EPA’s McCarthy: Keystone alone wouldn’t be climate disaster

Leave a comment

This is from The Politico.

How long before the left takes McCarthy to the woodshed?

The EPA chief says no single project will cause a catastrophe for the climate.


EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Monday that building the Keystone XL pipeline alone would not be a disaster for the climate, as some opponents of the project contend.

“No, I don’t think that any one issue is a disaster for the climate, nor do I think there is one solution for the climate change challenge that we have,” McCarthy said during an interview with POLITICO’s Mike Allen.

Keystone critics have long alleged that the pipeline, if approved, would greatly exacerbate climate change.

And Environmental Protection Agency’s concerns about Keystone’s climate impact have given ammunition to environmentalists fighting the project. In comments to the State Department released in February, the agency said state should give “additional weight” to whether the sharp drop in oil prices in recent months would increase the pipeline’s environmental impact and stimulate production in the carbon-rich Canadian oil sands.

McCarthy, in her interview with POLITICO, stressed that those EPA comments did not come to any conclusion about the pipeline, and she pushed back on the criticism from Canada’s ambassador to the U.S., Gary Doer.

“I have great respect for the ambassador, but he should just relook at the comment letter that we put in,” she said.

TransCanada spokesman Mark Cooper countered that despite the EPA’s comments, the current downturn in oil prices would “not significantly impact whether the oil sands will be developed.” In addition, Cooper noted, Keystone’s 700,000-plus barrels of heavy crude imports would displace “foreign heavy oil that produces similar or greater amounts of” emissions.

One anti-Keystone group said McCarthy’s statements appeared to diverge from what the agency told the State Department, which could finish its long-delayed review of Keystone within weeks or even days.

Gina McCarthy would do well to look at comments published by her own EPA, warning that Keystone XL would accelerate development of the tar sands oil field in Canada, which in turn would mean game over for our climate,” Karthik Ganapathy, spokesman for the green group, said by email.

Once Secretary of State John Kerry finishes weighing whether Keystone’s construction is in the national interest, President Barack Obama is poised to make the final call on the pipeline — a decision that has no binding deadline.

Other green groups said they didn’t see McCarthy’s Keystone comments Monday as a shift in the EPA’s view. Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation said he didn’t find her statement “concerning,” adding that the EPA “has been strong throughout” in pointing to the potential greenhouse gas emissions generated by the $8 billion pipeline.

Yet McCarthy’s prominent role in Obama’s strategy to make climate change a central part of his legacy adds extra weight to her words.

Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, circulated McCarthy’s comments on Twitter, adding that the EPA chief appeared to have “debunked the anti-#KeystoneXL crowd’s alarmism today. Cool.”

Read more:


Fail Mary: Senate rejects Keystone bill

Leave a comment

This is from The Politico.

The Keystone pipeline and big oil will not provide a last minute reprieve for Mary Landrieu.

Mary can see her Senate job slowly fading away.


Sen. Mary Landrieu’s bid to pass a Keystone XL pipeline bill fell short by the slimmest of margins Tuesday, leaving the $8 billion pipeline still on the table for the ascendant Republican Party to push the project to President Barack Obama’s desk in January.

The 59-41 Senate vote was just shy of the 60 votes needed to pass the bill, following a dramatic six days of whipping by the embattled Louisiana Democrat on an issue that almost all of Washington had expected to sit idle until next year.


The defeat deals a blow to Landrieu’s campaign ahead of her Dec. 6 runoff against GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy, whom polls show running comfortably ahead. Winning on Keystone would have helped her demonstrate her clout on the Hill as a champion of her state’s influential oil and gas industry.

(Also on POLITICO: Beyond Senate defeat, ill omens for Keystone)

Cassidy’s campaign quickly knocked Landrieu, saying in a statement that her “supposed ‘clout’” never actually existed.

For her part, Landrieu didn’t point the finger at her fellow Democrats or the White House for the bill’s failure. “There’s no blame,” Landrieu told reporters. “There’s only joy in the fight.”

Just minutes after the vote, Senate Republicans vowed to bring the issue back to the chamber.

“This will be an early item on the agenda of the next Congress,” incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), the leading Senate Republican supporter of the pipeline, said Republicans would try to build a veto-proof 67 votes for the bill, attach it to broader energy legislation or tie it to a must-pass measure such as an appropriations bill.

(Also on POLITICO: The greening of Barack Obama)

Hoeven was met by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), another strong Keystone supporter, as he left the Senate floor. “We’ll get it in January,” Barrasso said as he shook Hoeven’s hand. “We’ll get it in January.”

The bill’s failure left a bad taste in the mouth of centrist Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), who had urged his colleagues in a closed door meeting to support it.

“This was ridiculous for us to [get] 59, one short. It really was uncalled for,” he said. “And those were some passionate conversations that we had in there. They were respectful and they were very passionate that we had in the caucus, and I would have thought it would have changed [the vote].”

Landrieu faced a noisy, well-organized environmental movement that made it personal against her from the start. About two-dozen greens protested outside her Washington home on Monday with a makeshift pipeline and pushed her colleagues into abandoning her all week long, until Landrieu’s path to victory appeared to come down to one of the Senate’s most liberal members, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) — though he voted no in the end.

Tiernan Sittenfeld, the League of Conservation Voters’ senior VP for government affairs, hailed the pipeline’s latest setback. “Looking ahead, we are more confident than ever that this pipeline is never going to be built,” she said.

Obama and his aides had spent much of the week signaling he would reject the legislation, though the White House’s refusal to issue a formal veto message gave pipeline backers reason to hope that the president might move in their direction. Press secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday that Obama “doesn’t support” the bill, which would approve the $8 billion pipeline without waiting for the State Department to finish its review of the project, but added that the White House would “probably wait and see what happens in the Senate.”

The pipeline would carry heavy crude oil from western Canada’s carbon-rich tar sands to the Texas Gulf Coast, pitting supporters’ hopes for North American energy independence against greens’ warnings that it would unleash calamitous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The State Department has been studying the project in fits and starts for six years.

Many on Capitol Hill say it’s time for the White House to take a stand on the project once and for all.

“Well, I do think the president ought to move ahead and make a decision. The power to make that decision was entrusted to him, and I think he should exercise it,” said independent Maine Sen. Angus King, who voted against the bill.

Landrieu’s supporters have said this week’s Keystone fight is about her longstanding advocacy for the pipeline, not an attempt to save her seat. Still, the political motivations in Senate leaders’ decision to allow the vote were clear — and now the party must face the fallout from its green base, which was disgusted by the pro-pipeline move from Democrats they spent more than $80 million to help during the midterm elections.

The oil industry and Keystone backers on both sides of the aisle will now look to next year’s Republican Congress, whose leaders have promised to make the pipeline one of its first orders of business. The GOP is all but guaranteed to have enough pro-Keystone votes to force Obama to weigh in on the pipeline in 2015.

TransCanada, the company seeking to build the pipeline, said it saw the vote as a sign that political support was growing.

“We have also seen this in new public opinion polls with two-thirds of Americans calling for the project’s approval,” TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said in a statement. “Senators Mary Landrieu and John Hoeven are to be commended for leading a bipartisan coalition in support of a legislative solution to the protracted regulatory process Keystone XL has languished in for six years.”

Read more:




Leave a comment

This is from Human Events.

The DemocRats say the are pro business yet they screw business at every turn.

Obama wants to keep us on foreign oil so the terrorist will benefit from the oil money flowing to the Saudis.




When President Obama holds back approval of the Keystone pipeline, for the umpteenth time, it’s bad enough that he’s politically pandering to Tom Steyer, the hedge-fund billionaire and manic radical opponent of fossil fuels. If he gives in to Steyer by blocking the pipeline, Steyer gives $100 million to Democratic candidates this fall.

Obama’s transparent political cynicism is incredible. But it’s more than that. It shows his disregard for jobs and economic growth for blue-collar union workers who used to be Democrats. It shows his utter disregard for our loyal Canadian ally up north. And it sends the wrong signal to Vladimir Putin, who probably believes the U.S. will not undermine Russia with energy independence and oil and gas exports while Obama is in office.

But perhaps most of all, Obama’s Keystone veto sends a message to American business that he just doesn’t care.

For as long as he’s been in the Oval Office, Obama rarely has had anything good to say about business. Instead he talks about inequality, redistribution, taxing the rich, and re-regulation. Remember “you didn’t build that business”? That sums him up right there.

And you know what? Businesses listen to what presidents say. They get the message. From day one, this administration has been anti-business. So instead of making long-term investments that would create tens of thousands of jobs, companies have held onto their profits and gone into a deep crouch. Or they’ve stashed their money overseas.

It’s understandable. President Obama has never been serious about corporate tax reform and reduction. But he has been serious about his desire to punish companies with a huge tax bill.

American firms are locked in this non-investment crouch because they can’t be sure which regulatory or tax burden is coming next. The Wall Street Journalrecently reported that “the recovery is proving to be one of the most lackluster in modern times.” A negative and fearful business psychology is a key reason why.

Obama has never figured out that business, not government, is the heart of the economy. Businesses create the jobs and incomes that deliver family prosperity. And new and existing firms need capital investment for start-ups or expansions. It’s a process that requires confidence. Instead we have uncertainty.

And you know what? This could all be changed.

Let’s go back to a different period: 1982 to 2000. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were pro-business, and they said so often. Reagan did so from day one; Clinton did so after his election shellacking in 1994.

Some numbers? From 1982 to 2000, real annual GDP growth averaged 3.8 percent, 44 million new jobs were created, and the stock market increased 900 percent.

Now let’s bring in a polar-opposite cycle. I’ll make this bipartisan, covering the George W. Bush and Barack Obama years. The results? From 2000 to 2013, real annual GDP growth was 1.8 percent, 5.5 million new jobs were created, and stocks went up only 44 percent.

Why the huge difference between the cycles? Good policies versus bad policies. Encouraging business and entrepreneurship rather than discouraging it.

Unfortunately, President Bush presided over the collapse of the dollar, a skyrocketing gold price and a lack of monetary rules that channeled into a housing and commodity bubble that decimated the economy and financial sector.

As for Obama, I’ve mentioned some of his mistakes. But let me emphasize the economically destructive impact of Obamacare. With its costly mandates that jack up premiums and reduce profits, it has thrown a wet blanket over hiring the 51st worker or allowing for the 30th hour worked. Under Obama, the size and scope of government has greatly enlarged. That’s anti-growth.

In the Reagan-Clinton prosperity cycle, the size and scope of government was substantially reduced. A pro-growth measure. There was major tax reform and reduction, free-trade expansion, deregulation, large-scale federal-spending restraint, welfare reform, Social Security reform and monetary rules that vanquished inflation and delivered a strong King Dollar and a collapsing gold price. All pro-growth. All encouragements to business confidence and psychology.

We can get back to the near 4 percent growth of the Reagan-Clinton cycle. That’s what elections are for — to change policy. And part of the policy change must be a new pro-growth, pro-business optimism that sends the right signals to large and small firms, entrepreneurs, blue-collar workers, families and the rest of the world.

Remember this: When America gets it right at home, its international influence and prestige will return. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world will get their stories right by following America’s lead. Prosperity at home is essential to peace and freedom abroad.

Of course we can do better. That’s what the ’80s and ’90s proved. That’s why the midterm elections are so important.

Five Things Obama Could Do to be the Greatest President Ever, but Won’t

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

These will never be enacted by The Lying King.


The saddest thing about a guy like Obama, as opposed to say, Bill Clinton, is that if you went forward in time and showed him all his mistakes, showed him an alternate vision– one that’s successful for the country– he is such an ideologue that he would reject the advice out of hand.

But still that doesn’t mean that I won’t share the five things Obama could do to turn the country and the economy around.

Some of these are things anyone could do. OK, anyone but Obama:

1) Negotiate with Republicans on Obamacare—This signature piece of legislation is going down, and it’s taking Democrats with them. Obama actually holds most of the cards and would put the GOP in a tough spot if he offered concessions. Obama runs the risk of looking like the bitter clinger he always accuses the rest of us being. But Obama won’t negotiate because Obama’s never wrong about anything. That’s what his mom said anyway.

2 ) Fold Up Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank— The banking industry doesn’t lack for regulation. It lacks for the right type of regulation. Sarbanes Oxley was supposed to fix fraud at publicly traded companies. Dodd-Frank was supposed end too big to fail. Both pieces of legislation fail at their primary mission and make Wall Street more complicated. It’s time for a bipartisan effort that deleverages Washington in Wall Street and Wall Street in Washington. You want to clean up money in politics? Then give financial companies less reason to donate money. Give them more reason to stick to their customers rather than lobbying to do in the competition. Pass bipartisan reform that permanently keeps Wall Street and Washington away from each other and really reforms financial services.

3) Approve the Keystone Pipeline— The Keystone pipeline isn’t about Canadian tar sand oil, it’s about opening the U.S. to further development of light, tight oil and gas. While it’s estimated that Canada may have as much as 2 trillion barrels of oil in reserves, “the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the [US] has 4.3 trillion barrels of in-place oil shale resources centered in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, said Helen Hankins, Colorado director for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management” according to the Associated Press.

4.3 trillion barrels is 16 times the reserves of Saudi Arabia, or enough oil to supply the US for 600 years.

As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the green economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse. It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can’t compete with fossil fuels.

4) Evaluate All Legislation and Executive Action for Job Cost—There’s probably ten million jobs in the Keystone pipeline, after accounting for post construction US shale development. PwC estimates that if shale oil is fully developed, US Gross Domestic Product could grow an additional 2-5 percent per year –that’s $300 to $800 billion in extra growth…every year…compounded– greatly reduce the influence of OPEC, lower global energy prices, and —with NatGas thrown in– add at least a million jobs to manufacturing that are now just going to energy costs.

That means- I’m saying this, not PwC- that we could significantly reduce the deficit, without drastically cutting benefits for a generation of Americans who have planned to count on those benefits. It means– I’m saying this, not PwC– we don’t have to raise taxes. Actually, it means we could go to some sort of a simplified tax code, like the fair or flat tax.

See the danger to the progressives under the enviro-whackos here? We all win. There are no losers here to pit against anyone.

Along the way, the U.S. would create at least 10 million new U.S. jobs in ten years, plus keep an average of $500 billion per year here at home yearly. Over twenty years that would be an additional $12.5 trillion in GDP even at a modest 2 percent growth rate. At 4 percent, the numbers are closer to $15.5 trillion.

Do you know how much tax revenue $15.5 trillion in GDP produces? Today it produces $5.3 trillion. That would go along way toward working off our sins.

Now, imagine if we applied the same cost-benefit analysis in jobs to every piece of legislation. Forget about money, how many jobs will this kill for American workers? That’s the question every one in D.C. should be asking.

5) Resign— Seriously, I’m only half-kidding about this. Obama’s in  way over his head in the office of president of the United States. Obama– and his mom– seem to be the only ones who are ignorant of the fact. If this was any other type of job he would have been fired or they would have handed him a golden parachute. Would Joe Biden be better? Yes and yes. Almost anyone would be better, with the exception of the next presidential nominee of the party—either party—who will likely be much, much worse. Hillary-Jeb 2016? Ouch.

BRUTAL REALITY: In The 65 Minutes Obama Spoke During the SOTU, This Happened In America

1 Comment

This is from Clash Daily.


This is not what America wanted to hear last night.

h/t National Republican Congressional Committee


Obama comments on Keystone spark ire, more concerns about project’s future

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

Obama does not now or ever want to see the Keystone XL pipeline built.

He owes his soul to the leftist tree hugging loons.

Obama does not want to see the unemployment  rate to decline or

see Americans prosper. 


President Obama’s latest comments on the Keystone XL oil pipeline — including an attempt to downplay the number of jobs it would create — are re-igniting concerns that the administration may not approve the project.

The proposed Canada-to-Texas pipeline has been one of the most divisive political issues of the past four years, essentially pitting Republicans and other pro-business groups including unions against environmentalists and their Democratic allies.

The president, in an interview Saturday with the New York Times, repeated his position that the administration’s decision will be “based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere.”

However, he also took a swipe at what he described as the Republicans’ argument that Keystone would be a “big jobs generator.”

“There is no evidence that that’s true,” Obama said, arguing the best estimate is 2,000 initial construction jobs followed by no more than an additional 100 jobs. The newspaper’s transcript of the interview showed Obama chuckling as he made the point.

“That is a blip relative to the need,” he said.

His estimate is significantly lower than his own State Department’s projection of 42,000 constructions jobs and way smaller than the 118,935 that project developer TransCanada expects.

Regardless of the accuracy of the numbers, the comments only fueled concern that the administration is viewing the pipeline with increasing skepticism, after sidelining the decision during the presidential election year.

Republicans blasted Obama on Monday for his comments and for apparently chuckling while discussing the controversial issue while at his own jobs rally Wednesday.

“A president disparaging private-sector jobs while backstage at a jobs rally is beyond belief,” Michigan Republican Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told “In this economy, any source of private job creation should be welcomed with open arms. After nearly five years … there is no reason to delay these jobs another day. Republicans, Democrats, leading unions, and job creators all agree, it’s time to start building.”

The Republican National Committee said in a statement Monday: “President Obama joked about the potential job creating power of the Keystone XL pipeline. With our economy lagging, the president should be jumping at any opportunity to create jobs instead of bending to the will of special (interests) at the expense of out of work Americans.”

U.S. Chamber of Commerce spokesman Matt Letourneau told the president’s comments indeed raised concerns but that the group “was not terribly surprised.”

“The president has had ample opportunity to approve this, and he has repeatedly found ways not to,” Letourneau said.

The White House did not respond to a question about where the president got his estimate — after Obama challenged reporters in the interview to confirm the jobs projections.

Letourneau pointed to a 2011 Cornell University study with similar numbers, while adding the president “should probably stick with his own administration’s numbers.”

He also argued the non-controversial southern leg of the pipeline has already created 4,000 jobs.

The 1,179-mile-long pipeline is expected to transport as much as 830,000 barrels of crude oil daily from the Canadian oil sands (which will result in much of the additional carbon output) and the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Supporters say the estimated $5.3 billion project also will lower the price of gasoline and reduce the country’s dependency on foreign oil.

However, the president also downplayed those expectations, beyond the “potential benefit” of bolstering our energy-relations with a “reliable ally to the north.”

“That oil is going to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States,” Obama told The Times. “In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can’t ship some of that oil to world markets.”

The final decision will be made by Secretary of State John Kerry and is not expected until the end of the year or early 2014.

Kerry will base the decision on a second and final State Department environmental report scheduled for a fall 2013 release and a so-called “national interest” report.

The second one, which is expected to be complete in late 2013, is being compiled by eight federal agencies and focuses on such issues as Keystone’s potential impact on transportation and the overall U.S. economy.

Letourneau said Obama in his major climate change speech last month also hinted at another possible layer of review.

Upton has repeatedly argued that Keystone has already been subject to 15,500 pages of environmental study and that the time is now to approve the project.

“After more than four years of regulatory delay, the administration has run out of excuses,” he said several weeks ago.

Read more:



Leave a comment

This is from Human Events.

Just Why Is This News?

Anybody with a IQ higher than a rock knew this fact.

Obama thinks the oil industry is a major evil.

Obama thinks petroleum products causes Globull Warming. 


Why Obama will probably kill the Keystone Pipeline


Here’s what most people do not realize: major oil pipelines extending 2,151 miles from the Canadian Tar Sands already have been completed and are in operation from Hardisty, Alberta, east through Saskatchewan and Manitoba and south through eastern North and South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas and then on to refineries in southern Illinois and central Oklahoma, carrying 590,000 barrels of oil each day.

If they knew that, they would certainly wonder why there is an uproar about adding capacity for an additional 830,000 barrels a day through new pipelines from Hardisty through eastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, where it would pick up U.S. oil from the now famous Bakken Fields and then move further east through South Dakota and Nebraska to Steele City, Nebraska, where the existing pipeline travels on to Cushing, Oklahoma, and then continue it about 500 more miles to the Gulf Coast of Texas, where so many refineries are located.

Canadian oil is cleaner than most of what we get from Venezuela and the Persian Gulf. And our rejection of the Canadian oil will not slow development of the tar sands, a supposed goal of the environmental activists. Canada will simply build a pipeline to Vancouver and sell the oil to Asian countries.

According to Marita Noon, executive director of Energy Makes America Great, The Heritage Foundation has concluded “the project will create some 179,000 jobs on American soil and continue good trade relations with a close ally.” What’s not to like? Plenty, for some people.

The late environmental activist Paul Ehrlich once said that having cheap energy is the equivalent of putting a machine gun in the hands of an idiot child. That, I am afraid, is exactly what our alphabet soup of environmental activist groups evidently believe, which is why they support wind and solar energy with all their might: because they know it will never be cheap. In fact, they know it will never even be economically feasible.

Now they are panicked over the oil industry’s game-changing ability to develop heretofore uneconomical shale gas and oil with the advent of horizontal drilling and hydro-fracking, the latter technology having been used for 60 years in conventional oil drilling without any environmental damage whatsoever.

For years now, our government has ordered up environmental impact studies on the Keystone XL Pipeline, and when each study concluded there were no serious problems, they ordered up a new study. There have been four in all, the latest from the State Department, of all agencies, which again concluded there would be no major environmental impact. Now the State Department is calling for public feedback even though there have been tens of thousands of public comments already.

The drumbeat has failed so far. In mid-March, 17 Democrats voted with 45 Republicans in the Senate for a budget amendment supporting the pipeline, up from 11 Democrats voting for a similar amendment last year. That is good news, as is a recent Fox News poll reported in the Wall Street Journal on March 27, in which 70 percent of registered voters expressed support for construction of the pipeline.

Meanwhile, the labor unions, longtime Democrat supporters, are four-square in favor of the pipeline for the jobs it will bring. So how can the pipeline lose? Easily.

Recently the environmental activists staged a demonstration in Washington urging President Obama to stand his ground. Few showed up and some were arrested, but they made their point. Environment expert Daryl Hannah, best known for her movie role as a mermaid, said the State Department report was “totally wrong, flat out totally wrong.” Can the president resist that siren’s call? I doubt it. His office is a wholly owned subsidiary of both Hollywood and the green movement, with the administration having already spent billions and billions of dollars on failed green projects.

But there still could be a happy ending for most of us: the railroad. After nearly going bankrupt in the 1970s, U.S. railroads are back stronger than ever. They have saved North Dakota from overflowing with a glut of oil, by filling miles and miles of tank cars on Obama supporter Warren Buffet’s Burlington Northern Line with 500,000 barrels of oil each day and carrying it to refineries on the west coast of the United States. (Hmm, could that be another reason Obama opposes the pipeline?) By year’s end their capacity will rise to 700,000 barrels a day.

The railroads are fully capable of building new track connecting the Dakotas with our Gulf Coast-unless Obama and his Hollywood friends decide this, too, would be an environmental hazard. Stay tuned.


Obama Will Use Nixon-Era Law to Fight Climate Change

1 Comment

This is from Bloomberg News.

Here comes the massive price increases for energy.

We are going to get screwed again by Washington,D.C.

Similar analyses could be made for the oil sands that would be transported in TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline, and leases to drill for oil, gas and coal on federal lands, such as those for Arch Coal Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp.


President Barack Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.

The result could be significant delays for natural gas- export facilities, ports for coal sales to Asia, and even new forest roads, industry lobbyists warn.

“It’s got us very freaked out,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based group that represents 11,000 companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Southern Co. (SO) The standards, which constitute guidance for agencies and not new regulations, are set to be issued in the coming weeks, according to lawyers briefed by administration officials.

In taking the step, Obama would be fulfilling a vow to act alone in the face of a Republican-run House of Representatives unwilling to pass measures limiting greenhouse gases. He’d expand the scope of a Nixon-era law that was first intended to force agencies to assess the effect of projects on air, water and soil pollution.

“If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” Obama said last month during his State of the Union address. He pledged executive actions “to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

Illinois Speech

The president is scheduled to deliver a speech on energy today at the Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Illinois. He is pressing Congress to create a $2 billion clean-energy research fund with fees paid by oil and gas producers.

While some U.S. agencies already take climate change into account when assessing projects, the new guidelines would apply across-the-board to all federal reviews. Industry lobbyists say they worry that projects could be tied up in lawsuits or administrative delays.

For example, Ambre Energy Ltd. is seeking a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to build a coal-export facility at the Port of Morrow in Oregon. Under existing rules, officials weighing approval would consider whether ships in the port would foul the water or generate air pollution locally. The Environmental Protection Agency and activist groups say that review should be broadened to account for the greenhouse gases emitted when exported coal is burned in power plants in Asia.

Keystone Pipeline

Similar analyses could be made for the oil sands that would be transported in TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline, and leases to drill for oil, gas and coal on federal lands, such as those for Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) and Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU)

If the new White House guidance is structured correctly, it will require just those kinds of lifecycle reviews, said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity inWashington. The environmental group has sued to press for this approach, and Snape says lawsuits along this line are certain if the administration approves the Keystone pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada’s tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

“The real danger is the delays,” said Eisenberg of the manufacturers’ group. “I don’t think the answer is ever going to be ‘no,’ but it can confound things.”

Lawyers and lobbyists are now waiting for the White House’s Council on Environmental Qualityto issue the long bottled-up standards for how agencies should address climate change under the National Environmental Policy Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970.

Environmental Impact

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider and publish the environmental impact of their actions before making decisions. Those reviews don’t mandate a specific course of action. They do provide a chance for citizens and environmentalists to weigh in before regulators decide on an action — and to challenge those reviews in court if it’s cleared.

“Each agency currently differs in how their NEPA reviews consider the climate change impacts of projects, as well as how climate change impacts such as extreme weather will affect projects,” Taryn Tuss, a Council on Environmental Quality spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. “CEQ is working to incorporate the public input we received on the draft guidance, and will release updated guidance when it is completed.”

‘Major Shakeup’

The new standards will be “a major shakeup in how agencies conduct NEPA” reviews, said Brendan Cummings, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity in San Francisco.

The White House is looking at requiring consideration of both the increase in greenhouse gases and a project’s vulnerability to flooding, drought or other extreme weather that might result from global warming, according to an initial proposal it issued in 2010. Those full reports would be required for projects with 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions or more per year, the equivalent of burning about 100 rail cars of coal.

The initial draft exempted federal land and resource decisions from the guidance, although CEQ said it was assessing how to handle those cases. Federal lands could be included in the final standards.

The White House guidance itself won’t force any projects to be stopped outright. Instead, it’s likely to prompt lawsuits against federal projects on these grounds, and increase the probability that courts will step in and order extensive reviews as part of the “adequate analysis” required in the law, said George Mannina, an attorney at Nossaman LLP in Washington.

Next Administration

“The question is: Where does this analysis take us?” he said. “Adequate analysis may be much broader than the agency and applicant might consider.”

While the Obama administration’s guidance could be easily rescinded by the next administration, the court rulings that stem from these cases will live on as precedents, Mannina said.

Lobbying groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association weighed in with the White House against including climate in NEPA, a law initially aimed at chemical leaks or air pollution.

“Not only will this result in additional delay of the NEPA process, but will result in speculative and inaccurate modeling that will have direct impacts on approval of specific projects,” the National Mining Association in Washington wrote in comments to the White House in 2010.

Leases Challenged

The group represents Arch Coal (ACI) and Peabody, both based in St. Louis. Leases that theDepartment of Interior issued for those companies to mine for coal in Wyoming are facing lawsuits from environmental groups, arguing that the agency didn’t adequately tally up the effect on global warming from burning that coal.

Given Obama’s pledge to address global warming, “this is a massive contradiction,” said Jeremy Nichols, director of climate at WildEarth Guardians in Denver, which filed lawsuits against the leases.

Arch Coal referred questions to the mining group.

Beth Sutton, a Peabody spokeswoman, said in an e-mail, “We believe the current regulatory approach to surface mine permits is appropriate and protects the environment.”

Since CEQ first announced its proposal, more than three dozen federal approvals were challenged on climate grounds, including a highway project in North Carolina, a methane-venting plan for a coal mine in Colorado, and a research facility in California, according to a chart compiled by the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

Next Target

The next target is TransCanada (TRP)’s application to build the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) Keystone pipeline. The Sierra Club and drew 35,000 people to Washington last month to urge Obama to reject the pipeline. Meanwhile, the NEPA review by the State Department included an initial analysis of carbon released when the tar sands are refined into gasoline and used in vehicles.

It stopped short, however, of saying the project would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. With or without the pipeline, the oil sands will be mined and used as fuel, the report said. That finding is likely to be disputed in court if the Obama administration clears the project.

“Keystone is ground zero,” said Snape, of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Clearly this will come into play, and it will be litigated.”

Any actions by the administration now on global warming would pick up on a mixed record over the past four years.


While Obama failed to get Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA reversed course from the previous administration and ruled that carbon-dioxide emissions endanger public health, opening the way for the agency to regulate it.

Using that finding, the agency raised mileage standards for automobiles and proposed rules for new power plants that would essentially outlaw the construction of new coal-fired power plants that don’t have expensive carbon-capture technology.

Environmentalists such as the Natural Resources Defense Council say the most important action next will be the EPA’s rules for existing power plants, the single biggest source of carbon-dioxide emissions. The NEPA standards are separate from those rules, and will affect how the federal government itself is furthering global warming.

“Agencies do a pretty poor job of looking at climate change impacts,” Rebecca Judd, a legislative counsel at the environmental legal group Earthjustice in Washington. “A thorough guidance would help alleviate that.”


Seven Suggestions For A Second Term

Leave a comment

This is by Charlie Daniels in CNSNews.

What Charlie says makes sense.

But sadly Obama won’t follow any of them.


Mr. President:

The people have spoken and have elected you to the highest office in the land for another four years. I only hope you appreciate what an awesome responsibility has been placed on your shoulders and that the decisions you make can have either good or bad ramifications on the citizens of this nation for generations to come.

You have made the statement that you want to be president of all the people, and if you mean it, I have some suggestions.

1. Don’t ever lie to us. You could start out by admitting what really happened in Benghazi, and if you are at fault, admit it and take steps to see that it never happens again. The situation was bad enough and was made much worse by your handling of it.

Americans died and their families and the rest of the country deserve answers, true answers.

2.  Stop bypassing Congress in an effort to get your agenda passed, stop with the executive orders and let your intentions see the light of day by going through the people’s representatives the way our Constitution intended.

You were elected president, not king, not ruler and not dictator. And while you’re at it, get rid of all of the czars, they didn’t get voted into office.

3. If you’re going to prolong the war in Afghanistan, you need to explain to We the People what the strategic and political reasons are and it the reasons are strong enough, turn the execution of the war over to professional soldiers and rescind the ridiculous rules of engagement that bind our troop’s hands and get them killed by an enemy that doesn’t have to abide by them.

4. Hire some competent people and stop surrounding yourself with inexperienced, Ivy League types who couldn’t find their posterior with both hands in the real world. Get an attorney general who applies the law equally without regard to race and who would enforce the immigration laws so the states won’t have to.

Deal with immigration, starting with the laws that are already on the books. I think you will find that immigration is one thing the Congress will be ready to deal with, providing you’re willing to be sensible about it.

We need to define the law and enforce it, at this stage nobody knows the parameters and that is just not acceptable. This problem has been kicked down the road long enough.

5. Force the Democrats in the Senate to pass a budget.

6. Immediately approve the Keystone Pipeline, it will create jobs and reduce our dependence on the Middle East, encourage drilling, fracking and the harvesting of natural gas. We need the jobs and the fuel.

Put an immediate stop to your war on coal if you’re really interested in creating and saving jobs because you’re just putting a whole industry out of business and destroying the economy of a whole section of the country.

7. Tackle the entitlement problem because until it’s solved there can be no fiscal stability in this nation.

That’s just a start Mr. President, but speaking just for me, I think it would be a good start and would go a long way toward proving that you do want to be president of all the people.

I know it’s an awesome task, but you asked for it.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, and for our country.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels


Long, but worth reading

Leave a comment


I got this is an email.

It is long yet worth your time to read.

American is at a crossroad to the left destruction.

To the right the road to recovery.

Which one will we choose in November?

Congratulations to Mitt Romney on his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. President Obama has declared that this election is about “two fundamentally different visions” for America. Goodness, he’s got that right. Our country cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama’s fundamentally flawed vision. We must now look to this new team, the Romney/Ryan ticket, to provide an alternate vision of an America that is fiscally responsible, strong, and prosperous – an America that understands and is proud of her exceptional place in the world and will respect those who fight to secure that exceptionalism, which includes keeping our promises to our veterans.When I think about the direction our country is rapidly drifting in, I can’t help but look at California as a cautionary tale. The Golden Stateonce boasted the entrepreneurial innovation of Silicon Valley, the American creative engine of the arts, economically powerful and beautiful cities from San Francisco to San Diego, and fertile farmlands that helped feed the nation. Now it is descending into financial ruin accompanied by an exodus of middle class Californiansleaving for other states. As one writer put it, California’s “fastest-growing entity is government and its biggest product is red tape.”Obama’s vision for America will make the rest of the country look like California, minus the beautiful scenery and warm weather.Obama’s America is today’s California – complete with $100 billion taxpayer-funded bullet trains to nowhere; out of control environmental extremists who have destroyed family farms and left some of the most fertile farm land in America fallow in order to protect a three-inch fish; permanent high unemployment; government policies hostile to small business job creators; crippling high taxes; an abysmal real estate market; bloated government that wastes taxpayer money; endless budget shortfalls due to massive unfunded liabilities; city after city declaring bankruptcy; and a state government-run by, in the words of one Wall Street Journal writer, “a brothel of environmentalists, lawyers, public-sector unions and legislative bums.”

We can’t afford Obama’s vision. Our children can’t afford it. Today we are over $15 trillion in debt and running up trillion-dollar budget deficits year after year for as far as the eye can see. And our “leaders” have no plan to stop it! President Obama and this Congress don’t even have the fundamental blueprint—a budget!—to outline where they intend to take us as they merrily roll along with their out of control spending and constant increases of our debt “limit.” Our debt to China alone is more than we can ever hope to pay off in multiple generations. Such debt and dependence on foreign nations weakens us in countless ways. And yet our government keeps on spending despite the risks and despite conscientious, hardworking citizens telling them to just stop it. Our debt is growing by $3 million per minute. This debt, in conjunction with Obama’s massive government over-reaches like Obamacare, has strangled the private sector, which in turn has stifled job growth and slowed all economic growth. The only way to get our country moving again is to get back to basics like normal people do with our home and small business budgets! That means we must live within our means, get government out of the way of our job creators, develop the God-given natural resources we have been blessed with to provide real jobs and real energy security, and stop growing government and wasting taxpayer money on D.C. cronyism and useless stimulus kick-backs for favored donors.

Barack Obama’s record is one of dismal failure, which is why he isn’t talking about it. He would rather spend his time demonizing his opponents. The simple fact remains that Mitt Romney is not responsible for the dire state of our economy or the corruption and incompetence of the current administration.

Over the next 86 days, Barack Obama will try to distract us from his record. Many in the media will roll along with him in this mission. We must not let them continue the deception and distractions, and we must not be afraid to call the President out on his lies. His entire record in office exposes the false promises he made four years ago. So, let’s take a moment to remember what candidate Obama said just four short years ago.

Candidate Obama promised us fiscal prudence. But President Obama’s reckless spending and lack of fiscal leadership has led to the downgrading of our nation’s credit rating for the first time in history.

Candidate Obama decried reckless spending and promised to cut the deficit. But President Obama and those in Congress who control the purse strings and “go along to get along” have tripled it. President Obama’s proposed budget was so absurdly and wildly irresponsible that not one member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, voted in favor of it. And yet the Democrat controlled Senate still refuses to pass a budget itself, and this refusal has been going on for years now. That is irresponsible and, much more, it’s unconstitutional.

Candidate Obama promised us a “smarter government,” but President Obama has created a government that’s not too big to fail, but too big to succeed.

Candidate Obama promised us a plan for American energy independence. But President Obama has forced American taxpayers to subsidize bankrupt green energy companies with ties to his campaign donors. And when it comes to the energy we actually use to fuel our economy, President Obama’s administration blocks drilling and drags its feet on the permitting process. Meanwhile, he supports foreign energy developments, but not American made energy development. His administration opposes everything from drilling in ANWR to building the Keystone Pipeline to coal plants, but he’s all for subsidizing offshore drilling in Brazil and sitting back on his thumb while China moves in to pursue oil deals with Canada because his administration blocked responsible energy infrastructure development.

Candidate Obama promised us “the most transparent administration in history.” But in addition to refusing FOIA-requested documents, President Obama’s administration regularly holds meetings outside the White House and off the official White House visitor list with lobbyists and corporate interests they don’t want us to know about.

Candidate Obama promised to unite all America, but President Obama has cynically divided us again and again in his efforts to win reelection by playing identity politics and class warfare and pitting one group against another.

Candidate Obama promised us a “fundamentally transformed” America, and that is the only promise he’s delivered on. We can see now what his idea of “hope” is. Now we want change. He has failed to lead, so We the People must lead. And our leadership starts at the ballot box on November 6th.

Please continue to focus on the presidential race and on helping Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, but it’s also imperative that we get involved in the nation’s important House and Senate races. These candidates need our help to ensure that our next president has a responsible and ethical Congress that actually gets things done for America. Now on to November!

Sarah Palin


%d bloggers like this: