From the office of Congressman Andy Harris:
Today, President Obama rejected one of the largest shovel ready projects in the nation when he stopped the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The pipeline would provide $20 billion in private investment to boost the American economy and create 20,000 jobs over the next two years. It would also provide America access to about 830,000 barrels of secure and reliable oil that will help ensure our energy future.
“We can’t wait for the President because his inaction will hurt the American economy and consumers through higher energy costs,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “The time to act is now and that’s why I’ve cosponsored H.R. 3548 which takes the authority to approve the Keystone Pipeline out of his hands. This bill allows the project to move forward and encourages economic growth and job creation through the construction of the pipeline.”
Gee, I thought Andy Harris was going to release a press statement about the underage drinking allowed at his Capitol hill office when a staffer was leaving.
Deflect and Divert.
Yeah, HCG, get your shots in, and to Hell with the pipeline.
I wish Rep. Harris luck on his Bill. It’s time that the stranglehold of the Left, over our economy and energy, is broken.
“Harris the Hack”, is a sack…..If he would EVER print the facts, I’d be amazed. It’s the republicans that delayed the pipeline by connecting it to other crazy right wing agenda items. If you want to know what they are, take your own time and look it up (assuming the same idiots don’t take our “search engines” permanently off line!
Of course no one wants to mention the abuse of eminent domain on this projest. Take your land and redistribute it to a foriegn company. Harris is only opposed to redistribution of his wealth not the farmers in the plains wealth!
Thank God our president stopped this pipeline.Sure, I want a job too! But, the chances were it would have been built with foreign labor.
“Environmental groups, as well as some citizens and public officials along the route, have opposed the project, citing the relatively high emissions created by extracting crude from oil sands and the spill threat posed to important aquifers by a pipeline filled with a potentially corrosive crude, among other concerns.” Note, “public officals along the route” those were the persons who were opposed.
So, once again…it’s the Republicans fault. Not the radical environmentalists, not Obama who is pleasing his base.
Listen, blind one, there WERE NO BILLS when Obama originally nixed the pipeline. It was inserted into later Bills as a rider in an attempt to get the pipeline going again.
Here’s my consolation, when we are suffering from crippling high fuel prices, unless you’re wealthy, you will be hurting too. I hope you understand the self harm that your blind partisanship has created for you, at that time.
It wont matter because OPEC would jack up the rate to compensate resulting in me paying the same at the pump either way!
I don’t want to disregard the 20k or so families that would gain from the project, but when we’re talking about at least 10 million unemployed, are we really going to get irate about this, when there are clearly plenty of questionable issues surrounding it?
I haven’t studied it closely, but it seems perfectly obvious there are some environmental issues and we need to be sure they are all addressed. Maybe they have been, how many of us can say that we know either way? Maybe Obama is pandering to his base, which has previously been unhappy with him, prior to the general election? Maybe he could care less about those 20k jobs because they are going to go to people who largely wouldn’t vote for him anyway?
But ultimately, in my opinion, this is about repeatedly slamming your head against the wall and expecting it not to hurt anymore. What part of peak oil theory do people not understand? There is only a finite amount of fossil fuels in the earth and our demand seems to be pretty clearly exceeding the supply.
Quick fixes and avoiding real solutions is what we have done for decades. It’s time America got it’s head out and took the lead on energy issues. More drilling and oil oil oil is not a solution to our energy costs or dependence.
And if the project is SOOO shovel ready and can be up and running within two years, then clearly if our energy needs and national security became as one, we could pretty quickly become a lot more self reliant in a short amount of time.
Let’s consider it a reserve for now and try to develop less expensive, cleaner, and more pragmattic solutions to our energy problems.
Mr. Harris has obviously been banging his head on the wall for too long.
ps. I notice that yet again, his media monkey intern press release writer could muster only enough enthusiam for this short, uninspired two paragraphs. This guy is on autopilot until it’s time to get elected again.
@Noble
The world is dependent on oil, natural gas, hydro-electric, nuclear and coal energy. There is no wind, solar or perpetual motion technology that can replace these energy sources. So for you to suggest that we embrace unproven, inefficient and costly alternatives is foolish.
What we should do is maximize oil, natural gas, hydro-electric, nuclear and coal energy and let market forces develop the alternative sources. The idea that we can turn of traditional energy sources and switch on solar and wind as replacements is patently naive and reckless.
No where in my comment did I suggest “switching off” fossil fuels or “embracing unproven and inefficient” forms of energy– but great job of mischaracterizing my statements.
Your argument might have been acceptable 30, 20, maybe as little as 10 years ago even, but to expect that we are going to maximize our efficiency and somehow extend our use of the earth’s natural resources indefinitely is foolish. It’s just not going to happen. Besides, are you saying you want to pay $30k dollars for a small but extremely gas efficient or all electric car? Or you’re willing to pay $50k for an extremely efficient Dodge Durango? Because every time the government tries to improve fuel efficiency standards they are hammered for forcing the market. So when are we going to see the natural market forces do this for us?
Because of the lobbying and money in politcs, natural market forces are a pipe dream. Everything is carefully manipulated by large corporations paying the government to pull the right levers.
To some degree, of course I agree that market forces dicate these changes, but it has become increasingly evident, to me, that these forces are managed and manufactured for the most part.
Would we have gone to the moon in 69 if we had let market forces do it? There are obviously times that government has to take the lead because the market will not, or is not moving quickly enough. This is one of those times in my opinion.
It is in our national interest to not continue to embrace finite energy sources.
Unfortunately consumer behavior (market force) dictates that as long as gas is the least expensive way to get around, that’s what we’re going to buy, and the more we subsidize the oil industry and hold gas taxes for 20 years, the longer it’s going to take to change things.
Believe me, I feel the pain at the pump as much as anybody, and my budget it very tight too, but if having cheaper gas means our nation is dependent on it that much longer rather than leading the way in the developement and use of better forms of energy, I’ll take the more expensive gas for now.
Obviously you may disagree.
@Noble
You say “More drilling and oil oil oil is not a solution to our energy costs or dependence”
Actually more drilling for oil and in addition gas and coal would work if we exploited the Arctic, offshore US, Marcellus shale, oil sands and our vast coal deposits.
Only if you believe there is not additional cost to the environment or our society associated with our dependence on carbon based fuels. Drilling for more oil, a finite resource with quantifiable limits that we are consuming faster than the Earth can renew is a dead end. Take the time now to identify a more sustainable solution.
@David A. Porter
You say “Drilling for more oil, a finite resource with quantifiable limits that we are consuming faster than the Earth can renew is a dead end.”
First we only have a scant idea of what US oil reserves are and no idea of the world’s are. Oil companies don’t measure oil reserves of where they cannot drill and of course don’t know how much oil is where they haven’t looked.
We certainly could benefit from exploiting known US oil and it is stupid to risk our economy and national security by foregoing the opportunity and jumping on an unproven and unworkable wind and solar strategy.
So you would rather bet our national security on the magic oil fairy continueing to provide a substance that we have no clue as to what is there? What we need is a balanced approach. Until we do that we will dependent on the middle east!
@Cdev
Says “So you would rather bet our national security on the magic oil fairy”
The fairy tale fiction is that alternative energy is an actual alternative to traditional energy today.
There is no question that the US has oil it won’t exploit because of political reasons not economic ones and we chase dubious solar and wind technologies for political reasons and not economic ones.
A balanced approach is to retrieve all available oil, gas, coal, build nuclear plants and let private enterprise invest in profitable un-subsidized alternatives.
We actually agree. The difference is we need to start developing these alternatives NOW!!!!! Not tomorrow!!!!!! Like any technology we will not get it right the first time. BTW scientist seem to solve problems fastest when the government pays for it. The example is the Manhattan project. If we left it be the atomic bomb would most likely not exist and Nuclear power plants would not be an option. Again I am not saying let go of the oil, coal etc. They have a use but a balanced approach is called for and it is called for now. My objections to this pipeline is chiefly the eminent domain issue. If Keystone wants it then they should pay the current landowners what they want to cut through thier land. Not have the government sieze it for pennies on the dollar and give it to them. The Eminent domain method is akin to what they do in communist countries. In a free market the company should pay and acquire the property individually!
“…develop less expensive, cleaner, and more pragmattic solutions to our energy problems.”
-which would be?…..
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for developing alternative energy sources, but I don’t see solar-powered cars on the horizon for widespread public use any time soon. As for electric….where does the power come from to charge electric vehicles?….coal, maybe?
So, what are the less expensive, cleaner and pragmatic solutions to this problem that will address our current energy debacle?
I concede the proverbial “energy can” has been kicked down the road about as far as it can go. Thank goodness it’s 2012…..since our elected officials and oil execs didn’t address the issue in the past 30 years, I guess we’ll have to let the Mayans handle it for us this year!
That’s a great question, and the key one, and the answer is right in my quotation: “develop” them.
For every dollar (public and private) we invest in the traditional energy sources is another dollar we don’t invest in developing new ones. There are lots of things already in the mix, and more ideas on the way, and we need to refocus our iniatives on this matter.
Again, I never said anything about not spending any money on fossil fuels or shutting off the oil spigot or never drilling in the ocean again. I’m just saying we need a fundamental overhaul in the entire industry, and unfortunately, it seems that government is going to have to lead the way and get the ball rolling. To some degree, it already does that, but it can do better. Once it becomes profitable to use new energy the industry will do it. We can’t keep doing the same thing over and over here.
Right now, nobody is buying $50k Durangos because it’s better for the environment. The Durango has to be $30k and gas $5 gallon before consumer behavior, and corporate interests with it, will change.
I’m a small government guy. The government routinely screws up everything it gets into. But at some point you can’t sit around waiting for private industry to change because it feels good. Look at DARPA— how many conservatives want to shut that program down? It innnovates and keeps us well ahead of everyone else.
We need to take the same path to energy, because if you don’t already know, energy has, and always will be the great commodity the world fights over.
I’d also like to note that in about a dozen posts here we’ve added more to and touched on the nuance of this issue than this ridiculous statement from our Representative in Congress. If they took a little more time to demonstrate that they’ve thought an issue through and provide useful information and analysis to citizenry, I’d at least have a working respect for the office.
Agreed. As much as I am a small gov’t proponent, I do think that (as scary as it may sound) gov’t involvement offers our best chance at pursuing/developing alternative energy sources.
Having said that, even if we decided…as a nation…tomorrow, that we were going to focus ALL of our R&D efforts towards that goal, we’re still years (maybe decades?) away from bringing any radically new approach to market….I’m talking about purely solar-powered vehicles and the like that don’t consume ANY fossil fuels whatsoever. Some balance needs to be struck between providing for our current energy needs and what needs to be done to ensure our future needs as well. I just don’t see how we get around the fact that we still need to use fossil fuels today, and in the next 10-20 years.
To me, the most pragmatic approach is to ensure our current needs are met (via fossil fuels) and to develop real, meaningful, scalable and affordable alternative energy options. The fact is, we’re now going to pay a dear price for the inaction of corporations and gov’t over the past 30 years. They’ve all made their money, bought their beach home (or several for that matter) and will leave this earth without giving a damn about future generations. I guess greed and gluttony are the downsides of a capitalist system.
Thanks for the reply. I appreciated reading it.
“I’d also like to note that in about a dozen posts here we’ve added more to and touched on the nuance of this issue than this ridiculous statement from our Representative in Congress. If they took a little more time to demonstrate that they’ve thought an issue through and provide useful information and analysis to citizenry, I’d at least have a working respect for the office.”
I totally agree with this. I alas think he will not survive in the redrawn district.
Funny…the Chinese don’t seem to subscribe to the whole “peak oil” theory when they drag a float rig half way around the world to the Cuban Strait to drill for it?
http://www.hapblog.com/2012/01/chinese-oil-rig-arrives-for-cuba.html
But, you know, I guess they aren’t as smart as us?
Like many of my conservative co-workers observe, this is purely biological: Survival of the Fittest. If they don’t get the oil to fuel their economy they will become a footnote of history. We justify our actions on the basis of “They would do it to us if they could, so we might as well take care of ourselves first”.
I drive from Bel Air to Ft Meade for work. Once upon a time my job was in Dundalk so not so bad, but then my work moved and I couldn’t afford the housing in the Meade area.
I am the sole income for my family. All I know is that high fuel prices coupled with rising costs of healthcare, food, and other basics is leaving me with precious little to save for a rainy day, just to provide basics for my family.
Mr Obama, Mr O’Malley, Mr Miller, Mr Busch, and Mr.Romney and probably Mr. Harris all don’t give a rats butt about me or what their actions do to me. Their arrogance and know it ally attitudes are breathtaking, not to mention money-taking.
They all give noble and futuristic betterment reasons for their actions – when in fact it all boils down to keeping power and money for themselves and the friends, businesses, and organizations that they owe. Dion Guthrie is the only politician local/national I know that actually tries to listen and help constiuents, not a commericial for him, just saying. So blather on, ye pompus politicians of power, while we your humble sheep wait for our daily shearing and ultimate slaughter.
Rep Harris has done nothing to protect and restore the Bay for us and is actively prostituting his position as subcommittee chair to hand the Gulf over to big oil — so unsurprising that he doesn’t think that the risk to ground water quality in the Midwest is worth a diversion of the pipeline.
If you watch CNN you see that the problem was Darryl Hannah and others decrying the disturbance of oil sands of Canada – it was a foregone conclusion the pipeline would have been re-routed through another path besides the Nebraska watersource. I get so tired of the cries against big oil and blathering over the poor Chessie Bay, etc, etc. Maybe some of these enviro folks are principled but you cant spread principled between 2 slices of bread and feed it to hungry mouths at home. Pompus, arrogant do gooders with Obama et al in their back pocket.
Rep. Harris was the recipient of more than $15k in campaign contributions from the Koch Brothers this cycle. Coincidence that he’s a pipeline proponent?
Watcher,
I am a pipeline proponent, and I have not received one penny from the Koch Brothers, nor anyone else for that matter.
I would offer to explain the connection in much greater detail, but I’m fresh out of crayons and monosyllabic words. Guess you’ll have to wait for the pop-up book instead.
Go ahead you are probably very good with crayons and pop-ups. I am not a supporter of Mr. Harris, but I support the pipeline.
That just means you are working for them for free!
CDEV,
I am a proponent of the pipeline, and yes I do it freely. Obama will be for it after the election. I understand, it is about votes. That’s OK by me, that’s the game they play. If Obama is re-elected he will approve it, and if he is not, his opponent will approve it. The pipeline is good for the US, and I support it.
For me it is not about us versus them, as it is for most who are posting about this issue. The pipeline is in our national interest.
I’m for it also… the way it was presented by its supporters was merely an attempt to politically strong arm. The normal process required time for review and they wanted to speed up the process and simply embarrass the president. That’s the kind of representational government we have now… us versus them. No compromise, lot’s of posturing. I think I hear a bunch of Neros fiddling while Rome burns. In the end though, it’s still a finite resource and the Earth is slow to replenish what we are consuming at a much faster rate.
I would be for it as long as it is not an enviornmental hazard and is actually checked out right. Not rushed. Second the company has to buy the land. No Eminent Domain usage. It is wrong for the government to help strong arm land owners.
I love it when a congressman writes a bill that is meant to bypass a president’s decision: last time I checked the president needs to either sign or veto a bill! Mr. Harris needs to learn how his own job works (apparently he is a ‘constitutional conservative’ that does not understand what the constitution says).
And before you mention the potential of a veto override, you must be kidding if you think there is enough support for this type of effort you are seriously fooling yourself…
PROUDDEM,
Well you might want to get your facts straight before you publicly show your ignorance. Who wrote the bill? Do you even know? Or does it not matter so long as you get to take a shot at Harris. And what are you going to say when Obama finally approves it? Or is it not okay until Obama says it is okay and then it is suddenly a wonderful thing? Obama is not enough of a standup guy to sign or veto. Remember, he came from Chicago. Which is where he wil go back to in January of next year when a new president is sworn in.
I had originally assumed that this pipeline was going to deliver much-needed oil to the U.S., but that oil, while snaking its way through the country was not even intended for our consumption; it was only taking a short-cut to the gulf of Mexico where it would be loaded on tankers and shipped far, far, away. Like China. And Rep. Harris is so lost. Like building the pipeline was just going to make for wondeful peachy jobs for Americans – nope, just temporary jobs for construction teams… and then being refined in distant lands, where it is of no benefit to us whatsoever. Harris, buy a vowel.
@Linda Weeks
The`tar sands oil would be processed in our Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline will reduce US dependence on Mideast, African and Venezuelan oil and add to world supply which drives prices down.
We already export refined oil in the form of gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc. So some of it will be exported but it still increases supply of those products and reduces prices.
Not to mention US workers get the jobs.
That is your problem because OPEC will simply raise the cost of oil to negate any price savings.
Your comments are all valid explanations. But ultimately, where the oil is processed will be determined by the cost of shipping elsewhere plus the cost of refining overseas versus the cost of refining locally. In a country that already exports most of its heavy industrial activities to offshore entities I would not bet on the Tar Sands oil being refined here, despite what someone says currently.