February 20, 2013

Michael Brune is smoking crack on Keystone

Were he in front of me now, I'd bet the Sierra Club's head $20 he's wrong about Obama, that Dear Leader will in fact approve Keystone XL.

He played you and your donors perfectly up to election day, doesn't need to do so now.

That's why this guy is also wrong:
“This is a tricky political challenge for the president,” said Michael A. Levi, an energy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The reality is everyone has defined the stakes on Keystone in such absolute terms that it is borderline impossible to see a compromise that will satisfy all the players.”  
There's nothing at all politically tricky for Obama, other than the "spin" angle and asking help for that from north of the border.

Per the story, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has chits to spend and will need to spend them anyway.

Beyond that, Canada's already pushing the jobs issue of Keystone. And, while the total number of jobs is surely oversold, nonetheless, in a still-sluggish economy, it can't be neglected.

The real way to fight this is, as I've said a million times before, push for a carbon tax, including on imports. Since in Canada, British Columbia already has a carbon tax, passed by Stephen Harper's Conservatives at the provincial level, no less (though leaky as hell), meaning he would have no room to protest.

Anyway, back to you, Mr. Brune. I'll bet that $20 at 2-1 odds, your favor, even. And, you and the other Gang Green enviro groups sometimes play the "spin" game with your donors, anyway, so whatever Dear Leader does shouldn't surprise you.

And here's why.

Update, Feb. 20: We now now WHY Obama stiffed Ed Henry, to whom a partial apology, at least, I now submit. Dear Leader was golfing not just with T. Woods, but two Texas oil buddies.
(O)n his first “guys weekend" away since he was reelected, the president chose to spend his free time with Jim Crane and Milton Carroll, leading figures in the Texas oil and gas industry, along with other men who run companies that deal in the same kinds of carbon-based services that Keystone would enlarge.
Among their background?
Both Carroll and Crane are directors at Western Gas Holdings, the managing partner of Western Gas Partners, a midstream energy provider created by Anadarko Petroleum, one of the largest publicly traded oil and gas companies.
"Most transparent administration in history," indeed.

At least Brune's crack-smoking is heartfelt.

At the New York Times, the new Tom Friedman is just an idiot on the issue. More below the fold.



 Joe Nocera is smoking crack on the other side at the New York Times without any hoping against hope to justify anything.

Near the end of this column:
On Monday, I finally spoke to (James) Hansen. His knowledge and sincerity are easy to admire, even if his tactics are not. He told me he would like to see oil companies pay a fee, which would rise annually, based on carbon emissions. He said that such a tax could reduce emissions by 30 percent within 10 years. Well, maybe. But it would also likely make the expensive tar sands oil more viable. If you really want to eliminate expensive new fossil fuel sources, the best way is to lower the price of oil, which would render them uneconomical. But, of course, that wouldn’t exactly lower demand either. 
Duhhh, you idiot. "Dirtier" oil has higher carbon emissions, therefore would cost even more. And, that second-last sentence makes less than zero sense.

Not sure how he became an allegedly bright business reporter at the Old Gray Lady, let alone joined the op-ed staff. I think the NYT has its new Tom Friedman firmly in place.

I've been somewhat disappointed with both him and Frank Bruni since they started, but this one was just a shark-jumper

No comments: