 comments:
Sophia,
This is a very interesting and controversial topic that has plagued Congress for a while now. I find it very interesting that even without the Republican majority in Congress, the legislation was only blocked by one vote. Also, since there is soon to be a Republican majority in the Congress that will most likely pass the bill when it is reintroduced, it appears as though President Obama is attempting to use the bill as a bargaining tool while he still can. However, if Obama did take that route it would result in the alienation of a lot of environmentalists who voted for him in the previous presidential elections. Also, I believe that the fact that the majority of Americans are supporting the construction of this pipeline shows that their dissatisfaction with the President Obama has transferred to all of the Democratic Party This fact was also exemplified during the midterm elections.
In regards to American politics, I think that this issue will simply divide the parties even further. In this case, there really cannot be a compromise made in regards to the building the pipe. It is either built or it is not. Therefore I believe that since this is such a cut-and-dry issue, it will clearly draw party lines. Regardless of all the different opinion, it seems apparent that the Keystone Pipeline legislation will be passed in the near future.
I think that Keystone Pipeline can be both beneficial and harmful pertaining to certain aspects. I think that as the article stated, that it can drastically affect the environment. However, at the same time, this may lead way to new innovation and technology as well as job opportunities. Although this does affect the environment in significant ways, I believe that it should be built if and only if it offers a lot more benefits for the country. However if not much is being gained from constructing this, then it should not be built. As Catie said, I believe that the Republicans will be able to amass a veto-proof majority. This is because it seems as if many people are supportive of the construction of the pipeline including some Democrats. Therefore, I think that this pipeline will ultimately be constructed. Considering the fact that many aren't necessarily concerned about the environmental aspects of building this, many will indeed support the building of this pipeline. By reintroducing the pipeline bill, it will only spark more controversy. Due to the fact that Republicans now have control over the Senate, there is a strong possibility that this can be implemented. Thus, there will be more political disagreement that may inevitably lead to a disappointed Democratic party.
The fact of the matter is like it or not, our society runs on oil. Without oil we would just been unable to sustain the society we have constructed in America. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be moving toward a future that relies on primarily renewable energy. Even though we should strive for this goal, it is unlikely to happen in the near future because as a people we are quite stubborn. We like to stick to what works for us, even if like Sophia said, adversely impact the environment. That being said we do need to ensure that we have the necessary amounts of oil in the future. The republicans, and even some democrats as we saw in Sophia's article, propose that this pipeline will help the people. Also, we have recently discovered an ocean of oil in the the northern part of these United States. An ocean that is several times the size of the 1 trillion barrels of oil that humans of consumed in the last 100 years. Pipelines like keystone will give us the ability to harness the oil under our country and potentially use it to our advantage. Such a massive amount of oil would lower our dependency on foreign countries for oil improving our economy. And with such a massive reserve we would be able to further lesson our debt by exporting oil to other countries. Even thought I do not support the harm of our precious environment, the keystone pipeline has many positive outcomes that cannot be ignored, and if supported in the future could greatly help our country.
Sophia, what I find so interesting about the Keystone Pipeline vote, as stated in the New York Times’ article that you linked us to, is that the bill was considered the “brainchild” of Mary Landrieu. Historically, Landrieu has been a very moderate Democratic and has, especially in recent years as the Democratic party grows more concerned with environmental issues, clashed with liberal interests. She has supported a number of offshore drilling bills and opposed many pieces of legislation designed to tackle climate change. As a result, she has made quite a few enemies within her own party and from more liberal supporters of the Democratic Party.
That being said, however, the Democratic party has worked hard to preserve her seat and the seats of other Democrats who were in danger of being replaced. The Obama administration delayed a number of controversial decisions, such as the Keystone Pipeline vote or the nomination of the new Attorney General, until after the elections, for a number of Senate Democrats, including Landrieu, requested that the decisions be pushed back. Why? Well, in the words of the Jon Stewart, “Senate Democrats wanted to avoid votes on contentious issues so they wouldn’t have to take an unpopular stance that might cost them reelection.” Clearly, this strategy did not work to save Democrats in red states, as Republicans swept the midterm elections. However, one Senate seat remains up in the air: Landrieu’s.
As we know from our midterm election predictions, Landrieu was one of three candidates running for Louisiana’s hotly contested Senate seat in the past midterm elections. Although she earned enough votes to force a runoff election, it is unlikely that she will be able to defeat her Republican opponent, now that she is only facing one rather than two. Thus, because the Democratic party has already suffered such harsh loses, they are likely to do whatever they can to keep Landrieu in her seat. And since the Keystone Pipeline bill was branded as her “brainchild,” what better way to win over relatively conservative Louisianans than to force a vote that passes Landrieu’s relatively conservative legislation?
For that reason, Democrats finally allowed a vote on an issue that they have pushed back a number of times. Perhaps for that same reason, so many Democrats, fourteen to be exact, sided with Landrieu and voted for the bill. Unfortunately for Landrieu, she had a number of enemies in Democratic party that refused to sacrifice their ideologies and vote for the bill. As such, despite Landrieu’s emotional appeals, the bill failed and with it, so did Landrieu’s last hope for reelection.
Therefore, should Republicans push for another vote in once they take control of the Senate, I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the Democrats that Landrieu had “won over” suddenly oppose the bill, as many may simply vote to save her seat and Democratic numbers. Unfortunately, this speaks very poorly of American politics; politics is less about following beliefs or doing what is necessary to improve the nation and more about winning votes for your party. Such a fact makes politics seem like a game, and not a sophisticated one at that. Thus, I hope that if another vote is taken on the Keystone Pipeline, Senators will chose to vote based on their own ideology—whatever that may be—rather than on the basis of petty, partisan politics.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/upshot/keystone-vote-unlikely-to-change-odds-for-mary-landrieu.html?rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article&abt=0002&abg=0
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/11/19/senate-keystone-pipeline-vote-was-massive-missed-opportunity
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline.html
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/vos7bo/obama-and-the-pussy-crats
Despite the bill being rejected through a surge of Democrat votes to deny Republicans of an initial victory in Congress, this bill will most certainly resurface once again in January without any hopes of being denied. Incoming majority leader Mitch McConnell made the Keystone Pipeline one of his major points on his agenda for Congress in the upcoming months and plans to bring up a Keystone Bill when the new Senate reconvenes, this time with a majority and a Congress infuriated with Obama’s unilateral actions without their acknowledgement. Republicans will look to strike back after this initial setback and only put Democratic policies further back in the lineup as Republicans will want to assert their dominance first rather than compromise. Then again, President Obama might see the Keystone Bill as a way to appease the Republicans and agree to pass legislation on the construction when Congress reconvenes in January, since the pipeline will produce an influx of jobs for local state economies. Obama could definitely use a break and just side with Republicans on this issue to gain leverage on more important matters in the latter part of his second term.
Although I am displeased with the Supreme Court decision allowing for unlimited campaign funding and direct funding from corporations and major interest groups, this decision seemed to aid environmentalist interest groups in gathering funds for the political races on both sides. Environmentalists invested millions of dollars to gain votes, along with frequent protests outside the White House to sway politicians into voting on their behalf, especially with issues concerning climate change looming above the heads of Congress after the commotion of the midterm elections. Both Obama and the Republicans have looked to set up legislation that would satisfy the issues concerning climate and the environment to different extents, and this leverage seemed to work in the favor of the environmentalists and the Democrats who voted for their cause and denying the construction of the pipeline.
I agree with jack in that our society runs on oil and it is critical to almost everything we do. Our economy and country depends on this precious substance greatly. Today in the United States Senate there was a vote for the Keystone Pipeline and fourteen Democrats voted for it, along with forty-five Republicans. In the end they came up one vote short of the sixty required votes to send the vote on to the President. The environmentalist and large donors to Democratic Senators provided enough support to defeat passage of the legislature. It is expected to be taken up again in two months with a Republican controlled Senate, and the expectation is that it will be passed then. If passed, thousands of jobs will be created to build this pipeline. This is a much needed economic boost for the country as a whole. The pipeline's benefits to America include job creation, increased oil supply from Canada, and the increased capacity for the United States on their path to oil independency. There are already existing pipelines in the United States that have not exhibited the environmental concerns expressed, regarding the building of the Keystone Pipeline. A main opposition to the pipeline has come from environmentalists. Of course we all want to keep our nations environment nice and beautiful, but when it comes to the economy and whats best for the country, we must move forward with the best option. A government environmental impact statement also predicts that the pipeline would result in less damage to the climate than moving the same oil by rail. Overall, the Keystone Pipeline will bring nothing but good to America improving many aspects of the economy. This is a bill that must be passed if we want to progress and develop as an independent nation.
Hey Sophia, I took AP Environmental Science last year and from the knowledge I gained about the Keystone Pipeline, I cant tell you it is very good that it was not implemented in the United States. The reason why the Republicans and businesses want it in the United States is because it will increase the oil business but this is not a good trade off at all. The power of refining our own oil and being the playmakers in the oil industry is important but to do it through the United States and into the Texas shoreline is not worth it. First, the pipeline will be transporting bitumen, one of the most dirty oils there are from tar sands up in Alberta. Not only does this contribute a lot more pollution into the atmosphere but it is known to be very messy and the side products are stored in sludge pools. That is just the extraction. As we taken the bitumen down the pipeline there will be many leaks (almost weekly) throughout the pipeline. This not only will be very expensive to clean up but it might also pollute the United States largest water aquifer and the source that allows its agriculture industry to run. The Ogallala Aquifer goes across many states and the Pipeline is built right on top of it. If the oil leaks into the aquifer the United States will have polluted its greatest waters source and its land just for the sake of a few billion dollars in oil revenue. I personally think that this is not worth it at all. I understand that the Republican Party wants it and if Obama passes their law then the Republicans will allow a liberal bill to pass, but it honestly is not worth it at all. Obama has many environmentalist voters and he will lose all of them if he allows this bill to pass. He will destroy the United States for the sake of a few corporations that will never see the damage they are creating. There must be other policies that Obama can pass for the Republicans that are less risky for the country. The Republicans also need to realize that this is not a smart choice. They have power and in Congress and I hope they do not abuse it to the point that they get everything they want. They need to be checked upon so legislation like this Keystone Pipeline does not get passed.
Personally, I feel that the benefits of the Keystone Pipeline far outweigh the drawbacks. For one, the Keystone project is the definition of shovel-ready. Almost overnight, Keystone XL could put 9,000 Americans directly to work. The U.S. State Department’s Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement has found that the project would support more than 42,000 direct and indirect jobs nationwide. Likewise, Keystone XL will contribute more than $3 billion towards U.S. GDP. Taxes paid by the project will greatly benefit the towns and counties it passes through. Furthermore, the Keystone Pipeline will allow safe, secure access to domestic petroleum, thus decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. While one cannot deny the adverse impacts that oil and carbon emissions can have on the environment, a full on switch to renewable energy is not a viable option at this time. Simply put, renewable energy is not yet reliable enough to adequately meet our energy needs. America needs a new supply of oil to hold us over until renewable energy has been developed more fully. With vehicles becoming more and more fuel efficient, the environmental impacts of crude oil usage will continue to drop off precipitously until an eventual switch-over to renewable resources is facilitated. Many Americans are beginning to recognize these benefits and are now voicing their approval of the project. With such widespread public support, it should be easy for the Republicans to push the bill though with a veto-proof majority. In fact, if all goes well, the pipeline could serve as an example of Congressional Republicans’ ability to create sound economic legislation; the implications of such an event could potentially impact the 2016 Election.
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/keystone-xl-poll_n_6186606.html
http://keystone-xl.com/facts/myths-facts/
I agree with Jack, Stephen, Matt, and Gurumeher. The benefits of the keystone pipeline outweigh the detriments. A large portion of the foreign policy and economic problems of the United States is due to the fact that we do not have the ability, or in this case, the willpower, to drill and use our own oil. Our oil economy is based off of and dependent heavily on the oil of the Midle East. Because there are people there who despise the United States, it requires that the United States go through many diplomatic, and in recent cases, militaristic, hoops in order to secure oil for our ever-growing economy. If people really want us to get out of the Middle East, we must sacrifice a bit of our environment, which is better than sacrificing hundreds or thousands of American lives to get something that we can't have permanent control over. I think that the Senate needs to look at the diplomatic and economic benefits that outweigh the environmental detriments in passing this important legislation.
I personally think that the Keystone Pipeline would be beneficial for the American public. As we all know Americans use an insane amount of gasoline. However America does not naturally pocesses much oil. We have been importing crude oil from many Middle Eastern and African countries. Our relations in the Middle East are not the very stable. Having a larger pipeline that connects Canada and Texas's coast will help America reduce their independence on Middle Eastern and African countries. The opponents of this larger pipeline say that having it run through the middle of the country will wreck fragile environments. However transporting crude oil across the Atlantic Ocean is much more hazardous to the global environment and to America in the end. If people are looking for the safest and least damaging way to get Americans the oil they need is with the Keystone XL Pipeline. With the Senate's new Republican majority it seems likely that they will be able to pass their plans to expand the pipeline.
I agree with Catie on the fact that this is amazing the decision came down to one vote even with a Republican majority in Congress. Simply because this vote was so close proves that the entire government is not completely sided with the Republicans, even with their wins in the most recent elections. This decision ultimately comes down to whether or not this pipe line will negatively affect the environment, or if it would be a positive addition to the United States. As Jack stated, we need oil. The entire country runs on it; without it everything will fall apart: the economy, transportation, and the whole system of the nation would not be as successful as it is today without oil. I also agree with Jack on the fact that we need to continue working towards cleaner energy, but regardless, this pipeline is necessary to the integrity of the Untied States economy. In order for technology to continue advancing, we need the oil and other resources to continue keeping these innovations going. Annika is also correct in saying that this is a much better way to get oil to the United States rather than transporting it across the oceans, With the big BP oil spill that happened a few years ago still fresh on the minds of Americans, I believe that would be an important aspect of this pipeline that would make it more appealing to United States citizens. It sure makes it seem like a clear choice to me, and with the Republican majority, I believe that this decision for the American public will come to fruition.
Jack and Robert are right; we need oil. The Keystone pipeline would give us oil. So, logic goes, this would benefit the country. But there is more to this vote than meets the eye; something that very few people have talked about is that while this vote was widely observed and scrutinized, congress quietly voted on another bill, concerning net neutrality, a bill that would have all but ended the controversy on it, was vote on; and it wasn't passed. Our country, and the media as a whole as well, chose Keystone XL as a topic as of recent, and has had a scary amount of tunnel-vision in regards to it. Was this vote important due to the economic and environmental implications for the whole country? undoubtedly. But there are few circumstances in a Democracy where a single issue should be the focus of all peoples for a given time; this stops the progress of the system, and that is costly.
Post a Comment