#KeystoneXL, Obama and the GOP

Faux News, in a half-correct piece (any talk that Mitch the Turtle has made about repealing Obamacare isn't real) says that the KeystoneXL pipeline will be front and center among talking points between President Obama and House and Senate GOP leaders tomorrow.

A final White House decision on Keystone was punted past Election Day, of course. Regular readers of this corner of the Interwebz know that that was no surprise to me either, of course.

So, what will Obama do?
1. I say there's a 40 percent chance he approves it straight up before the end of the year.
2. Or there's a 40 percent change he OKs it with some face-saving "concessions" from the GOP.
3. There's a 20 percent chance he kills it. And, that may be a high guess.

Your thoughts? Hit the poll on the right.

(Nov. 19: That "concessions" could include a straight-up OK of Keystone but with bargains on other legislation. That said, if I'm Dear Leader, I get some advance guarantee on those concessions.)

And, what will he do on other items?

Related to Keystone, he'll "double down" on his "all of the above" energy strategy, insisting on some crumbs still going to green energy. When red-state senators are reminded that many of them are in sunny areas, those who are OK with pork will agree.  And, per the likes of Microsoft and Yahoo buying up green power as soon as it becomes available, there are things to show any GOP Congresscritter who's not totally in the nutbar tank.

After all, Google, Microsoft, Walmart and Mars (the candy folks, headquartered here) have bought green power in Texas. Google's bought green power in Jim Imhofe's Oklahoma.

Is that what he should do?

I'm actually of somewhat mixed minds.

First, tar sands oil will continue to be mined, and continue to be exported, anyway. Jobs on pipeline building aside, a fair amount of it will be exported to U.S. oil refineries.

That said, because Obama didn't do the Senate heavy lifting in 2009 on a carbon cap-and-trade program, which of course isn't enough by itself to control what's staring us in the face, it's doubtful he'll take a strong stand against Keystone.

Second, with all the worries about pipelines, if that oil is coming here, it's safer coming via pipeline, even with the risk of leaks, than via rail. Related to that? Building the pipeline would reduce some horrific freight rail congestion that affects not only Amtrak, but grain from farmers and other things.

Third? Stephen Harper's Conservatives don't look like they're leaving office any time soon. Either in Ottawa at the federal level, or at the provincial level in Alberta. Right now, they hold 161 of 305 seats federally. It's doubtful that the next Canadian federal election will cut the majority to a plurality; the Conservatives have lost five seats in by-elections since 2011. And, if it does, rather than letting Harper run a minority government, I have little doubt that Justin Trudeau would put his liberals into a coalition to get a few crumbs of power.

Short of a change in Canadian government plus a carbon tax and tariff in the U.S., the on-the-ground dynamics of Alberta tar sands aren't changing.

As this piece spells out, those dynamics are huge. They include the federal and provincial governments treating Canada's First Nations as badly, if not more so, than the U.S. has treated our Native Americans in the past. Tribal divisions result from that. And, the relentless tar sands mining continues.

And, unless somebody can point out to me a 2016 U.S. presidential contender within the Democratic party who will come within 100 miles of a carbon tax, that's not changing.

So, approve the pipeline with concessions is the best realistic choice.

Immigration?

Any executive actions he take will be weak tea.

And, environmental organizations asking me to sign petitions to ask Congress to block Keystone? IT won't work,  of course, and this is really just baseball for environmentalist group fundraiisng.

Dear #BigOil in #Houston — you have a self-inflicted problem

Actually, you have about 4 feet of self-inflicted problem. That's how much sea level rise is already, apparently, irreversible due to global warming's effect on the West Antarctic ice sheet.

Now, Big Oil is everywhere. It's in San Antonio with the Eagle Ford shale play. As the previous presidential administration of Mutt and Jeff showed, it was in abundance in Dallas.

So why pick on Houston?

Well, I could have picked on Port Arthur, or Beaumont, for similar reasons.

Here's why. Many places along the Gulf Coast are contending with subsidence from oil/gas extraction and groundwater pumping as well as beach erosion.

And, some of those could be at or a touch below sea level already. Indeed, some parts of older Houston, with a longer history of both water and oil extraction, may be at current sea level, or a touch below.

Houston area after a 5-foot sea level rise/NYT graphic

In other words, parts of Houston are in a bowl. Perhaps not as bad as New Orleans' lower Ninth Ward, but bad enough. At left is the scenario in Houston with a sea level rise of just about what the West Antarctic meltdown guarantees.

Other than the Ship Channel, but, schadenfreude, home of the refineries, Houston itself isn't in trouble. Galveston is, though.

And, while the West Antarctic meltdown may take as long as 200 years, ice elsewhere at both poles will also continue to melt.

And, this is just with calm seas, whether a prosperous voyage is also included or not, courtesy of Beethoven's muse or anything else.

Let's add in another thought, also from NOLA.

Katrina. Remember, Houstonians, the somewhat similar degree of pants-shitting happening down there over the precise course of Hurricane Ike?

OK, bring on another Ike, with that shoreline above, and give it a worst-course scenario. I'll not paint a totally black picture; Ike 2.0 will be kept at no larger than Category 3 on hurricane strength.

Anyway, Galveston gets obliterated.

The refineries in the Ship Channel get flooded out of operation for two weeks. The lowest parts of the city of Houston become a bowl of mosquito-infested water for the same length of time.

Houston area after a 12-foot sea level rise/NYT graphic

And, that's just with a rise of a little bit above four feet. The New York Times says the loss of these ice sheets could destabilize others enough to make the ultimate rise hit 10 feet or so.

Add in rising sea level from warmer ocean temperatures and other things, and you get something like the 12-foot rise pictured at left. Goodbye, Galveston Island. The entire Ship Channel is also underwater.

And, without Galveston Island and the Bolivar Peninsula as giant breakwaters, Houston itself stares straight into the teeth of hurricanes hitting the upper Texas Gulf Coast.

How's them apples?

Big Oil doesn't care, or it continues the denialism. That's even as it finds it easier to spend big bucks spreading the denialism rather than doing something. And, note to John Roberts, the alleged "umpire" chief justice who needs to buy MLB's instant replay machinery to check his calls — it's this type of "dark money" spending which is the ultimate philosophy driving campaign finance today. If you can't see corruption, it's because you don't want to see corruption.

Anyway, Big Oil and friends has already helped guarantee this 4-foot rise is baked in. Unavoidable. Contra nutbars in the Senate like Ted Cruz, Jim Imhofe, and Tom Coburn, there's no god magically smiling on the USofA to stop this, either.

That said, Ted Cruz's grandson and Pat Robertson's great-grandson will someday blame this on teh gayz or something. Or else they'll claim it's a sign of the Apocalypse. But, sorry, there will be no god magically rapturing you out of your flooded home, either.

As for Big Oil? What do you expect from an industry in cahoots with the railroad industry that has workers cleaning out tanker cars in abominably unsafe conditions?

Jim Imhofe, nuclear nutbar

The Oklahoma wingnut senator writes letters to the editor, too.

Hey, if you've got that much time on your hands, put together the Senate GOP health reform plan.

Sea ice lowest in 800 years

Just one more global warming alert that Smokey Joe Barton, Jim Imhofe, etc., will try to deny away.

Whose a clown for a living – Franken or Imhofe?

Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, Mr. Anti-Science himself, in claiming the Waxman-Markey bill wouldn’t get more than 35 votes in the Senate, called Al Franken a clown, then justified it by saying that’s what he did for a living.

McCain-Palin campaign-debate watch

Palin-McCain is right; McCain ‘friends watch’; Mad Jack at debates?

Gail Collins has this great get:

The Republicans have discovered that McCain can’t draw a crowd without Palin, and the dangers of letting her float off by herself are apparent. So the two are manacled together these days like Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier in that old escape-from-a-chain-gang movie.

And, every day she remains on ice, undergoing forced cramming for her Veep debate or whatever, is another day Schmuck Talk Express™ is out there on an island.

And, given McCain’s own growing propensity to shoot from the hip, it must be bad if Steve Schmidt thinks Palin needs to be put on ice.

SnowJob SquareGlasses — I like it. It’s going in my Palin nickname lexicon.

Friends watch: Uhh, Big John? If you’re going to be this close with mentally unstable Gordon Liddy, you have zero business commenting on ANY friends of Obama’s this side of Joe Stalin.

Friends watch part 2: John McCain and Jim Inhofe — Buddies in alt-fuel opposition.

Which John McCain will show up for the debates? Unfortunately, Obama doesn’t strike me as a button-pusher, so a mid-debate explosion from Mad Jack is (sadly) highly unlikely.