Thread: Trump supports completion of Dakota Access Pipeline

nntrixie, did they say what was wrong with the wells and the creek and all the lakes and rivers? They should be able to track back to who polluted them and clean them up. Was it from drilling or manufacturing or toxic drum burials or storm water run-off or cattle or livestock operations or public sewage? We have laws that protect against this, and States have environmental agencies along with our federal EPA to prevent and cure these problems. We need to enforce them.

We have tax exempt environmental pollution control bonds available to help finance these programs. Low interest, long 30 year amortizations. We've had these since the 1960's.

Originally Posted by MW

nntrixie wrote (excerpt):



I don't know much on the details in regards to the current pipeline protest that is going on. However, Trump can make sure the Keystone Pipeline doesn't get built. Well, that is assuming the U.S. Congress doesn't pass a veto proof bill, which they don't have the support for right now. Sadly Trump supports the Keystone Pipeline, which means approval will probably get passed early in Trump's presidency. The only reason it hasn't already received approval is because Obama, along with the majority of Democrats, have been opposing it.

I've been a conservative Republican my entire voting life. Although, even I'll admit that the Republican's are hard on the environment.

The Keystone Pipeline is already built and on line. The Keystone XL Pipeline which is the pipeline segment that allows US oil into the Keystone Pipeline to benefit our oil producers is what is stalled.

Trump has said he'll approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Unless something comes up that would pose a risk to the United States, I fully expect him to approve it or try to solve the problems. the reason Obama rejected it and the Congress couldn't over-ride the veto was .... global climate change contribution, i. e. more oil, more climate change. So, in Obama World, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Mexico and Venezuela will profit from "global climate change contribution" and we'll buy our oil from them.

It's crazy what's going on.

Trump will straighten it out.

As to Republicans being hard on the environment, that isn't true. Republicans established the EPA. Republicans established and preserved our national parks and federal lands. In my home state, Republicans established a Conservation Commission, we passed a sales tax that was earmarked for buying land to prevent development to protect habitats in our state. We even passed a law that prevented foreigners from buying farms of any kind in our state. But a few years ago it was repealed apparently conflicting with federal free trade laws. I hate free trade, despise it. It's destroying our country.

Originally Posted by patbrunz

I'm SHOCKED that a billionaire businessman has some of his money invested in stocks of major US corporations! SHOCKED, I tell you! Yawn.

BTW, I wonder if the writers of these leftist propaganda hit pieces use any of those evil petroleum products? I'm sure the communist zealots don't even see how hypocritical they are. See #3 here: http://townhall.com/columnists/johnh...e_to_be_around

You don't get gas in your cars to go to your leftist political rallies without pipelines, morons! Oh and BTW anthropogenic global warming is a scam!

Being invested in the stock market is not the question or a problem. The question is what will he do with those investments before January 20th? For example, he can't have large holdings in Duke Power and then turn around and sign a bill that would directly enhance their profit margin. Furthermore, selling Duke Power prior to signing a bill that would have a negative impact on their profit would be illegal. Surely I'm not the only one here that sees the potential for a conflict of interest in such a situation. Insider trading is illegal, even for members of Congress and the executive branch.

He is going to be the President of the Unite States. That is an awesome responsibility and a position that the American people expect to exemplify the highest height of integrity. I think, as President, he should remove anything that could bring that into question. Just my opinion.

Judy wrote (excerpt):

The Keystone Pipeline is already built and on line. The Keystone XL Pipeline which is the pipeline segment that allows US oil into the Keystone Pipeline to benefit our oil producers is what is stalled.

Trump has said he'll approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Unless something comes up that would pose a risk to the United States, I fully expect him to approve it or try to solve the problems. the reason Obama rejected it and the Congress couldn't over-ride the veto was .... global climate change contribution, i. e. more oil, more climate change. So, in Obama World, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Mexico and Venezuela will profit from "global climate change contribution" and we'll buy our oil from them.

Why PSR Opposes the Keystone XL Pipeline

Home > Resources

Oil combustion always involves some health and environmental costs. But tar sands oil is far worse than conventional oil. Here’s why:

The pipeline poses grave dangers to America’s vital water resources.

• Tar sands oil is thicker, more acidic and more corrosive than conventional crude. Transported under high pressure, it poses a far greater risk of leaks along the pipeline route.
• Tar sands oil pipelines are already leaking and causing serious contamination.
• 
  
  • Over the past five years, pipelines in Midwestern states with the longest history of moving Canadian tar sands have spilled three times as much crude per pipeline mile as the national average.
  • The Keystone I tar sands pipeline was predicted to spill 1.4 times per decade, yet it spilled fourteen times in its first year of operation.
  • In 2010, an older pipeline system spilled more than 800,000 gallons of tar sands oil into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, causing health effects in a majority of Calhoun County residents living adjacent to the river. At a cost of over $725 million, this spill was the most expensive U.S. pipeline accident on record.
  
  
• In addition to surface waters, the Keystone XL pipeline threatens vast underground water supplies that, once contaminated, cannot be cleaned. There’s no “away” where toxic oil can go once it enters an aquifer.

It’s the most carbon-intensive source of oil on the planet.

• The production process alone generates three times as much global warming pollution as conventional crude oil.
• The extraction of tar sands oil is destroying important forest lands that act as a carbon reservoir, further contributing to climate change.
• The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would contribute an additional 27 million metric tons of CO2 annually – or the same amount of global warming pollution created by adding 4.8 million vehicles to the road.

This would accelerate the health impacts from climate change – heat waves, extreme weather, expansion of disease ranges, crop losses and more – that are already occurring.

The pipeline would do little for our energy security.

• The main purpose of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is to make this oil available for export. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast.
• These refineries are in Foreign Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes.
• Shunting oil to refineries for export will actually raise gasoline prices in the Midwest.

In short, this pipeline is not and never was in America's national interest. Clean, healthy, renewable energy and fuel efficiency is the path forward for health and energy security in America – not another tar sands pipeline.
Last Updated November 12, 2015

http://www.psr.org/resources/why-psr...=UTF-8&VR=3430

They re-routed the pipeline to a different location so it doesn't threaten the SandHills or the Aquifers. The new pipeline route for the Keystone XL has been done and approved by the Nebraska legislature, the Governor of Nebraska and Nebraska Supreme Court. If the state of Nebraska is fine with it, what's your problem with it?

PSR is a US affiliate of the International organization that's against nuclear energy who have branched out to attack coal and fossil fuels due to the effects they believe it has on climate change to raise money. They're the people that Jill Stein was protesting with up at the Dakota Access Pipeline project that got her arrested.

Oil and gas are a fact of life and that makes pipelines part of it. I have no problem with oil . Oil is a natural product, it's a carbon based biodegradable part of our planet. It has to be handled responsibly of course, like everything else, but preventing a pipeline in Nebraska that Nebraska wants,is not a right the President should have.

When our producers which the XL portion of this serves can get their oil to refineries to be distributed to the world market which includes US, we're the biggest buyers of the world market oil supply, then that benefits US. The more on the market, the lower the price. The lower the price, the more you have for less which is good for American Workers and American Business which means it's good for All Americans.

Again, the biggest threat to the planet is overpopulation. I'm not taking any of these other concerns seriously until everyone starts taking that one seriously. We've all known this simple fact for almost 60 years. We stop the illegal immigration and excess legal immigration problems into the US, and Americans will be doing more to solve environmental issues in our own country than anything else we've done environmentally in the past 30 years.

Oil and coal polluters fighting clean energy.

They fight competition. That's what competition means. Solar companies fight oil and coal companies. Trump supports them all, he's said that over and over in his Rally Speeches, he supports all energy types, biofuels, solar, oil, coal, gas, he wants them all.

Nov. 4, 2016

Trump just proposed ending all federal clean energy development

He’d end all research on solar, wind, efficiency, batteries, clean cars, and climate science, too.

In the last week, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has repeatedly vowed to zero out all federal spending on clean energy research and development. And the plan he released would also zero out all other spending on anything to do with climate change, including the government’s entire climate science effort.

You may have missed this bombshell because team Trump did not spell out these cuts overtly. In a campaign where the media has “utterly failed to convey the policy stakes in the election,” as Vox’s Matt Yglesias explained recently, it appears only Bloomberg BNA bothered to follow up with the campaign to get at the truth of Trump’s radical proposal.

Polling guru Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com fame gives Trump a one in three chance of becoming president. So I agree with Yglesias that we ought to seriously look at the implications of Trump’s proposals — especially since if Trump wins, he’s all but certain to have a GOP-controlled Congress to back him.

Trump’s newest energy plan

In announcing his “New Deal For Black America” on October 26, Trump promised:

“I will also cancel all wasteful climate change spending from Obama-Clinton, including all global warming payments to the United Nations. These steps will save $100 billion over 8 years, and this money will be used to help rebuild the vital infrastructure, including water systems, in America’s inner cities.”

I’ll bet you never even knew the U.S. budgets $12.5 billion a year ($100 billion over eight years) on climate change, let alone wastefully.

Fortunately for us, BNA Bloomberg queried the campaign on where that $100 billion figure came from. You will not be shocked to learn the “Trump campaign did not give a specific tally to account for the $100 billion total in response.” And the news release announcing his New Deal contains no specifics.

But Bloomberg does have a money quote, so to speak:

“The e-mail said the estimate was based on a Congressional Research Service report in 2013 that looked at federal climate change funding from fiscal year 2008 to the administration’s budget request for FY 2014.”

And here is the money chart from the 2013 CRS report, “Federal Climate Change Funding from FY2008 to FY2014”:

The prominent bar between 2008 and 2009 is the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA aka The Stimulus). Note: Any resemblance between this chart and a gesture that sums up how you feel about the election is purely coincidental.

What leaps off the screen is that the overwhelming majority of the money that was spent during the Obama years on “climate change” was in fact spent on clean energy technologies from solar energy to advanced batteries. In fact, CRS concluded, “more than 75 percent” of that total spending “funded technology development and deployment, mostly through the Department of Energy (DOE).”

If Trump isn’t planning to zero out federal funding for clean technology development and deployment, then there is no possible way of coming anywhere close to $100 billion dollars over eight years or $12.5 billion a year.

If we take the 2014 “climate” budget request of $11.7 billion as the baseline going forward to determine possible budget savings in a Trump administration, then team Trump would have to eliminate everything in it just to save $93.6 billion over eight years.

If Trump left clean energy alone, he’d only save $29.3 billion over eight years. Of course, that would still mean zeroing out essentially the entire U.S. climate science effort. But then who needs to research a hoax “created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” as Trump once tweeted about global warming?
A Trump presidency is a clean energy nightmare[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.6)]He’s been clear he’ll do everything in his power to undermine clean energy — both here and globally.[/COLOR]thinkprogress.org

Bloomberg notes, “Trump has said he would also cancel commitments for an international fund to help poor nations reduce carbon pollution and adapt to climate impacts.”

But the savings here are paltry. Beyond the meager multi-agency funding for “International Climate Change Assistance” already counted in the chart above, the only other big potential line item is for the U.N. Green Climate Fund (GCF). Obama has pledged $3 billion over four years to that fund — and paid $500 million into it in March.

But compared to $100 billion over eight years, those GCF funds are chump change (Trump change?). It’s true that in Paris last December, the rich countries agreed to create a $100 billion a year fund (using public and private money) to help the poor countries deal with climate change. But none of that is in the federal budget yet, so if Trump refuses to join in, he won’t be freeing up any money to spend on his “New Deal For Black America.”

In reality, the only way Trump can keep this promise is to zero out all clean energy research and development (along with all climate science and support for international efforts), which would shut the door on the below-2°C path just as the rest of the world was working together to pry that door open.

You may consider it unlikely Trump would follow through, but I was at the U.S. Department of Energy working on clean energy when the GOP took back the House in 1995, led by Newt Gingrich.

The House GOP had pledged to zero out all clean energy development and deployment programs — and they succeeded in slashing the budget for all the deployment programs.

The only thing that stopped them from gutting clean energy research and development was a huge push-back by the administration of President Clinton. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-zero...790#.tlqhqaojv

Originally Posted by Judy

They re-routed the pipeline to a different location so it doesn't threaten the SandHills or the Aquifers. The new pipeline route for the Keystone XL has been done and approved by the Nebraska legislature, the Governor of Nebraska and Nebraska Supreme Court. If the state of Nebraska is fine with it, what's your problem with it?

PSR is a US affiliate of the International organization that's against nuclear energy who have branched out to attack coal and fossil fuels due to the effects they believe it has on climate change to raise money. They're the people that Jill Stein was protesting with up at the Dakota Access Pipeline project that got her arrested.

Oil and gas are a fact of life and that makes pipelines part of it. I have no problem with oil . Oil is a natural product, it's a carbon based biodegradable part of our planet. It has to be handled responsibly of course, like everything else, but preventing a pipeline in Nebraska that Nebraska wants,is not a right the President should have.

When our producers which the XL portion of this serves can get their oil to refineries to be distributed to the world market which includes US, we're the biggest buyers of the world market oil supply, then that benefits US. The more on the market, the lower the price. The lower the price, the more you have for less which is good for American Workers and American Business which means it's good for All Americans.

Again, the biggest threat to the planet is overpopulation. I'm not taking any of these other concerns seriously until everyone starts taking that one seriously. We've all known this simple fact for almost 60 years. We stop the illegal immigration and excess legal immigration problems into the US, and Americans will be doing more to solve environmental issues in our own country than anything else we've done environmentally in the past 30 years.

At least I provide my source. You frequently just pass everything you type off as your own personal knowledge and seldom share the source of your information, which I have no doubt is probably just as bias as you accuse my own of being. Please feel free to attack my sources anytime you like, but how about sharing some of your own? Someone eager to attack one persons source should be willing to put their own up to scrutiny.

LOL!! The source of my "attack" on your source is the PSR website, your own source.