Politic?

This is a blog dedicated to a personal interpretation of political news of the day. I attempt to be as knowledgeable as possible before commenting and committing my thoughts to a day's communication.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Canada/U.S. Trade Relations

"Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn't have an impact on U.S. gas prices." 2014
"Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward." [2013]
"Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that's true. The most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline, which might take a year or two, and then after that we're talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs in an economy of 150 million working people. A blip relative to the need." [2013]
"I have to constantly push back against this idea that somehow the Keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States or is something lowering gas prices."
President Barack Obama
Seems the American public no longer hangs on the words of their president. He has stated some assurances so confidently in the past only to have them flap against his face when they've been proven wrong, wrong, wrong. American unions in the industry are all for giving approval to the pipeline. The majority of American citizens are clearly in favour of the pipeline proceeding. He isn't listening to them.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted for the ninth time to approve the Keystone XL pipeline last Friday, and the vote to approve was lost by one vote. Another bill will surface in favour of approval at the turn of the year in 2015 when the new Republican House members will be sworn in, after the recent election that saw the Republican candidates sweep the polls, making no secret that this issue is of top importance to them and to their economy.

This is President Obama's courting of the environmental groups that have given him huge support and continue to invest their interests in his ongoing reciprocation in his quest to cement his legacy as he prepares to leave office. It seems so strange that a Democratic President and a Democratic cohort is averse to approving a project that will, regardless of statements to the contrary, materially benefit the U.S. Whereas a Republican Congress and Senate would react differently.

Canada's politics and values, sometimes appearing close to those of the U.S., are more in tune with Democratic rather than Republican values, so there's a strange disconnect there; Democrats tend to be more protectionist, contrary to conventional wisdom and when it comes to trade matters between each others' largest trading partners and continental neighbours, it seems the Republicans are more friendly to Canada's needs and aspirations.

"What's in it for us? The dirtiest oil in the world, so Canadians can make more money?" Massachusetts Democratic Senator Ed Markey claims KXL would profit Canada sending oil through the U.S. to the Gulf Coast to be shipped to Europe, Latin America and China since "they will pay more for this oil than the United States." But it's been really swell for the U.S. to pay an artificially low price for Canadian Oil per barrel up to now, since they've had Canada over a barrel.

Canadian oil will be shipped out, primarily to its U.S. market, but by rail until a pipeline is built.

Rail conveyance of crude and other oil products is not as safe as pipeline delivery. And the claims of carbon pollution coming out of the oilsands in Alberta have been reduced in impact by the U.S.'s own investigative conclusions. Canada's portion of air pollution comes nowhere near that of the United States, the world's greatest environmental polluter; the impact of carbon emissions from the oilsands is comparable to 300,000 vehicles on the road in the U.S.

"Misery follows the tar sands. We have seen a tremendous rise in domestic production. It is not tar sands oil. It is not filthy oil. Conventional crude oil is different than the tar sands. The tar sands have eleven times more sulphur and nickel, six times more nitrogen, and five times more lead. Before we invite a 45% increase in this filthy, dirty oil, let's take a look at what this tar sands is", fulminated Barbara Boxer, Democratic Senator for California.

More or less overlooking the fact that crude oil derived from Venezuela is just about exactly the same in its 'yuck' content. And forgetting that the widely-used coal burned in the United States is overwhelmingly far more injurious to the environment from its sulphur dioxide emissions than the oil product that Democrats are so contemptuously dismissive of, because it's Canadian 'tarsands' oil.
Because, in point of fact, it's Canadian.

Labels: , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

() Follow @rheytah Tweet