Alberta #tarsands oil is already here; why not OK #KeystoneXL?

Climate Central has a good piece on the facts on the ground, starting with that map above and including its header, especially the word "alternatives."

If US President Barack Obama were to deny KeystoneXL, it wouldn't stop Canadian tar sands oil from getting to market. In fact, via those alternative pipes, about 400,000 barrels of tar sands a day is already coming to the Texas Gulf Coast. And Embridge is expanding that system of pipes.

The rest of nearly 2 million barrels a day is going to refineries in either the US or Canada by either small pipelines or rail, and both are worse options than Keystone.

The latest iteration of railroad tank cars supposed to replace the old, dangerous DOT-111s, the CPC-1232s, have already shown that in rail collisions, they too can rupture and ignite. Plus, the heavy burdening of our rail system with massive oil-tanker freight trains has snarled other rail on the High Plains, including harvested agricultural crops.

Smaller pipelines may not well withstand the special pipeline transportation needs of the dilbit into which tar sands oil is converted, especially if they're older.

I'm an environmentalist. I'm also a left-liberal in American terms. I'm also a skeptical left-liberal in terms of applying philosophically and psychologically skeptical reasoning practices to my own political stances as well as others.

Ergo, I know that blocking KeystoneXL won't block the mining, distribution or production of tar sands oil.

I do know that the one thing that might put a dent in that is a carbon tariff. And that requires a domestic carbon tax, too, which we need anyway.

So, again, I get back to a blog post of a few weeks ago.

We need a grand bargain: Carbon tax+tariff in conjunction with approval of KeystoneXL, which will not be perfect, but which will be safer than methods being used today to transport dilbit.

Again, it won't be perfect. But KeystoneXL itself will be better than what we have now, and connecting it with a "grand bargain" would be much, much better, I think. No pipeline is perfect, but newer pipelines are relatively good, and don't have collisions.

In other words, Alberta tar sands oil is already coming to the US, more of it is coming every day, and yet more will come in the future. Having it shipped her in the most reasonable way possible, and while trying to make that part of a bigger "grand bargain," seems to me to be the best way of addressing the issue.

It will just keep coming by rail and older pipeline if there is no Keystone. And, a group of Bill McKibbens trying to play oil Posse Comitatus at the border would get more than just civil disobedience jail time.

While holding on to ideals, I live in the real world on issues like this.

I also leave in a real world which notes that the GOP, and even most elected Democrats, would in no way countenance a carbon tax, even if tied to a carbon tariff. I also live in a real world that notes that most greens, and most Green Party folks, would never OK Keystone, even as part of a grand bargain like this. Since, per my "grand bargain" blog post link, some greens (don't know whether Green Party or not; I'm referencing an environmentalist with a green group who probably represents others) can't even tell the truth about Alberta oil already coming into the US right now, this doesn't surprise me either.

This is part of why, if I didn't live in Texas, I'd probably fight a legal battle if I were told I had to register by political party as part of voter registration.

Like John Randolph of Roanoke, I guess I'm a tertium quid.

Grist, meanwhile, in a new piece, says that some of these issues are straw men. I think it's partially right, but not totally so. It's true that Keystone won't substantially help North Dakota oil. It's true that we can get even stricter on railcar design than the CPC-1232.

Reducing speed on trains by as much as Grist wants is not realistic, though. And, if a pipeline is better, or even sending a pipeline to connect to Keystone, then let's do it.

The train slowdown, when Bakken oil trains already slow High Plains' crops delivery to market, isn't feasible. That said, reducing volatiles in train-shipped oil is a good idea.

I think my ultimate objection is that Grist is playing this as a, not necessarily a zero-sum game, but as a game, in the game theory sense, with a different expected sum and a different equation, even, than I see. So, I agree with the first three proposals it has on rail cars, but not the speed.

And, per the map above? Let's build a short stub pipeline up into Canada from North Dakota. Combine that with Keystone approval, if necessary. Oh, I'm sorry; the Canadians already have plans for just such a pipe, which Adler, for whatever reason, didn't mention.

That, then addresses North Dakotans who note the current pipelines won't help Bakken a lot. And, removes what, while technically real at the current time, as far as what's possible, is itself a bit of a straw man. It can be part of that "grand bargain."

Obama vetoes #KeystoneXL bill — what's next?

President Obama's veto of the KeystoneXL bill from Congress isn't surprising. And on narrow grounds, of Congress trying to dictate foreign policy, it's the right move. That's doubly true with Speaker of the House John Boehner's invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to address Congress coming at about the same time the Keystone bill passed.

But, barring a more in-depth veto statement, it's possibly not the best big-picture move.

I suggested a couple of weeks ago that Obama should make such a statement, pledging to pass a similar bill if it were tied to a carbon tariff and carbon tax.

Today's announcement story explains why:

Last year, an 11-volume environmental impact review by the State Department concluded that oil extracted from the Canadian oil sands produced about 17 percent more carbon pollution than conventionally extracted oil.

There's the justification for a carbon tariff, which would require a domestic carbon tax.

The AP notes that Obama's veto was without fanfare. Well, per my angle, it should have had some fanfare indeed.

That said, as I also noted in that previous blog post, the State Department has said that Alberta tar sands oil will be sold — and delivered — somewhere, somehow, with or without the current pipeline. Work is underway to build an all-Canada pipeline to Quebec; work is struggling to send another pipeline west to British Columbia. And tar sands oil is already coming into the U.S. by rail, claims of some environmentalists to the contrary notwithstanding, as well as by more circuitous pipeline routes.

Beyond that, environmentalists with brains know not to pin too much hope on Obama.

His "all of the above" hydrocarbons strategy has bent, folded, spindled and mutilated the Endangered Species Act, as with the dunes sagebrush lizard.

And, at the same time his administration expanded protection in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it announced plenty of drilling leases in the Arctic Ocean, as Greenpeace notes.

And, note the "no fanfare" in the AP story link.

In other words, President Obama can often be an "on the one hand" environmentalist.

And, as I noted in my link from my previous blog post, he's also not a "big picture" president. Of course, that's neoliberal incrementalism in general.

Needed: A "grand bargain" on #KeystoneXL

I'm on record on this blog as opposing the Keystone pipeline as a stand-alone piece of legislation. I have posted about the myths of job creation that won't happen, and other things.

At the same time, I'm also on record about the fact that Canada's going to export tar sands oil from Alberta (as long as its profitable, and there's debate about the break-even oil price for it), and if it doesn't do it by pipeline into the U.S., it's going to do it by rail. That's even more carbon-negative, and, although pipelines still leak now, it's also potentially worse on spill effects, if there is a train crash. It also ties up U.S. rail lines, delaying harvested crops in the summer, manufactured goods and more.

I just heard somebody from the National Resources Defense Council (a Gang Green environmental group), Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, claim on NPR that no tar sands oil is coming from Canada by rail. Well, we know that fracked oil from Canada — and at least a bit of tar sands oil — is entering the US by rail. And, that's from 360Yale, very respected in the environmental world.

Will the US Dept. of Transportation succeed in replacing old
DOT-111 tank cars with better ones? Rick Wilking/Reuters

Now, per that link, whether this means "resistance is futile" or not is an open question. It does mean that at least one Gang Green group isn't being totally honest.

The rest of that link is good reading. It notes that tar sands/bitumen has to be treated either for tank car or pipeline shipping. It notes that this means that the amount of tar sand oil via rail is limited right now, and that this bottleneck (article is a bit over a year old) depresses tar sands oil prices.

But, if more tank cars are built, and of a theoretically safer upgraded version of the DOT-111, that bottleneck may at least be lessened. Since oil prices are so depressed in general right now, contra that December 2013 article, it's really no big deal if it takes another 12-18 months from today for a lot of new tank cars to come online.

And, the US Department of Transportation, in conjunction with Canadian counterparts, has released a new safety proposal. Stand by to see if this becomes an official requirement.

Related: The explosive West Virginia train derailment last week involved newer, safer tank cars. Update: So did an early March accident in Illinois.

More here, on a specific project for tar-sands rail transport. This story, from just last October, also documents snafus and problems. But, per the Yale piece, while not saying resistance is futile, the environmental world should consider at least the possibility that, when oil prices rebound, the rail bottleneck will be at least a little bit lessened, and that oil companies will work on lessening it more.

Anyway, yes, it's not a lot. It's not a lot more than a blip. But it's more than nothing, and Ms. Casey-Lefkowitz specifically said "nothing" and also claimed that Marsha McNutt, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who had changed her stance on KeystoneXL because of the rail issue, was flat-out wrong.

Ms. Casey-Lefkowitz owes an apology, but probably won't be forthcoming.

Also contra her and some other last-ditchers, one intra-Canadian pipeline, to greater Montreal, has already gotten Canadian approval. And, TransCanada is pushing ahead with plans to build a pipeline going the other way from Keystone — connecting Bakken oil to a trans-Canadian line.

And, our own Dear Leader approved Keystone South back in 2012, and it opened for business last year. To some degree, per that link, continuing to fight KeystoneXL now is an issue of barn doors and horses.

Such bending of honesty, along with Gang Green groups themselves adding to the carbon problem through things such as massive passing out of made-in-China stuffed plushes, is why I stopped giving them money.

I discussed some of this (with less detail, and with skepticism about President Obama's backbone) two months ago.

That said, per the graphic at left, right now, it's definitely unprofitable to mine for tar sands. And, contra former Texas Speaker of the House Tom Craddick, and perhaps contra claims that $45 is the break-even point here in Texas, as I previously blogged, right now, it's borderline unprofitable to be producing oil here in Texas, unless it's what's left in conventional plays.

That graphic comes from "the letter O" in an A-to-Z encyclopedia of the current oil situation from Canada's newsmagazine, Maclean's. The whole encyclopedia is well worth a read.

Finally, even before Paul Krugman tumbled on to it, I said in these spaces that, as I understood it, World Trade Organization rules allowed a carbon tariff on imports from other countries, as long as a country had a carbon tax on domestic manufacturing, shipping, etc., that was at least as high. Click the carbon tax tag if you don't believe me about how long I've been mentioning it; my first post with the phrase was back in 2009.

Well, now that the new House has joined the Senate and passed a Keystone bill with a large, yet still veto-short majority, here's that grand compromise.

Obama tells Congress, after vetoing this bill, that he's sign a Keystone bill that's got a carbon tax and tariff attached.  And, since tar sand oil is more carbon-dirty than some other oils, this puts an extra price on it, and probably more of an extra price than what's paid now with shipping it by rail instead of pipe.

That said, the hypocrisy of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott supporting Keystone XL because it will provide not just jobs, but UNION jobs has to be in the neighborhood of a new hypocrisy high from him. We all know that it will only provide a few dozen permanent jobs, and even the temporary jobs will likely be far short of the 42,000 the State Department predicts.

Hey, Greg, if you really about union jobs, why don't you discuss worker safety at refineries — refineries that will be handling Keystone oil, among others?

Of course, this is Washington DC. Most of the House GOP and a fair amount of the Senate GOP are wingnuts, while Obama wouldn't know a bold political idea if it hit him in the face. (Or hit his TelePrompTer — snark alert.)

Meanwhile, short of, and shortly after, Obama's presumed veto, what will be happening on oil prices? See the poll at right to cast your vote on where you think West Texas Intermediate will be on March 31.

My 2014 person of the year is ....

A guy who's influencing economies around the world right now, including internationally in Russia and domestically in Texas, and in other ways, around the world.

Who is the gentleman in that picture? Whom I have deliberately not captioned?

I'll explain that in a minute, and from there, you'll understand why he gets, and easily wins, the nomination for this important award.

So, with that said, that bit of suspense, let's move into the heart of things.

Drumroll?



Glad you asked for one?

It's Saudi Arabia's Minister of Petroleum Ali Al-Naimi.



Information/credit for photo above: Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi speaks to journalists ahead of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) meeting on Nov. 27, 2014.

SAMUEL KUBANI / AFP/Getty Images

I deliberately looked for one with him in Western suit, to increase the suspense a bit, lest readers immediately guess, at a minimum, that "this guy has something to do with oil."

Well, Al-Naimi has plenty to do with oil, not just "something."

This is the man who is keeping Saudi Arabia in the oil driver's seat. Even if it means, per Business Insider, oil falling to $20/bbl. And, not cutting production even if surpluses grow. Period.

This is the man who could cause a recession in Texas. With more fighting over school funding and other things.

This is the man who could cause a Great Recession in Russia, and maybe already is, along with Western sanctions.

This is the man who could make it easier for Dear Leader to keep saying no to Keystone. (Unfortunately, it is the man who could also make climate change agreements, even relatively toothless ones, harder to achieve.)

This is the man who will help the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia expand its influence throughout the Middle East, above all by weakening Iran, calling more shots in the Syrian civil war and leaning more on Israel to deal better with the Palestinian Authority in 2015.

Given that the global oil surplus was becoming evident by midyear of 2014, and that Al-Naami surely was already planning strategy, and talking strategy with King Abdullah himself by then, he's the winner.

Per the $20/bbl comment and the "we're not cutting" comment, he had to have Abdullah's stamp of approval. And, that means he's a powerful man with carte blanche.

Maybe I could almost be calling him, in advance, the frontrunner for 2015 person of the year. Let's actually hope not.

Meanwhile, even with the budgetary challenges, Saudi Arabia itself is likely among the net winners, primarily for all these geo-petro-political reasons. 

$60 oil looks locked in for next year — consequences both good and bad

First, Saudi Arabia has planned for oil to trade from the upper $50s to the low $60s next year. (And, in case it's not clear, when I talk about "$60 ... locked in," I'm talking about a range. Details of my guesstimates near the bottom.)

Yes, that means a budget deficit for the government, but "only" about 15 percent, which is still a bit less than the current US deficit, and easily handled by the Saudis.

Second, the Saudis are OK with the price going even lower. It's probably true that Russia and Iran are their main targets, but per this story, US fracking may be in their gunsights as well.

That said, I doubt that oil prices take a sustained drop below $55, but, it's certainly possible they flirt with $50/bbl for the next few months, with them continuing to slide now.

Effect? While it may be good overall globally, it will have fallout otherwise.

Russia is probably headed not just for recession, but a near-depression recession. Given today's Russian political news, more unrest is possible, as is harsher crackdown by Vlad the Impaler Putin.

Venezuela is likely headed in the same direction financially. Possibly a milder version of the same political results.

Not sure how this might affect religious tensions in Nigeria.

I'm sure that it won't be fantastic for Mexico.

And, domestically? Texas may also face some sort of recession even as Tricky Ricky Perry, with his exit, dodges the consequences of his alleged "miracle" collapsing.

Given that Gov. Greg Strangeabbott appealed John Dietz's Texas school finance ruling, weaker oil revenues could be a signal for him to side with wingnuts in the Texas Lege and slash at schools and other portions of the state budget.

The Texas state revenue stream faces a bit of a double whammy here, per the Dallas Morning News. First, state production taxes are based on the per-barrel price, which has of course nose-dived. Second, if less is being produced, of course, there's less to tax. That means the idea of giving TxDOT extra money out of the Rainy Day Fund (rather than something sensical like mandate 100 percent of state gas tax money go to transportation, then raise TAXES! elsewhere as needed), roads could get hamstrung again. (Cue up the toll roads Batsignal.)

That said, it's ridiculous that the state gas tax, which is a per-gallon rate, not a price-based rate, hasn't been changed since 1991.

Oil just has to stay at around the $60 for a couple more months to put significant crimps on US fracking for another six months after that. (I disagree with the SMU prof in the Snooze piece who expects oil to bottom out in another month or two and hit $75 relatively quickly thereafter.)

I wouldn't be surprised if it's at $65 or a touch higher by midsummer, but, it could slump back to near $60 again by September 2015.

It should be noted that tar sands oil will likely NOT be greatly affected at current prices; it would probably take sustained prices of $45 or so for that to happen. Therefore, with a new Congress about to enter into office, President Obama will have to face Keystone XL issues once again.

Meanwhile, even with the budgetary challenges, Saudi Arabia itself is likely among the net winners, primarily for all these geo-petro-political reasons.

Your post- #election2014 week in #environmentalism, #fracking, #Keystone

A roundup of several posts of mine on trending environmental topics.

First, the city of Denton, Texas, north of Dallas, did pass a fracking ban. And faces multiple lawsuits. I look at that, and my estimate of Denton's chance of prevailing. I actually think it's not bad.

Second, the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline from Canada, which President Barack Obama has kicked down the road for months now, can't be kicked down the road any longer with a GOP Senate. I take a look at his options and his likely course of action, and whether it's necessarily the end of the environmentalism world.

Third, many environmentalists, greeting a China-US greenhouse gas emissions accord with huzzahs and handsprings, probably think this indicates Obama will take a hard line on Keystone. Given that my skeptical eye calls the climate deal "toothless," with analysis of why I think that's the case that neither the mainstream media nor Obamiac environmentalist swooners provide, I think it's news for Keystone, but not necessarily as good as others think.

That said, unlike Alberta's tar sands, "tight" oil from shale formations, produced by fracking, seems to have a short, bubbly lifespan. I look at the latest news on that, and budgetary and other implications for the state of Texas.

#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.

Can you see Obama's #KeystoneXL sellout coming?

Once again, the State Department has officially greased the skids for President Obama to give his official "all of the above" style okey-dokey to TransCanada's KeystoneXL pipeline.

And, that's not just me saying that. So does the analysis in the article.

The conclusions of the report appear to indicate that the project has passed Mr. Obama’s climate criteria, an outcome expected to outrage environmentalists, who have rallied, protested, marched and been arrested in demonstrations around the country against the pipeline.

The Times does go on to caveat itself in best Al Haig style:

The report released on Friday, however, is far from the final decision on the project. The State Department must next determine whether the pipeline is in the national interest. That involves taking into account both the environmental and economic impact of the project, as well as its impact on the relationship between the United States and Canada, the nation’s largest trading partner and largest source of foreign oil.

Window dressing. If it's already passed Dear Leader's climate criteria, his State Department will next trot out an overblown jobs creation estimate, add in some "good neighbor" comments about Canada, and voila!

Reality, though, is said okey-dokey will not be issued until sometime after ...

Nov. 4, 2014.

If you follow politics, you know what that date is.

Until then, we'll get more weasel words like we had last year:

In his second term, Mr. Obama has sought to make his fight against climate change a cornerstone of his legacy. In a major speech on the environment last summer, Mr. Obama said that he would approve the pipeline only if it would not “significantly exacerbate” the problem of carbon pollution. He said the pipeline’s net effects on the climate would be “absolutely critical” to his decision.

Note that one word I emphasized.

That's where the weaseling will continue to come from.

"Significantly" is in the eye of the beholder, after all.

As for whether this is a line in the sand (vs line in hardened concrete?) issue for environmentalists, I'm of two minds.

Yeah, heavy tar sands oil does add to global warming.

BUT ... somebody's going to use it, no matter what.

And, as long as Stephen Harper is Canada's prime minister, the tar sands will be mind. As they will (sorry, Canucks) if Liberal leader Justin Trudeau replaces him. Only if the New Democrats conquer Ottawa will tar sands oil be stopped.

So ... IF the pipeline is built well enough that, overall, using it is better than putting even more tar sands oil on rail cars, then we probably should do it.

Of course, if Dear Leader would pass a domestic carbon tax plus carbon tariffs on imports, tar sands oil would become that much more pricey and the whole equation would change. Especially if it were priced high enough, the tax and tariff. And, Paul Krugman, long later than me, says such a tariff should meet World Trade Organization muster.

===

And, Tricky Ricky (can we mine your hair for oil?) has to get in his .02:

"Today's report means radical environmentalists are running out of excuses for forcing the delay of a project that will mean more jobs for Texans and greater energy security for North America. It’s time to move this project forward and put an end to this bureaucratic red tape. If, as the president said in his State of the Union speech, he truly wants this to be a ‘year of action,’ there would be no better way to kick it off than authorizing construction of this important project."

Sigh.

Obama sells out #equality (updated)

If you're expecting some earthshaking ideas from President Obama in tonight's State of the Union address, fuhgeddaboutit.

Specifically, on income inequality.

How many of you bit, and bit hard, when Dear Leader had his famous "I have an equality" speech a few weeks ago, which seems like 7 dog years in Obama-time? C'mon, be honest. Yes, you, Charles Pierce, the Boston Strangler? Yes, raise your hand.

Surely, this time, he really, actually meant it. 

Yeah, and he's actually going to disapprove KeystoneXL, too. (Stay tuned for a reality check, probably about two weeks after midterm elections. Long enough to not appear gauche, but early enough to give TransCanada a Christmas present.)

And, equality? Equality, you said?

The head-faking is now official:

Income inequality is out, "ladders of opportunity" is in.

Eager to dispel claims that President Barack Obama is engaging in "class warfare" as he heads into his State of the Union address next week, the White House is de-emphasizing phrases focusing on economic disparity and turning instead to messages about creating paths of opportunity for the poor and middle class.

The adjustment reflects an awareness that Obama's earlier language put him at risk of being perceived as divisive and exposed him to criticism that his rhetoric was exploiting the gap between haves and have-nots.

Yep, because doorknob forbid that on anything other than illegitimate snooping on Americans, or killing innocents abroad with drones, Obama actually take a firm stance on anything.

"Ladders of opportunity"? That sounds like some crap that Newt Gingrich would utter.

And, the current GOP? It's going to now talk about trickle-down ladders of opportunity.

Dear Leader will talk about enterprise zones, or enterprise zones on a hill, or other nonsense during his State of the Union address, which will almost be guaranteed to be vapid blather now.

And, the troops are rallying to hoist the standard of vapidness:

"Anytime a Democrat mentions inequality, suddenly they're a raging populist," said Jon Favreau, Obama's top speech writer until he left the White House a year ago. "What's he's talking about he's been talking about since 2004, 2005."

"Any capitalist country has inequality and that in itself is not necessarily a bad thing," Favreau said. "What most concerned him is mobility."

Yeah? Really? Given how the 1 percent has gotten almost all the profit after the theoretical end of The Great Recession? After economic mobility is less than in Old Europe?

Tell it to the Marines.

What else do you expect from a man who practically gushed over Ronald Reagan at the start of his presidency?

==

Otherwise, expect the speech to be generally bland, boring, incrementalist and neoliberal. His promise zones? Just an updated version of the old "enterprise zones" that have been around since the 1970s and done little. Expect nothing major on the secret snooping front. Some spin on Obamacare's alleged successes, a Kumbaya call for immigration reform that probably won't actually be in immigrants' best interests, and that's about it.

As far as the traditional First Lady's guests, yeah, Jason Collins will be nice, but who will recognize him without a presidential shout-out, or one from the media?

You want a special guest? Why not Leonard Peltier?

On the other hand, raising the minimum wage for federal contractors by executive order sounds nice. But, can't a future president reverse that? And, would that be a symbolic motion to undercut actual minimum wage heavy lifting with Congress? (Beyond that, and shock me, it doesn't apply to current federal contracts, only ones newly inked after this point.)

And, enterprise zones might be nice. But, on Appalachia and the president's "promise zones," besides being a doorknob-ugly euphemism? Er, the poverty rate in my corner of Texas is higher than that. I live in the general vicinity of the first place in the nation that WallyWorld closed a store after opening it, because it was losing money.

4-H, brought to you courtesy of #KeystoneXL

Hey, kids! Learn to dig an oil pipeline across your neighbors' back yards as part of 4-H! From an Extension Service press release:

"October 6-12 is National 4-H Week, which culminates with 'one day 4-H' — a day of community service set for Oct. 12, said a Texas 4-H program coordinator. ...

"Toby Lepley, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service 4-H and youth development specialist ... aid this year’s one day 4-H efforts are being sponsored by TransCanada."

Oy.

I see that our neighbors to the north, at least in the oil bidness, aren't so much kinder and gentler after all in the PR world. Will said sponsorship include teaching them how to email President Obama to OK KeystoneXL?

This is not quite as bad or blantant (yet, at least) as the Exxon Math and Science Academy, guaranteed not to teach kids the truth about climate change, but it's bad enough.

And,, beyond TransCanada, or ExxonMobil, this whole issue of sponsorship is problematic. Yes, both small-town Main Street businesses and bigger companies have contributed to nonprofit organizations for decades. But, they've never before talked about "sponsorship." I find this troubling.

I would find it troubling with a less controversial company than TransCanada.

Obama's non-new climate speech

Hey, did you hear that President Obama wants to have his Environmental Protection Agency implement new emissions standards for existing power plants? Yaaaaaay, right?

Well, did you also notice that he's not calling for action in that area until 2015?

Sure, it's easy to say, "That's the regulatory time process" or something.

But, here's the reality.

Obama did largely kick the can down the road. That's sad, but in no way unexpected. Just as "Gang Green" environmental groups hitting up my inbox for money after the speech was in no way unexpected.

As for the EPA and stiffening CAFE standards? This is the same EPA now allowing 15 percent ethanol fuel, the same EPA who's had the rules for new power plants ready to go, but not promulgated, for 2 years, and the same EPA that has flex-fuel loopholes in those new CAFE standards.

And, the stuff it does OK? That's Dear Leader's Office of Management and Budget that quashes them. No GOP doings there. Just like Dear Leader's OMB has quashed any tighter EnergyStar proposals or anything else.

And, it's not just me saying some of that. So did Mother Jones, in its pre-speech analysis.
 
So, folks, get real. This wasn't anything majorly new.

Meanwhile, we got another dodge on what will happen with Keystone XL. Smart money continues to say, "Bet on it being built." Note, as The Atlantic does, Obama's weasel words supporting approval if it "does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution." The State Department's result claims that's the case, while EPA says no. So, in other words, nothing's changed, and Obama has just kicked this can down the road, too.

He's Obamasplaining, in other words.

He did, as The Atlantic notes, also talk about adaptation as well as mitigation. However, it appears specifics were few. And, he didn't challenge the GOP here. That's bad, because challenging denialists on adaptation is just as important as on mitigation. Both will involve regulatory issues and money, mitigation just as much or more so than adaptation.

And, as for the claim that Gina McCarthy's nomination to head the EPA being on hold by the Senate GOP is part of what's tied Obama's hands? Tosh. See "OMB" above, first. Second, just because EPA doesn't have an official administrator doesn't mean that it can't be implementing things, anyway. Third, before the issue of recess appointments went to legal battles and eventually the Supreme Court, Obama could have been using more recess appointments in general. Or, the threat of them.

Meanwhile, in your doh/deliberate distortion of the day, the Center for Progress attacks cable media for not covering the speech more, even though Team Obama made it explicitly private! Yes, it deserved more time. But the private nature of the speech could have readily been interpreted as a "signal."
 

Snoozing Obamiacs surprised by smell of Keystone coffee

I've blogged about this more than once in the past few weeks, that people shouldn't be surprised when Dear Leader green-lights the Keystone XL pipeline.

But, after the State Department's okey-dokey today, we have the likes of the Sierra Club engaged in either real or faux shock, and acting as if they can still change Obama's mind.

What part of "we're on the far side of Nov. 6, 2012" do you folks not get?

To be honest, I think it's a mix of real and faux shock.

The faux shock is the prelude to Sierra and other Gang Green environmentalists gearing up the fundraising machines. And, yeah, they're bad about it.

The real shock is realizing that Obama's less of an environmentalist than Bill Clinton. For a man who grew up in beautiful Hawaii, and saw at least a bit of the backcountry of Indonesia, it's a bit of an oddity, eh?

But, it is what it is. He's just not that interested in environmental issues.

I am separating climate change from other environmental issues on Keystone.

I am worry about leaks. Modern pipelines are built on the margins, on the cheap, often. And TransCanada has a reputation. Habitat disturbance is a lesser but still notable concern.

Climate change, though? Brune, McKibben, et al know that oil is fungible and that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made continued tar sands development a sine qua non of his government.

If the oil isn't piped this way, Harper WILL push for a Plan B that will be more harmful to the Canadian environment, and perhaps to world issues. He WILL get that oil pumped somewhere. Either across the Canadian Rockies to Vancouver, or to the Great Lakes, and building a refinery or 12 in Ontario, or else, speaking of climate change, to the Mackenzie River and then the Northwest Passage.

Or else more tar sands oil will continue to come to the US, but on railroad cars. Per Canada's National Post, though, denying Keystone would do little to cut tar sands oil production. That's fact, that's reality based.

Therefore, anti-Keystoners' belief that a possible expansion by the Obama Administration of the National Environmental Policy Act to include global warming would provide legal grounds for a suit, especially given the State Department's finding, seems a no-go. In fact, TransCanada (and folks drilling for shale oil in North Dakota whom could also benefit from the pipeline) could argue that shipping more "dirty" oil by rail would actually be more harmful to global warming than the pipeline.

So, on climate change, to protest against Keystone as a symbol? I can halfway buy that. To protest against Keystone per se? Stupid. And, why isn't Bill McKibben in Ottawa, not Washington, in the first place?

Speaking of such things, Joe Nocera, who had a godawful column about Keystone last week, even after owning up to a major error near the end, has an interesting one now about James Hansen. Does his protest activity interfere with his work at NASA? Per the column, it apparently feels that way, at least, to a lot of his colleagues, who apparently heavily bent Nocera's ear.

And, speaking of reality-based communities, Hansen appears to have taken flights of fancy:

(T)he carbon in the tar sands “exceeds that in all oil burned in human history.”

Simply not true, on proven plus probable reserves; not even close. "Dirtier" oil takes some extra energy to refine, but not THAT much. And, even that goes beyond his narrow statement. Oil is oil, in general. It's going to produce pretty much the same range of carbon dioxide when its refined products are burned.

If he meant the carbon of this particular type of oil, plus the extra energy extraction, he's closer to true, but, unless probable reserves greatly increase, not true, still. And, likely still not THAT close.

And, a better effort might be to get Canada to adopt US EPA standards for its vehicles, which, since the Canadian market practically is the US one on cars, anyway, wouldn't be that hard.

And, if Hansen is really, really worried about CO2, why have I never heard him talk openly about the need for next-generation nuclear power to be part of the mix?

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: Clueless on Keystone XL

Joe Nocera has been hit-and-miss since joining the New York Times op-ed page. But, his Keystone XL column is truly clueless.

If he truly thinks Keystone oil will go to the U.S. and not China, if he truly thinks it's not that much dirtier than Saudi oil, and in double cluelessness, he thinks the pipeline would help "energy security," well, he's in Tom Friedman stupidity territory at least, because none of those claims are remotely close to being true.

Reality? It's dirty oil that would take a lot of cleaning up to meet U.S. environmental standards. (That's also, contra Nocera, why we still use a lot more Saudi oil than we do dirty/heavy oil from Venezuela.)

The only thing Nocera does get right is that Obama is a centrist and that fear of losing too many environmentalist votes is why he didn't already OK it.

Frank Bruni has been somewhat better, but Nocera, ugh. The NYT op-ed page is a good illustration of the Peter principle.

And, his "take 2" isn't a lot better, starting from relying on the successor to Cambridge Energy Resource Associations, IHS Cera, Dan Yergin's new outfit, as a source of information.