Kerry may Nix Keystone XL for Global Climate Agreement

(By Tina Casey)

The tubes have been buzzing over a new New York Times report on Secretary of State John Kerry’s aggressive pursuit of a new global climate agreement, which  has some clear implications for approval of the controversial Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline…
John Kerry Throws More Cold Water On Keystone XL Pipeline (via Clean Technica)

The tubes have been buzzing over a new New York Times report on Secretary of State John Kerry’s aggressive pursuit of a new global climate agreement, which  has some clear implications for approval of the controversial Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline…

Related Video:

CCTV America reports on the fierce opposition to Keystone XL in Nebraska

7 Responses

  1. Remember when Obama’s approval of the KXL pipeline was a done deal?

    I believe he was going to sign off immediately after the bombing of Iran.

    • To add context to the complexity, here’s some advice to Obama to “think strategically” about the monetary benefits of doing KXL:

      link to

      Keystone’s proponents and profiteers have been busy, of course. link to Whether or not Obama signs off on KXL, what’s he gonna do about the near-apparent-inevitability that MONEY will end up stripping the landscape, cooking that stuff and getting it to “China?”

  2. Kerry is correct about the real costs of fossil fuels. Most of us don’t realize that coal industries “charge” Americans a huge hidden tax as they pollute for free.

    Harvard School of Medicine studies determined a social cost of coal (70 impacts, mainly on health) of $300-$500 billion/year. That’s over $1000/year for every man, woman and child in this country. It doesn’t come out of coal’s profit either.

    Along with nixing Keystone, we need a national carbon fee, or tax, on every ton of coal (and all other carbon emitters) would create incentives in the free market to move away from fossil energy, and coal’s hidden taxes would simply go away.

    Those fees would be returned to citizens, as lowered income taxes, for example. This has worked well in BC, which has lowered emissions by almost 20% and kept pace with all other parts of Canada in economic growth.

    Even conservative economists are in favor of the carbon tax as it replaces command and control via the EPA.. The T Party? Not so much.

  3. My concern is with the next 3 or 4 election cycles. This issue of Keystone and coal is going to be front and center (still) in those elections. The GOP calls the route of Keystone the Obama Energy Gap, spinning Keystone into a litmus test of energy policy.which they spin into a litmus test of economic policy.

    There is more riding on these elections than Keystone and coal. If the GOP keeps the House and wins the Senate or if the White House goes to the GOP any time in the foreseeable future and seeing how close we have been to this…; green energy, the so-called 99%, public education, the Palestinians, and so on are all likely doomed.

    Besides all the GOP noise that will sound off in the campaigns over killing jobs and fuel prices they will blame (wrongly) on Keystone, the Green and some other far-left parties also will use this as a political foil against the Democrats (running for high offices that 3rd parties cannot possibly win rather than focusing on local offices that can be won as a socialist candidate has demonstrated in Seattle–where you might be able to achieve something.)

    I don’t see the Dems as problem-free or some sort of saviors of the world, but I worry about balance. Money doesn’t talk, people do. But money as a proxy for speech has unbalanced politics and this is the fulcrum that the Dem party teeters on. And, it never matters what the truth is if your opponent can manufacture the truth as if it was a petroleum derivative. As far as truth goes, truth has always been a tragic figure — ripped to pieces by justice so the story goes. (I am saying that the facts of the Keystone case being debated here are not as important as the politics revolving around Keystone, etc…)

    The left has not been all that happy with the achievements of the White House. My conjecture is that the White House often has been in the unhappy place of having to defer what it would like to do due to the critical political situation.

    The bottom line is whatever Kerry decides could be easily undone along with a mad “repeal” of health-care. So I would hope, that what Kerry does will depend on its expected outcome re: 2014 elections. So they are studying the polls and such trying to figure this out but that necessitates words and plans to test in the polls (my guess at the current situation).

    Juan wrote the other day about the noise Netanyahu is making for recognition of a Jewish State. I doubt he really cares about that. It more likely is part of derailing the peace process in general upon which foundation the right in both countries will manufacture yet more straw men to justify more phony wars — its all about concentrated money spent on money at the expense of ….

    Sorry, I did mention 2014? I should have claimed that the 2016 campaigns are in full swing.

    • Immediate political developments probably don’t matter much. The world has 8 years to make big changes, and its elites have chosen not to, and there’s no mass movement to force it on them. We’re screwed. Large land mammals have a high extinction rate.

Comments are closed.