Comments on: New Green Jobs Rise from Keystone XL Pipeline Ashes

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:28:00 +0000

The pipeline has not had a thorough environmental review. You can’t make those claims until it has. And there’s plenty of indication you’re wrong. The GOP tried to rush an environmental review by imposing an arbitrary deadline as a rider to a completely unrelated bill that had to pass. That was their mistake if they wanted the pipeline to have a chance.

By: Jeremygerardi

Jeremygerardi — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:08:00 +0000

Obama and his enviro buddies are using this as an end round to prevent the production of tar sand oil. The real desicion should be based solely on the impact of the pipeline itself. The pipeline can and will be built safety, this is hundred year old technology. The real issue here is the dirty oil. Which is completely unfair to transcanada. America is a democracy and the rules should be applied fairly to everyone. The pipeline will meet environmental standards and therefore should be approved. If Obama wants to regulate the oil industry then he should do in a fair way that punished all pollutors equally in a fair way and that pick on canada.

By: Clare Nelson

Clare Nelson — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:44:00 +0000

The DOE didn’t misspell decathlon, and you shouldn’t either. Nor is “treaded” the past form of “tread”, unless you’re referring to treading water, which you weren’t. As ever, thanks for the article about important stuff, but as ever, Tina, couldn’t you try using a spelling and grammar checker?

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:40:00 +0000

10 reasons the Keystone XL was a bad project, includes responses to all your project-level concerns:
http://planetsave.com/2012/01/18/10-reasons-obama-rejecting-the-keystone-xl-was-a-good-decision/

By: Jeremygerardi12

Jeremygerardi12 — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:26:00 +0000

I’ve looked into this project with an open mind looked at both sides, from both countries. Pipelines are essential to long term security, but obviously using more diverse sources. It is not the be all end all, but if the pipe has passed all environmental standards, has been over engineered in terms of strength, then is the opposition over not wanting tar sand production rather than saying its unsafe.
I understand, about clean energy can produce more jobs. I also understand we need other sources for transportation,but what I don’t get is that with private money being invested and increase GDP with more oil. Bio-fuels are still very expensive compared to petroleum. What I believe we should do is to do both. Until the cost curb is competitive, with comparable energy of bio-fuels relative to petroleum we need short, medium, and long term strategy. To you point that construction jobs in this case is short term, like almost all infrastructure projects. Comparing manufacturing of solar shingles and construction of a pipeline is an unfair assessment. I wish there were more incentives, or energy spending within Canada and USA at the federal, but we gotta take what we can get. Whether we can replace great fraction of petroleum for other forms for transportation, China will still use it for plastics.