Didn’t Mr. Trump say that Canada was our enemy, so isn’t a good thing that they can’t ship their oil through the United States. Trump wins again.
8
FINALLY!!!
Finally some good news to come out of the United States.
For the record, many in Canada do not call them the oil sands. We call them the tar sands.
11
A ridiculous decision.
The oil will move. The latest figures are a daily export of oil from Canada to US refineries of 200,000 barrels -- about 280 tank cars.
Rail is far more dangerous, and spills from tank car train incidents far more destructive, than the rare release from a damaged pipeline.
What the judge has done is prevent the oil from being transported by the safest method. Indeed, today most oil imported from Canada is transported by pipeline, mostly to Midwest refineries.
No amount of protest will stop oil being exported to the US.
2
Thank you, Judge Morris, of Montana. Your ruling on Keystone XL is 100% correct in my view.
And, "there's no Fuel like and Old Fuel". Global Warming IS very real, and it IS here, Now. For "our" Administration in Washington to promote more Oil Production, now, is beyond greedy AND crazy. Continually burning fossil fuels is now proven to be killing this Planet; a Planet that sustains us, and our children. Keystone XL's goal destroys all of that.
Further, Keystone's Fracking, and Sand Oil Production also seriously contaminates the Ground Water of that given area, and it kills it's cleanliness - Forever. Water is Life. Without clean water, you can't live very long. Goodbye to that old neighborhood.
Keystone XL is the tip of a bad Iceberg. The Canary in the Coal Mine is; there will be NO more Glaciers in "Glacier National Park" (Montana/Canada) in just 25 Years. Only 25 Years !! Get real. Why add more contamination to a overly bad situation ?
I applaud Judge Morris, and the People who stand and march against Keystone XL. Many thanks. I'm in.
11
Almost all of us use oil in some form or other. We need to reduce consumption as quickly as we can .... bearing in mind that we do not yet have a reliable system of alternatives in place. Coal has to stop yesterday. Tar sands oil today. WTI and Brent tomorrow and natural gas the next day. I do not see any political leaders ready to make the call and direct the necessary resources. Our greed and frivolous lifestyles are killing the planet and then we have the audacity to condemn the use of dirty fuel by the developing nations of the world. It saddens me at an individual level but as a species I think we probably deserve what’s coming. Enjoy your RV, your monster home and vacation flights while you can.
4
I guess President Trump's Canadian embargo did not include Canadian Oil.
6
"I think it's a disgrace." Has anyone noticed that Trump uses this same stock phrase over and over again about anything he doesn't like? No question that there's cognitive impairment. When reporters press him at a news conference (which reporters have always done to presidents) he quickly gets flustered and uses primitive insults ("you're a very bad person"). Cognitive impairment.
8
Another Federal judge inserting politics into judgements and not the law. This will be overturned on appeal.
5
I automatically inserted "Inc." after the words "Trump Energy" in the headline.
1
Canadians could have built a line across British Columbia to the ocean. But no. Sending it south was cheaper and less environmentally and politically damaging to Canadian politicians. Oops!
The biggest players, the Saudis, bet and lost. Low prices will keep it from being built anyway!
13
Simple and representative. If he read the opinion, he'd see the judge's non-political, precedent-based, evidence-based reasoning.
But if he did read it, he couldn't understand it.
People don't appreciate the role his plain stupidity plays in our predicament.
17
Canada has the largest investment in Oil here in the West Indies and that includes Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago and the rest of Latin America. It appears as if Canada sure carries a heavy stick as it rides the wave of oil, gas, and weed. Recently we had the most destructive flood in Trinidad with waters reaching 8 feet in the basin of Caroni (sugar cane country during colonialism). Climate change is real and Shell knows exactly when this will take a turn....we have to ride this out until the next century and by then half the population will be erased.
7
It should not matter if you are pro or con an issue (Keystone, DACA, etc.) endless litigation is a cancer. Keystone has been litigated for 10 years, DACA for at least two. Activist Judges have been providing "air cover" for Congress for years. That is why Congress can keep kicking the can down the road (DACA is an excellent example) instead of resolving it. The long term effect is a reluctance to invest in anything knowing that no authorization is final. That is not good for the economy. Endless obstruction is not a way to bring us together and create jobs and opportunities. Congress created this problem they need to fix it.
12
Bitumen mining uses three barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil. The massive machinery required to extract the oil burns almost two barrels of oil for every three taken out. Is anyone doing the math here?
10
yes. I use 2 barrels of oil and get 3 barrels back. fairly simple math, no?
if you gave me $2 and I gave you $3 back, wouldn't you take that deal?
1
Problem with the math as presented is that it does not take into account the cost of the waste produced by extraction and processing of the tar sands. That cost will be paid by tax payers and local communities. The negative health effects of this land, air and water pollution will far exceed that 3 for 2 math.
6
Note that Judge Morris was appointed by former President Obama. That is a fact that is almost always pointed out early in a news story whenever a judge appointed by a GOP President issues a ruling the MSM does not like. Given the number of times Obama’s name comes up in this article, it’s a wonder that the Judge did not recuse himself.
4
I see that Trumpists and fellow travellers continue to be infuriated by the law and the Constitution, to say nothing of science. Sorry, kids, it’s America and physical reality acting up again.
Drat, really.
16
This article overlooks the big winner in the Trump decision to bypass the environmental review and approve the pipeline.
You'll never guess so I'll provide a clue:
Where was Trump's very first foreign trip destination? There was sword dancing and a glowing orb.
That was hard. Another clue:
Whose national oil company took 100% ownership in Motiva the same month as Trump's visit, the largest oil refinery in the world in Port Arthur, TX, designed to process tar sands oil delivered by the Keystone XL pipeline as well as their own wells and eligible for subsidies north of $1 billion from US taxpayers?
OK, which country did Trump claim agreed to buy $110 billion in US arms, claiming that it would create 40,000 jobs and later raised it to a million jobs, even though the entire US defense industry represents only 344,000 jobs. (One US delivered bomb killed 42 school boys in Yemen).
If you still don't know the answer, ask Jared, BFF of Crown Prince MBS, fond of getting rid of the bodies right away.
(Answer: The tar sands in Alberta are one of the worst enviromental projects in the world. The US provides tax subsidies to transport Canadian tar sands oil to Saudi refineries.)
21
Nearly two million acres of Canada’s ancient boreal forest have been cleared in the quest for tar sands oil. When bitumen is processed, the pollutants collect in water that is stored in tailing ponds. These toxic ponds cover more than 50 square miles, and they are expanding at a rate of nearly half a billion gallons each day. There is no viable plan for containing or cleaning up this toxic wasteland. Thousands of waterfowl have been killed in a single day because of the toxic sludge ponds. In the long run it would have been far better to have preserved this boreal forest, which is now gone forever.
21
@Zayane But some guy needs to drive hi F550 to the office! He needs that cheap gas!
3
There was no justifiable reason for not approving the pipeline a few years ago... Kerry's state department studied he heck out of this and found no real reason to not do the project. Barack Obama stewed on it until deciding in the run up to the Paris climate meetings that we needed to support clean energy. Any real decision should take serious consideration of the safety of pipeline vs. rail car transport - because the Canadian crude will end up in the market regardless of how the crude is transported. The likelihood of injury and damages to life and property are 25 times greater moving the crude by rail vs. pipeline... and rail is how it will be transported if the pipeline is not installed. Transport safety is by far the overriding issue. Barack Obama decided against the main reason being his own environmental legacy.
6
I like the bit about rail transport, as it’s precisely like saying, “If you don’t let me shoot twelve people, we’ll just have to blow up Arkansas.”
Or to translate for the slow dogs, we don’t need that oil at all. Leave it sit. Then, see, no damage atall.
10
@danleywolfe where did you come up with the 25 times stat? We had a pipeline explode in the Puget Sound and I sure a google search can provide several other pipeline accidents
7
@Dutch
Pipelines go through unpopulated areas. Rail moves through populated ones. A couple of years ago over40 people died when an oil carrying rail train caught fire and blew up half a town in Quebec.
1
When will we get judges that respect the law. That legal standard cited by this jurist does not exist in that particular review. This JD says it is sheer legal pie in the sky. It is a politically motivated decision that promulgates illegal legislation from the bench in a circuit that encourages this activism. The judges in this circuit know it takes 2 yrs to get to SCOTUS review. Who cares if pipeline workers lose their jobs or truck drivers blow up trucking highly flammable hydrocarbons and our poorest citizens pay more for basic electric ? Not everyone can afford to dump their clunker and buy a fancy Tesla. Judges need to step out of their towers and check out the real world. Gas is much better than coal. Gas is more reliable than solar. We can cheaply control methane emissions and we should do so. But pipelines serve the public. Ask those folks in New England when their oil tanks are empty in a blizzard....they would be thrilled to have the security of gas piped directly to their home for heat or to power a generator. We all want to minimize damage to the environment but we don’t need to be cold or hungry to do it if we use some common sense here.
9
A pipeline for either oil or gas is bad news for the environment. This is primarily because it sinks costs for these energy sources, which will make it harder to displace them with nuclear, wind, solar or other superior technologies.
Another potential issue (that seems to be under-appreciated) with pipelines is, from that sometimes when they fail, they fail big. Cleaning up from some truck wrecks, or even many truck wrecks, may ultimately cost more on average in a financial sense, but we can be confident that each incident can be cleaned up very thoroughly without extensive and lasting environmental harm. I am not an expert on the topic, but I am not sure that we have the same confidence with pipelines, and this is an important part of designing a resilient and environmentally-friendly system.
14
To cling to old dirty technologies is unnecessary. We can do better. The oil industry was the single largest money making endeavor in the history of mankind. With that much money available to it's corporations it is very easy to use a small portion of that profit to influence politicians and governments to protect it from competition. It's not that the alternatives are not also profitable, they are, but different people would make the money and in the beginning it takes large quantities of capital to get the quantities of production needed to be competitive. This involves risk, especially since the old dirty industries, their owned politicians and the press try to thwart efforts of the new industries to succeed. We see this most recently with Tesla for instance. Solar cells, batteries, wind energy, gas as a transition, and perhaps nuclear (although nuclear requires government assumption of risk in the event of catastrophe, which is a major subsidization), all are maturing as technologies but need large investments to get the quantities of scale needed to bring costs down. Instead we double down on oil, now with the tar oils making what is the dirtiest oil yet, even as we see the real affects of global warming advancing. And why? Because those who have the biggest piles of cash can own any government they want. Here or anywhere else.
18
"The oil industry was the single largest money making endeavor in the history of mankind." Actually taxing the energy sector is far more profitable. Oil companies on average make about 7 cents a gallon, Government 48 cents.
3
"The oil industry WAS the single largest money making endeavor in the history of mankind." Actually it was pre-Christian slavery. Just ask the Roman Empire. Spartacus and 100,000 of his fellow slaves were not amused. (Some studies suggest that Southern slavery in the US was a bad economic policy. And yes, I believe slavery immoral - and we should be doing more about ending it, particularly sex slavery.) I highlighted your use of the word "was." This suggests that you believe something other than oil is now "the single largest money making endeavor in history." I would choose organized religion. You?
2
@Sailboat Captain and that is why Exxon is one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world - they are taxed to death?
3
Faced with the loss of money, that's an immediate threat, or the growing threat from climate change, a not so immediate threat, but immediate in the near future, it's not surprising the first course has been chosen by those most threatened by change. Change however is the only constant. Intelligence may be defined as a characteristic of being able to adapt to change. One either adapts or doesn't but refusal to adapt merely brings the inevitable, extinction, sooner or later.
3
@Madwand, 'refusal to adapt merely brings the inevitable, extinction, sooner or later', just playing devils advocate here but do you think sharks, crocodiles and coelacanths are the exception or the proof that your assertion is wrong?
1
Amid more anguished pacing up and down in the Oval Office, the President will probably fire the judge even though this is a victory for common sense and the climate. Specifically, the judgement says you can “reverse a previous policy, but still must back up (your) reason for doing so with facts.” From the outset, this administration has had difficulty with facts, sometimes preferring alternative facts or plain lies. Finally it seems the autocrat tyranny is being reined in and a more mainstream path paying a nod to science takes over. You cannot run a country on grudges, prejudice and infantile rages devoid of adult analysis and reason. I would go further and say many in those affected states spoke through the ballot box and deserted Trump.
11
@Stuart
Judges can only be impeached by Congress. Federal judges have lifetime tenure to insure their independence and to shield them from politics. As a lawyer with many yrs of experience this decision reflects a lack of understanding of the law. Regrettably we must now wait for this case to wend its way to sanity at the Supreme Court. Sorry to undermine your arguments.
3
Half the story here is that Judge Morris is an Obama nominee. The other half of the story is the belief that obstructing, delaying and forestalling fully authorized presidential actions by Trump is some form of heroic resistance, on the assumption that something might happen before the next election to remove Trump from power.
This is behavior is based upon the fanatical belief that Trump is an illegitimate President, which emerged the second the left stopped crying over Hillary's unanticipated defeat. Unfortunately, under the standards that are emerging, no future President will be legitimate in the minds of those on the losing side.
Recall that whoever won the 2016 election was going to be the least popular President in our history. That likely will persist for as long as the country remains fundamentally divided over the appropriate role and scope of government. If this illegitimate President meme also persists in our politics, we will destroy our own republic.
5
@AR Clayboy
The judge did not say that Trump couldn't reverse a decision by a previous president. What the judge said was that such a reversal could not be done without providing facts and arguments to counter the earlier decision. Nothing to do with who was president, or the legitimacy thereof. Take a deep breath, guy.
19
It is, in other words, exactly the same behavior that the GOP exhibited when Obama was President?
1
"The Trump administration failed to present facts or a “reasoned explanation” to those arguments as required, Judge Morris wrote."
Or to any arguments. Ever.
Judge Morris, you are my new hero!
19
Don't forget who wants this pipeline: David and Charles Koch -- the 5th and 6th richest people in the US -- who own tar sand leases on over a million acres in Alberta. The Koch brothers want us to give them a pipeline over our farmlands, across our rivers, threatening our aquifers and polluting our air just so they can get ever more stinking rich. Just say no to more heat-trapping pollution for private oilygarch profit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/20/the-biggest-land-owner-in-canadas-oil-sands-isnt-exxon-mobil-or-conoco-phillips-its-the-koch-brothers/
32
It is outrageous that a district Judge can block this pipeline on such specious basis as the "effect on climate change"! No reputable scientist could possibly state that this pipeline will increase climate change in any way other than to help with the possible issue. The oil is going to move in any case and a pipeline is obviously the most energy efficient and environmentally friendly way to do so. Far better than trains and trucks that are currently used for both issues. far safer and less likely to impact wildlife.
THAT is reality and how some Montana Judge with zero expertise could come to some other conclusion is ridiculous.
On top of that we should all condemn the idea that a single district Judge can issue a ruling blocking constitutionally correct nationwide project. Sure you may like the result now but how about when conservative Judges get in on the act? The left isn't going to like it very much when a Judge shopped conservative Judge issues nationwide orders for cherished liberal programs blocking them for years and possibly forever.
Most of these things need to be settled by either legislative action or, when appropriate, through executive action and the Judges should not be involved in second guessing clearly constitutional orders. That is the system we have and it is being abused by a few rouge Judges. It needs to stop.
10
Obama appointed "judge". Probably all that one needs to know.
3
While I am not so sure that Ms Clinton would have been a champion of the Earth's atmosphere, she might have avoided the more obviously stupid opinions expressed by Mr Trump. As it is there are apparently many senators who prefer to join their master with their heads in the sand.
It is of some comfort that there are still judges who are prepared to speak of "inconvenient facts" (as cited by onetime almost President Al Gore) and to risk incurring the wrath of the Almighty (or do I mean the current President?)
6
The greatest consumers in earth history wagging fingers at a pipeline, ignoring those fingers pointing back at themselves.
See Merriam-Webster dictionary, Hypocrisy.
3
‘’..the Trump administration did not adequately account for how a decline in prices might affect the pipeline’s viability...’’
Trump doesn’t read, and now it’s confirmed that he can’t do math either. He only watches TV. He can’t even use the remote to change the chanel.
8
@BBB It is not at all obviously reasonable for a federal judge to base a decision presumably based in law and precedent upon a private sector company's possible financial loss due to hypothetical price fluctuations.
Where were they planning to dump the sand?
1
The greatest consumers in earth history wagging fingers at a pipeline, ignoring those pointing back at themselves.
See Merriam-Webster dictionary,Hypocrisy.
1
The U.S. State Dept. supports Trump's level-headed decision to go ahead with KeyStone XL.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pipeline-keystone/keystone-xl-pipeline-route-would-not-harm-environment-state-department-idUSKCN1M12OZ
1
Put that in your pipeline and smoke it!
2
Thank you Judge Morris.
6
Save the animals!
3
Through the US is not the only option. So the NET effect on global warming, whatever it is large or small, is pretty much a wash. The oil will be piped somewhere. This is an Obama appointee making a political opinion that will sure as the sun rises each morning be overturned. But his real objective, and the real objective of those suing, is delay of course, and that has been achieved.
4
@Eric The question is whether the pipeline was legal or not. You might not know much about legal requirements, so you would rather see things in terms of political affiliations (as they say, “when your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails”), but luckily we live in a country where judges from both sides know the law well, and play by it. That’s the joy of not living in Russia or China, but in a country with the rule of law. Just enjoy it when you can.
3
@Eric Money is the goal and whatever the origin of it, as they say money has no smell, but as the sun rises people will be struck with diseases that are a collateral damage of the oil industry.
4
@Eric - the oil isn't oil. And Canadians have been fighting against letting the diluted bitumen coming to ports on their own shores, so do not assume this junk gets produced even without XL.
It's low-grade. It's expensive to produce. It's not profitable at prices expected to continue. So what's the rush?
Ask the conservative farmers and ranchers in Nebraska how they feel about the eminent domain and other tactics that a foreign energy company uses to push something across their property.
5
There’ll be much gnashing of teeth here in Alberta regarding this decision, but I’m one citizen who’s lauding it. The Alberta Provincial Government, comprised of a handy majority of New Democrat Party representatives whom I otherwise endorse, recently imposed a carbon tax on its population. The idea is to make Albertans conscious of the choices they make in terms of transportation needs by being greener i.e. driving less. However, when one considers the irony of no choices to be had, the tax becomes punitive. Greyhound has just withdrawn most of its services in Western Canada and the major railway companies offer very little by way of passenger service. So, the only viable alternatives to a lack of mass transportation are aeroplane or automobile.
The second irony comes from the fact that the government desperately wants pipelines: Alberta floats on oil, and previous conservative administrations did nothing to diversify our economy away from fossil fuels. In effect, while imposing a carbon tax on Albertans in a province drenched in oil, it simply wants to export the problem elsewhere, hardly mollifying climate change. The hypocrisy is staggering. The oil sands here are an environmental disaster. The AB government, for all its leftiness, thinks very much like the Trump administration.
14
@Marcus Brant
Petro-states have to diversify by building sovereign wealth funds. Alberta should create one, and not waste $20 billion a year by sending it to the rest of Canada in equalization payments. Charity cases like Quebec will be forced to cut daycare services and increase university fees.
1
If a pipeline is needed, then what amounts to tar sand should be turned into fuel with a refinery at the source.
Otherwise, fuel buyers will be paying for the cost of moving unneeded grit along the pipe, and the people along the route for damage done when the abrasive material cuts through the pipeline, and spills however many millions of barrels of thick crude.
What I really want to know, in this era of $3/gallon gas, and no research going forward into batteries and super-capacitors that will make an all-electric vehicle capable of traveling 1,500 miles before a quick charge - about what we need, is why the allegedly "cheaper" fuel is all set to be exported out of North America.
It is bad enough that POTUS won't go for retraining workers in the most hazardous job in the country - mining "clean coal" to make power-generating windmills that can be placed above every "high tension" cable path, and along the close-in seas, possibly even taking over old oil drilling platforms, because he thinks they're 'ugly'.
And his boost to the corn growers allowing more ethanol in gasoline not only raises the price of fuel, but the greenhouse gases in the air "renewable bio-fuel" is nowhere near CO2 neutral the plants do not break down carbon dioxide to carbon and oxygen anywhere near as efficiently as industry and transportation create that which will bake our planet.
12
@EATOIN SHRDLU The pipeline isn’t transporting sand, rather the crude oil extracted from it. The sand stays in Alberta. Transporting refined product is far more dangerous, and therefore expensive, than crude oil.
2
I oppose this pipeline because it cuts across the entire USA to take Canadian tar sand extracted oil to gulf coast refineries for the express purpose to sell it around the world. This does nothing for US consumers, not that we should want to use and incentivise this business.
If the Canadians want to take the most environmentally disgusting and devastating oil sludge and sell it on the world export market by themselves, then go right ahead: you, Canada, take the world's loathing and disdain for trying to profit off the most heinous environmental crime dredging this crude and turning it into the climate change gasses that will kill untold millions over the upcoming generations. You, Canada, oh so polite and demurred Canada, you take responsibility for this evil profiteering effort and stand on your convictions as the nation who poisoned the world.
Laundering your oil through American refineries and hiding behind the US when this fossil fuel hits the world market is cowardly, Canada. Oh, but you will pay dearly for washing your image as the refinery corporations capitalize on bleaching out your yellow stains. You refine this environmental tar into poison to peddle around the world, and if you can't, then build your own refineries, and if you can't, and you can't, then go do something else that does prove ruinous to the earth and its inhabitants.
27
@Chris 99% of all Cdn oil, including from the oil sands, is bought by the U.S.
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/crude-oil/20064#details-panel3
Your post is a classic left view with loads of incorrect information.
And the Gulf refineries happily upgraded their facilities to refine bitumen (correct name for it), so they could keep people employed.
1
@Chris
You're misjudging Canadians. When Obama blocked this project way back, the Alberta industry began sprouting Canadian pipeline proposals like nosehairs, through British Columbia, even across Canada to the Maritimes, to get the tar bitumen to export at Brent prices. Canada has blocked ALL those proposals on environmental grounds, and the Trudeau government is instituted carbon taxation that (pending a provincial election) Alberta has agreed - more than most US states can say. The Trudeau government actually bought the Kinder-Morgan British Columbia pipeline, control giving it the power to sit on that project if Alberta reneges on its carbon commitments. Canada is not carbon-free Nirvana, but it's not about selling anything the USA doesn't ask it for.
2
@Chris you apparently are unaware that this oil is already flowing to the States. Demand is high and only keeps increasing, so that oil must flow. It gets there by any means necessary - pipeline, truck or rail. If you were hazard a guess about the most dangerous and carbon intensive ways to move oil, which of those three do you think is actually the best...?
1
trump is a know-nothing president. Thank goodness for judges who can stop trump. We need much more of them. Science is real, trump is a fake.
14
Even if the pipeline adds to climate impact, there are other considerations that have to be made. Economic priorities might overrule environmental ones. It's a political decision. We do that all the time. No policy is positive in all respects. It always affects someone or something negatively.
After all, one could argue that all fossil fuel development causes a negative effect on the environment and therefore should be ended. Should we shut down all oil wells? No more exploration? Obviously, this would have a major negative effect on the economy, something that people may not want to sacrifice. That's why it's a political decision, not a scientific one.
12
@Alan Klein Excellent point! Let's follow that up with a nationwide speed limit of 25 mph - no sense in applying logic and analysis when the (simple-minded) solution is obvious!
12
@Alan Klein
You're missing the big point. All human civilization is at risk, and within decades. Making decisions based on the current economy is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
In any case, what is the matter with basing the economy on the future rather than the past?
Great jobs program, rolling out real clean energy!
14
@Alan Klein That's short term thiking. Global Climate Change is a long-term problem that require long term solutions.
10
I fully support a pipeline. Except my pipeline will take water from the places that have too much of it to the places that don't have enough of it.
7
Good news for American and Canadian motorists. The whole scam / plan is to move landlocked tar dilute that is selling at North American prices, about 15% lower than world Brent Crude, to Louisiana and Texas Gulf export hubs. Give the industry what Trump and it want, and you'll buy oil at the Brent price.
13
Lisa, there is no such thing as "mainstream" science, only science itself. To say otherwise indicates an embarassing ignorance about the nature of science.
13
I’m not a climate expert, but I am an engineer and computer scientist for 50 years. All the 100s of charts I’ve seen predict a sudden compounding effect, an exponential increase in temperatures as Siberian methane deposits and many others suddenly tip over into greenhouse gas release in the next few years. Man has poisoned the entire ecosystem in 10,000 different major ways, and solving even 1,000 of these soon will not be enough. Without mass modification of the atmosphere to reflect heat (silver foil or other chemicals) I just don’t see how we avoid Hothouse Earth. https://amp.livescience.com/63267-hothouse-earth-dangerously-close.html
18
@William the answer is .... get rid of all Human life !!!!!
@William
Agriculture is a major greenhouse emitter. Methane from cows is 30 times worse than CO2. Please consume zero beef or chicken or pork, and there can be real change.
1
This is why Kavanaugh matters--to counteract activist judges who make up the law as they go along. This is what we Conservatives mean by "legislating from the bench". It looks like Obama won't be gone--until all of his liberal judges are also gone.
It us up to Congress to pass environmental laws--not the courts. This will be overturned by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, thousands of pipeline and manufacturing jobs will be put on hold.
3
@Jesse The Conservative except the energy companies are writing the legislation that is "supposed" to protect the environment. Instead, it protects their profit margins at the expense of the rest of us (and the world).
Might want to climb out from under your conservative rock for a second and look at the truth of how this happens, which is why we NEED the courts to protect us.
15
Do you even know how federal courts work? The judge applied federal law in reaching his decision. They don’t just pull decisions out of a hat. They need a legislative or constitutional underpinning for their decision.
11
@Jesse The Conservative: There's a flaw in your argument. Kavanaugh won't matter, because by the time any appeal gets to the Supreme Court, Trump will be out and the Democratic administration will have reversed Trump's position.
5
Trump almost always loses in court and, as the NY Times noted, he loses with conservative judges:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/27/us/politics/trump-legal-defeats.html?_r=0
This is the dictator so may people are scared of? Shed your fears and have a little faith in the balance of powers that continues to work so well.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
7
Don’t believe hindering completion of this pipeline will prevent this oil from being burned. Without this pipeline in USA, Canada will create pipeline to west coast and oil will be transported to Asia with additional carbon release from fuel burned to transport. Global warming will not be slowed by preventing use of a fuel source locally.
2
@Phil So far to date the native people of Canada have been able to block a western route across their lands with greater success than the KXL option. There is no guarantee this bad plan can or will ever happen.
8
@Portlandia
Except the native people cannot stop oil by rail. And rail generates more CO2 per barrel moved, as opposed to moving by pipeline. So by opposing the pipeline you are increasing CO2 to the atmosphere.
The road to hell is truly paved with good intentions.
1
Yes, but inflicting higher costs through railway shipments make it less viable compared to renewable sources, and doesn't impart a sunk cost of building the pipeline infrastructure
1
This is the only subject that I can agree with the current occupant of the WH. The carbon footprint of the pipeline is WAY lower than transporting the oil by train and truck as it is being done nowadays, besides the pipeline being WAY less dangerous to the environment and people than trains or trucks.
7
@Eduardo The proposed route goes across sacred Native American lands which include the source of drinking water for the Sioux Nation, as well as over the Ogallala aquifer, the source of water for all of the farms and ranches from North Dakota to Oklahoma. A single large oil spill would contaminate those waters beyond redemption, which would end all farm production in America’s breadbasket. We can (and must) create alternatives to fossil fuels, but we cannot create an alternative to water. KXL must not be built for those reasons alone.
10
Cue Trump tantrum in 3.. 2.. 1..
19
best LOL for me reading this article is where it stated that the administration would have to appeal in the 9th circuit court . Twitter chief and his desires have a snow balls chance in....
6
@MIKEinNYC I'm not at all sure they're going to produce and ship this oil, ever. In Nebraska, where the pipeline has met stiff resistance, the original pipeline route over the Sandhills was thrown out. The majority-Republican Nebraska Public Service Commission approved an alternative route around the official Sandhills region, but TransCanada hasn't yet decided whether they're even going to try to build along the alternative route. Listen, the opposition to this pipeline in Nebraska is smart: the route over the sandhills (even the new route goes over extensive sandhill land, though they're moved it out of the "official" Sandhills region) would have absolutely massive pipes of oil constructed on literally sand -- I am a Nebraskan and I have driven through here, it looks like sand dunes covered by prairie vegetation -- and guess what's right underneath? The Ogalalla Aquifer, which supplies water to 30% of the irrigated crops grown in the U.S. Oil seeping through that porous "soil" would be a disaster that literally could not be cleaned up underground. The ranchers and landowners in Western Nebraska -- not a hippie crowd of tree huggers by any stretch -- are not making a fuss for nothing. The comparison to the pipes in NYC is not apt.
21
@ED Amen! We need to protect the Ogallala at all costs. this dirty tar sands oil was never intended for domestic use. Let them build a refinery up north for pete's sake!!
We also don't need the 5 permanent jobs it would create.
It's like selling your soul for 30 pieces of silver.
5
Trump has his work cut out for him to replace all these left-wing radical judges. A pipeline is the most economical and safest way to move oil.
It's no wonder W. Buffett purchased a $billion worth of oil rail tankers just before 0bama put a stop to the pipeline
3
@Brasto
But the point is not to find the cheapest way to move oil (not sure about your assertion that it is the safest), but to reduce reliance on oil as our energy source.
12
It’s too darn late to save this planet from climate change. And if we wanted to we would need to take all jets out of the sky, all cars off the roads and close all the factories. As an individual you can choose not to drive, heat your home, eat meat or have children. But it won’t save you from the damage done.
Be like me! I’ve given up expecting miracles. I read climate change into Every news article I consume and see less hope and more sadness. At this point I’ve concluded that a pandemic is our saviour.
That being said I’m much happier now that I’ve learned to accept our fate. I don’t get mad about other people’s frivolous vacations and renovations anymore, in fact I envy their purposeful ignorance and ask after their children as if they actually have a great future.
14
@R. Koreman Do you have a name for your condition? Such as: Terminal Reality Syndrone?
I hope you are wrong, but ...?
3
@R. Koreman
Please don't give up. The climate scientists are still urging us to act, not telling us it's all over. Various states are partnering with Canada or each other and acting to reduce their emissions. Most Americans want green energy and more government action even if they don't understand that they should also act themselves. We can probably buy some time by focusing on reducing methane emissions. Let's give the young a chance, even if success is far from certain.
3
the president was well within his authority to reverse course here. Really getting sick and tired of these activist judges trying to rule from the bench
2
This how America gets more Trump.
1
Gee, an executive order issued 2 days into his job, done only to placate his wealthy oil industry donors and to undo something Obama had done, turns out to not be legal or even a good idea?
I'm flabbergast; The Donald always thinks things through so carefully before he says or does anything. Like declaring Mexico will pay for a wall. And pulling out of TPP. And taking kids from their parents. And banning Muslims. And cheating on his wife, repeatedly. And trusting Kim. And a trade war. And colluding with Russia. And ...
11
8 Billion dollar boondoggle XL wants badly to ditch in this oil price climate?
2
Let’s not forget those who protested daily against the Keystone XL. Huddled together in the dead of a snowy winter, in trailers and tents, these protesters kept alive the hope that this unnecessary monstrosity would not be built. It’s not over, but to the good men and women against the Keystone- please keep up the fight. I salute you all.
11
@HotelSierra
The protesters will return just in time for the worst winter
cold weather. Sadly, it will be a wasted effort.
Global Warming is a false flag for this initiative.
Why are we arguing climate change here when the judge simply said you have to back up your decisions with facts, which this administration did not do? A fact based decision is harder in this case, but there are facts that can be used. And no, we can't predict the future 100%, but we can and do try.
5
"...whose administration is also seeking to block a landmark lawsuit on behalf of children asking the government to stop the rise of planet-warming gases." HUH?
It seems that all you have to do is include the word children in a statement and it gains immediate legitimacy and emotional support.
3
"... A president who dismisses mainstream science..." so this got me wondering what mainstream science must mean. I'm assuming it means things like proven laws of physics, proven interactions of chemistry, and highly studied principles of interactions and results of biology. If that's mainstream science, I have to wonder what is non mainstream science. Voodoo? Witchcraft? Tarot card reading? Palm reading? If so, then, heck, our future is well in the hands of well - thought-out out guidance for future decision making. I mean after all it was the great major league baseball pitcher Rollie Fingers who said, "the future is a lot like the past only longer." Or to quote the great Yogi Berra, "the future ain't what it used to be." Thanks Trump for trying as hard as you can to ruin whatever the future is. Gratefully there are still some checks and balances that work.
5
If you wouldn’t want this pipeline in your backyard, you shouldn’t let it be built in somebody else’s backyard. This is good news.
12
Mr. Trump believes in greed, power and profit; he does not support science, compassion, or anything else that stands in his way to acquire what he wants.
7
It is apparent that Trump's stacking the courts with conservative judges is not going fast enough. Expect an increase in the number of judges appointed under Trump. Time to clear out the leftists.
4
yawn, just part of the game. this will move up in the courts and get built.
3
Hooray for an independent judiciary!
4
You neglect to mention a lead plaintiff: The North Coast Rivers Alliance and their lead attorney Steve Volker. The North Coast Rivers Alliance is located here, in tiny Fairfax, CA (pop 7500) and seems to consist of two of our former mayors: Larry Bragman and Frank Egger. They are local treasures and not getting any credit for this at all.
Poor reporting. Thank you Frank and Larry!
4
If any one judge can veto the President and shut down everything related to the case, we are in trouble.
The role of the executive is to view the evidence before them and make judgements. We elect Presidents to do this.
Here the judge isn't complaining that the President was outside the realm of his constitutional powers, but that his judgement was wrong. He didn't consider enough what the Judge decided was important. Judge made choices are unconstitutional. They can't substitute their personal choices for those elected to chose.
2
This is why the federal judicial system should be required to have some judges with scientific and engineering backgrounds.
..."simply discarded” the effect the project would have on climate change....
OK, well, the inverse of that is to QUANTIFY the effect that it would have on climate change.
Which, by the way, cannot be done.
Emissions and leaks can be estimated, and volumes computed, but NO ONE can translate that into the number of degrees Celsius effect on global atmospheric temperature.
When ideologues sit on the bench, right or left, we are all in trouble.
5
You are assuming you know the facts that were discarded . That is the problem with an electorate that is biased.
2
@Objectivist Nonsense. Science has constructed models which accomodate credible ranges of uncertainty in their inputs, in future human behavior, and in the planet's response. At this late date, all models point in the wrong direction; the question is not whether, but to what extent we are already screwed.
5
@Objectivist
Quantifying the number of degrees Celsius effect on global atmospheric temperature is not an appropriate way of trying to understand the impact. We are all operating in a complex adaptive system when we are talking about global climate, and we are witnessing a wicked problem. In complex systems, individual activities do not "sum" to a specific number of degrees change, because as we know, complex systems change dynamically.
This means we cannot try to answer the specific question you have by a linear mathematical process; however, we can model change in a system over time and we can project what changes will occur. Scientists are seeing more intense changes than predicted in temperature and climate impacts. So this is not ideology, this is best science to work on each contribution to the overall complex system. And we need to focus a significant amount of effort on large-scale projects with multiplier effects.
We may be past the tipping point; which means that much HUGER efforts will have to be made to get climate to "tip back". But we may not be. So the issue is to enact very serious efforts at the level of these large-scale projects to prohibit additional acceleration.
The effect of this project on climate change? in systems understanding, will very likely be much greater than people are projecting because the effects are entering a system that is in a state of acceleration now.
2
To commenters who are worrying about damage to the economy: How many more floods, mega-hurricanes, and mega-wildfires do you consider acceptable? For now, people from unaffected states can help those who are suffering from disasters. What if all states have disasters at the same time? The climate scientists are very worried about our ability to survive and about a possible tipping point -- after which it will be impossible for us to address climate change. This is indeed a scientific question, and it's unethical for Republican politicians (many of whom know better but want re-election) to pretend it is not.
19
So does anyone really think that the standards imposed by the judge on a pipeline built by a Canadian company are also imposed by the United States on pipelines built by American companies, including the thousands of miles of pipelines constructed during the Obama administration? American exceptionalism concerning a rules based international order isn't just a Republican problem.
2
If either party's legislators had done their job when they were in control of Congress, then this pipeline issue would have been decided once and for all. Instead, we have a judge blocking an executive order from President Trump overturning a decision from President Obama that followed his own executive order giving him the authority to resolve these matters after seven years of dithering. I might add that this Judge's ruling will almost certainly be overturned somewhere up the line. It's almost comical but for the fact that it's so emblematic of the failure of politics in the U.S.
5
The Keystone Pipeline is already in full operation. It transports crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would replace the portion of the Keystone Pipeline that currently connects pipeline terminals in Alberta to terminals in Nebraska by a shorter route. It would run through Montana and North Dakota where it would college light crude oil from the Bakken Formation, which is currently being transported to refineries by tanker trucks. Since the Keystone XL Pipeline would transport that is already reaching market by a longer and more environmentally damaging route, it would have no impact on climate change. Judge Brian Morris ruing is another district court ruling that will be reversed by the appellate court.
7
There is so much wrong with your analysis. Bakken oil moving by truck?? Most moves by pipeline, some by rail, and a very small portion by truck. The Keystone XL will not replace the Keystone pipeline. It will add capacity to the system allowing for more production. There are massive capacity issues in the pipeline system due to the recent increases in crude production.
I agree that pipelines are more efficient and would lead to a reduction in the use of trucks and rail, but they would also incentivize greater production.
At the end of the day, it's fairly simple math and economics. Adding pipeline makes the transportation of crude more efficient/less costly. It therefore will affect the supply and demand of oil. It will increase supply, reduce the price of oil, and therefore more oil will be used.
7
@William Case - please document where they'd stop using any of the existing pipeline after they add what is an increase in capacity. If XL was just to pick up our Bakken oil, why does the new pipe start over 300 miles up into Canada?
XL will increase capacity to export Canadian tar sand bitumen to global markets. They really want that, because currently this low-grade junk is trading for $13.70 a barrel. The US and Canadian refiners can't handle more, the companies are losing money because global oil prices (real, quality petroleum) are too low to make tar sand competitive.
Tar sand is "Western Canadian Select" in this chart
https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts
Canada wants the pipeline and they want oil prices to rise so they can collect royalties. Interesting details about how this junk's produced, diluted, and priced that at this link, though it seems to have last updated in 2016. Probably too depressing for them to update at current lack of profit levels.
https://www.alberta.ca/royalty-oil-sands.aspx
Investors like the Koch Brothers want the pipeline because they want to export tar sand bitumen on the global market. They were delighted when global oil prices were > $100 a barrel a few years back. They bet wrong.
Leave it in the ground.
13
@William Case
Your argument should be used by the Administration for why Trump changed the policy. End of case.
As some below have noted, we need to go more aggressively towards solar power.
The oil sand petroleum from Canada is NOT good for Canada in terms of water contamination.
The Greenhouse Effect is an old, proven concept that is still being denied. This is deplorable.
20
Are liberals going to sue everyone who drives a car?
3
@M
No, but we will sue anyone who attempts to rollback mileage standards, safety standards, or tries to implement other regressive policies.
44
@M - Investing in the XL pipeline is similar to someone asking us to support greatly expanding urban stables and manure processing plants right while Henry Ford was perfecting his assembly line.
Electric cars are projected to be price-competitive to gas cars during this decade. If you don't think that won't sink many of the investments in the old fuel infrastructure, especially the uncompetitive tar sand output, you need to look at how markets work.
And as oil becomes less of an addiction for transportation, consider that Saudi Arabia still has an awful lot of high-quality petroleum they can pump profitably at very low prices. Tar sand isn't profitable under $80-90 a barrel. It's first to go when electric cars take off.
Incidentally, when the mass-produced automobile became affordable, cars and trucks replaced horses in US cities in less than 20 years, and health improved. People who'd been making a living in the horse-fueled supply chain had to move on. It's happening now to oil. Electric cars have fewer parts to wear out, fewer fluids to change, and I'm looking forward to much cleaner air.
If YOU want to invest in a losing proposition, buy some stock, but don't hold your breath on big returns.
10
@b fagan
What about electric jet engines? When do you think they will become viable?
About 100 million gasoline consuming cars are produced every year. So in ten years there will be 1,000,000,000 new cars, almost all non electric.
Most of the new car sales are in Asia, where electricity is mostly produced by coal. Want to guess what is worse - oil sands or coal?
Court reform needs to continue so that when the Democrats eventually regain the White house, conservative federal judges will hinder or stop everything they were elected to do. I am sure NYT will have a different spin when that happens.
3
This will be the provervial "cherry on a parfait" for Trumpenstein this week!
The judge has an intersting CV....including being a fullback on the football team at Stanford.
2
Once again an unelected person has found a way to undo years of analyses by federal agencies under O who found their way to say no problemo. Then O says no we won’t do this for some made up reason. Oh ya I approved the earlier pipeline but now I’m in my political mode and not caring as much for the common good, so no we won’t do this. Trump says why not no net more oil will be consumed, it helps a lot of people, it helps Canada and is, and guess what the nonwoking Paris deal is off. What a history of Alice in Wonderland thinking. What would really help the planet would be for fewer know it all enviros to quit jetting around the globe to hold hands with each other while saying how great they are.
5
@Mike oh geez dair eh Mikey, don't worry they're working on potatoes too to be converted for fuel. You potatoes farmers will be sitting pretty very soon...
2
@Mike ; Mike we real Americans don't count orders by presidents elected by Russians .
4
the #illegitimateSCOTUS will take care of this for Donnie!
6
I did not know you could actually use the terms "facts" and "trump administration" in the same sentence. There is a fundamental contradiction there; unless of course you use a Giuliani dictionary.
20
Kudos to judge Brian Morris, finally standing up strong against our vulgar anti-environmentalist, and bully in-chief (a coward in disguise, abusing the power of the presidency in a most nasty and cruel way, proper of despots). What a swine we've got, electing him the result of our poor education in the beauty of politics...when adhering to the truth and the facts...of which Trump is impervious to.
16
@manfred marcus Manfred Manfred Manfred...I'm educated, an environmentalist, a scientist, and, a business owner. I wear all the tags you give us like a badge of courage. I also own one mammoth bibliography on the lie called man made climate change that I have been compiling since leaving GreenPeace in 1984. Oh, I birdwatch too; do you know how many species and the extent of migratory birds and others that giant wind turbines kill every year? Just call Me that stinky deplorable who shops at Walmart Manfred; brings nothing but smiles and content to us with facts. Not those that follow false science and the political hacks that push them.
2
Thank God for this Judge. trump was in such a hurry to undo Obama policies that he did not do his research to make it stick. Is it time for his rapid fire executive orders to come under closer scrutiny? With a Democratic House, maybe more of his actions will be overturned. A legacy of hate, anger, & violence is not a good legacy to have in history books. Look at the history of Nero, Caligula, Hitler, Mussolini, Herod for the future of trump in historical records.
10
Although I absolutely applaud this decision the fate of the planet wont be secured until Trump leaves office yet even then the planet will have absorbed billions of added tons of co2 because of the greed and idiocy of the Trump administration. We are beyond the climate change tipping point and the future will never forgive us for doing worse then nothing to reverse climate change when we had the chance. Human beings have become a virus to the planet in which she will soon remedy. To bad native Americans arent the sole stewards of this planet.
7
The CO2 has always been on the planet, it’s not ‘absorbing’ anything. The problem is that human beings are transferring the existing carbon from millions of years of underground biological stores into the atmosphere in the span of two centuries, where it now traps heat instead of letting it escape to space.
2
Any defeat for Trump is a win for America. Ray Sipe
20
Thank goodness!
3
More signs of sanity. Do we need a pipeline from Canada to Houston just to help Canada export an uneconomical fuel, when their own people fight pipelines to their shores? Tar sand is like the lignite of coal - messy to use and low in resulting energy output. With current oil prices worldwide, it costs more to produce than they can get for it.
"The Energy Mix predicts that Canada would require prices of “upwards of U.S. $100 per barrel for decades.”
[...]
A good indicator of the failed tar sands model is how many major oil companies sold their positions in Canadian tar sands and took their losses. Their main explanation? No one could make money on those projects at current oil prices.
The remaining companies apparently have to rely on government bailouts. The first bailout signaling trouble for the industry was when the Canadian government bought the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project from Texas-based Kinder Morgan for CAN $4.5 billion. A federal court ruled that the pipeline didn’t get the proper approvals, which means it is now in legal limbo and may not be built — but Kinder Morgan still gets its $4.5 billion. A big win for Kinder Morgan, perhaps less so for the people of Canada."
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/10/25/canadian-tar-sands-oil-financial-losses
We don't need a pipeline crossing our agricultural lands to help another country sell stuff they can't export themselves. Leave it in the ground.
26
@b fagan
That's not for the courts to decide. They should not make policy. That's the job of Congress and the President.
2
@Alan Klein That is literally what the courts are for. They do not make policy. They judge policy.
6
@b fagan
Actually, Exxon just approved a $2.5 billion project last week in the oil sands. Oil sands can make profits at oil prices over $40 pr barrel.
The whole Keystone XL Pipeline thing is so screwed up. First off, why not follow the path of the first pipeline? Being that they both begin near Tar Sands and end at the Cushing, OK Tank Farm. Readers should know that both sides are working the news feed. Most Americans I guess have not devoted much to researching oil pipelines. So either demand the Times get off its rear and report or let your fingers do the walking.
For starters be aware that our country is criss crossed with pipes carrying oil. Some of the most, or the most informative sites are trade sites.
@The Iconoclast
Be aware that oil pipelines are not the issue.
Tar Sands are. If you do not mention this...you are *not* addressing the issue.
1
Damned judges making decisions that thwart our Imperial President. This one needs to be replaced by a Trump appointee. After all he still has a Republican Senate to help him continue to destroy the Environment.
4
Trump was only eager to reverse anything done by President Obama. As usual, he didn't read anything, didn't study the problem, didn't have any concern for the environment or any of the other careful reasons President Obama considered before prohibiting the pipeline. He just was out for revenge against Obama, Hillary and anyone else who stole his thunder.
Trump is a petty would-be-dictator. Anyone who thinks he cares anything for the American people is utterly deluded.
14
@William O. Beeman
Trump ran on finishing the XL pipeline and was elected. He's fulfilling campaign promises and the people's will. How is that dictatorial?
1
@Alan Klein
The people's will? No. He lost by 3 million votes. But won the presidency through the "game."
This isn't a game.
3
@MJB
While Clinton received over 2.8 million more votes nationwide, a margin of 2.1%, Trump won 30 states with a total of 306 electors, or 57% of the 538 available to 43% won by Clinton. ... In the Electoral College vote on December 19, seven electors voted against their pledged candidates: two against Trump and five against Clinton. Our Constitution is not a game.
1
Trump has gone through his entire life thinking of the world and everythong on it as his personal ash tray.
9
This is the second piece of good news to come out of Big Sky Country this week.
Water is more important than oil. If the applicants did not adequately address concerns about oil spills (other than to promise they will do better than they've done in the past) there is no way their pipeline should be imposed on anyone.
7
I think His Honor blew it.
They are going to produce and ship this oil anyway. Does it make sense to continue to ship it by rail? Are we aware that farmers are having a hard time shipping their produce because the rails are clogged with oil tanker cars?
Remember the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in Quebec when a runaway train with 74 oil tanker cars destroyed a town, the train, and killed 47 people? 5 people are still missing. How many people have been killed by runaway pipelines?
Then there's the oil train disaster in Alabama which resulted in a spill of 750,000 gallons. That's more oil than was spilled in the preceding 37 years. In West Virginia a 100-car oil train derailed sending one tanker car into a river.
In New York City we have pipes over 100 years old carrying water, steam, gas and other substances. Leaks are minimal and when they do leak we shut them down and fix them promptly. Keystone can be done in a safe and environmentally responsible way.
Once they put guys up on the moon you can't tell me that something as simple as this cannot be done.
The Justice Department should have let me argue this case
22
@MIKEinNYC There is a way to fix that too, put more adequate restrictions on rail transportation of crude. I believe most of the crude being transported in the USA is coming out of US oil fields like the Bakaan in North Dakota. I believe the disaster in Quebec involved crude from there. The Keystone is designed to get crude to refineries along the Gulf Coast. That entire area is under long term threat of inundation by rising seas levels
15
Remote (and dirty even for fossil fuels) can no longer compete without significant government subsidies. Wind and solar technologies have caught up price-wise with some, but fewer subsidies). Most successful big businesses rely on science and facts and understand that protecting a stable climate supports everyone and everything. Solar-related jobs have overtaken dirty-FF jobs. Farmers in the midwest are harvesting wind and sending it into the grid. It’s misplaced greed to want to continue investing in dirty FF.
16
@MIKEinNYC
An excellent comment, particularly your reminder of the Lac-Megantic disaster.
I doubt Judge Morris even remembered that tragedy.
3
Appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? Good luck with that one.
4
Good news! It is rarely smart to begin something that has such a high chance of failure: https://www.prlog.org/12402930-scientists-predict-93-chance-of-failure-for-kxl-pipeline-policy.html
3
Bob Robert makes an excellent point (or two+).If the real agenda is to limit the use of fossil fuel, i.e. carbon), how does the closure of a pipeline accomplish this?
It seems that the result is to trade sources with the same result.
If the 800K of barrels are not "produced" via the pipeline, then they will be obtained elsewhere. In short, it does not reduce the use of the fuel at all.
However in the short term it does reduce jobs.Historically but not judicially since the latter part of the 20th century the former has trumped (no pun intended) the latter. A existential issue for all.
1
@Snarky Parker: Why would someone build an expensive, international pipeline, when adequate means of moving the oil already exists?
It's pretty obvious they want to move more bitumen than current transportation methods allow today.
1
@Snarky Parker There is no "closure" of a pipeline. It hasn't been built yet: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/keystone-xl-pipeline-construction-to-start-in-2019/
And no, blocking construction wouldn't reduce the use of the fuel, but it would significantly reduce the chance of a disastrous leak of the sort we saw from the original Keystone last year (https://bit.ly/2SXkGt7) or from the Enbridge 6B line near Battle Creek in 2010 (https://bit.ly/2zEG5Pa).
@Snarky Parker
Swing and a miss Snarky.
Cancelling the Keystone pipeline keeps the oil 'stranded' in the place of production as there is no way to get the oil to the international market. As of this moment WTI is trading @$60.38, Brent @$70.33 and Western Canadian Select $13.17 So the incredibly inefficient and dirty 'oil' (tar) sands of Alberta are being shut down in droves because they are uneconomical.
Another interesting but often overlooked fact is that WTI prices would go UP if the Keystone pipeline is built. Transport capacity from US production areas to ports is also limited, so this depresses WTI prices below world prices (Brent and Dubai) even though it is higher quality. Building Keystone would allow US oil (WTI) to be injected into the pipeline where it would travel to ports and world markets (and fetch a $10 higher price)...So US consumers would face higher prices, a degraded environment, and a huge reduction in migratory waterfowl and birds of all kinds...I see you're from BigFork right next to Flathead Lake which is 197 sq miles...The tar sands are 54,903 sq mi, of which only about 3% is recoverable with existing technology. So that whittles it down to 1,647 sq miles, which is 8.36 x the size of Flathead Lake!!! Do you really want to trade a few temporary jobs on a pipeline for higher prices and an environmental disaster?
1
The Trump Administration recently argued in a report that
fuel efficiency standards can't dent what they expect to be a
catastrophic 7 degree rise in global warming by the year 2100 (Washington Post, September 28), so that there is no reason to preserve those standards. Trump and his
confederates aren't fools, so why are they so complacent, along with other capable autocrats (e.g. Putin), about climate change? Even to the point of taking measures that will actually hasten climate change. The dots can be connected. These people are already planning for an exo-planetary-like colony, to be located in the Northern reaches of Russia, that will preserve perhaps one million people (they will select), along with the means for reestablishing the environment (Noah's Ark style) some decades after the rest of the world has died off -- thereby solving the global warming pollution problem, and providing a fresh start for their selected people and their progeny. Why Russia? Because a closed society is required to preserve the necessary secrecy for such a vast undertaking. And hastening climate change lessens the time over which the secret has to be protected. As for the rest
of us? We're the fools who keep these criminals in power, so we deserve our fate.
“An agency cannot simply disregard contrary or inconvenient factual determinations that it made in the past, any more than it can ignore inconvenient facts when it writes on a blank slate.” Thank you, Judge Morris.
7
@Martha
Agencies write what the current administration wants them to write to conform with their political intents. I'm sure anyone could easily arrive at arguments for the other side which is what is going to happen. Courts should stay out of it because it's all political decisions. That's how a democracy works. But the courts don't seem to believe in democracy any longer. They want to rule.
@Alan Klein
You obviously never met any career EPA staff. Yes, the top tier is political, but the staff are generally dedicated to protecting the environment and to science, not politics.
And no, a democracy is not functioning well when those in power ignore science and facts to make decisions beneficial primarily to the oligarchs.
3
fact: Trump is President.
ergo, he can do anything he wishes.
Trump wishes to enhance our freedom, which is Republican speak for being able to do anything you want, whether or not it harms anyone and anything in your way, as long as you're trying to make money.
3
The judge presumes to know the effects of climate change? Nearly every paper the climate alarmists depend on to influence policy has the caveat that "we just don't know" what the effects will be. Where there is certitude that the effects will be dramatic or even catastrophic, there is pseudo-science based on pure speculation.
When they can eliminate natural variability as a cause for the slight rise in temperatures we've witnessed over the past 30 plus years, then we will have science that can conclude that human activity is the primary cause. We simply don't have that yet. Nor do we have compelling proof that the warming that might occur will necessarily be destructive. It might be that the pluses outweigh the minuses in most areas.
14
@Dougal E The judge presumed nothing.
Rather than provide data than contradicted the previous studies, the Trump administration simply disregarded it.
If the administration provided credible evidence that the previous studies were flawed, the decision would likely have gone the other way.
119
Dougal E,
Your dismissal of scientific research and consensus is shameful.
Cooking the atmosphere with trillions of tons of CO2 annually for decades and decades is not a good idea.
There have been a few scary developments in climate research over the past year — more methane from Arctic lakes and permafrost than expected, which could accelerate warming; an unprecedented heat wave, arctic wildfires, and hurricanes rolling through both of the world’s major oceans this past summer. But by and large the consensus is the same: We are on track for four degrees of warming, more than twice as much as most scientists believe is possible to endure without inflicting climate suffering on hundreds of millions or threatening at least parts of the social and political infrastructure we call, grandly, “civilization.”
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-one-point-five-degrees-two-degrees/
Did you also dismiss scientists' conclusions that smoking causes cancer ?
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-one-point-five-degrees-two-degrees/
128
@Dougal Ejudge never claimed to know climate facts .He sighted Supreme Court findings that previous facts cannot be disregarded
51
The REAL debate - Globalism vs Nationalism - Most don't see that. Climate Change caused by man is just an excuse to implement a one world government and a new world order. Under Agenda 21, the rights of the whole are more important than the rights of the individual. When CO2 is labeled a pollutant, and the government needs to regulate it, then all of life will need to be controlled by the government. Trump says no to The New World Order.
@EC Too much of anything is UNHEALTHY. Too much carbon dioxide or even too much oxygen is bad for the environment and bad for the health of the entire planet. Let's keep philosophical arguments out of real Science.
2
At last, a thinking judge! Let Canada deal with its oil. We don't need to help the oil industry destroy our planet. Let Canada build pipelines over their country-- if they want to sell oil overseas.
62
This is why Trump and his party are frantically filling judge positions. The law is a last hope for reason. Of course Trump’s GOP is after it.
115
@Dagwood
It’s not the republicans per se, but the Federalist Society, the same extreme right wing collection of lawyers who delivered the nominees for the last two Trump appointments to the Supreme Court. The Federalists are also stuffing the lower courts with right wingers from their lists of members. All federal judges are lifetime appointments. The decisions the lower courts make will have a much greater impact on people’s lives than Supremes will. Very very few appeals are heard by the Supreme Court. As the years pass, the number of appeals increases, but the number of justices stays the same. This means that more and more cases are decided at the appellate level.
Since all federal judges are vetted and approved by the Senate, the recent Democrat victories in the house will not stop the republican’s stuffing of appellate and district court seats with far right wingers.
This problem has not received the press coverage it deserves.
3
Great news!! Let's drop the pipeline & redirect our efforts to solar, wind, smart grid & more electric cars & charging stations!!
80
It is strange how it feels like no one is really making sense in that debate:
On one side, pretending that supply is what creates demand: not because you have a new pipeline bringing 800,000 barrels of oil a day it means you will burn 800,000 more barrels a day: maybe you will just burn Canadian barrels instead of Saudi ones.
On the other side, not building the pipeline and not getting all the money from it does not mean you are poorer: you are not “producing” the oil, you are just extracting it. Once you have depleted your field you have more money but less oil, and having oil is obviously some kind of wealth.
The real question is: do we want to use our own oil (Canadian oil, American oil, who cares) or buy it from outside? Obviously Trump will want to use our own, because who cares about tomorrow, but the real question is about long-term security of supply. As long as we are rich enough to buy other people’s oil we should, because we surely want to have some good stocks when it becomes scarce (and it will).
4
@Bob Robert Except the country doesn't buy oil. Companies (Exxon, Shell, ConocoPhillips, etc.) do, and they'll buy it from wherever they can get it cheapest. Some days that's Canada, some days that's Kazakhstan, some days it's Midland, Texas. Neither "we" the consumer, nor "we" the nation, can pick the country/area from which where we get our oil (unless you want to nationalize the industry).
1
@William That’s a moot point, and if anything supports my view: if companies provide anyone with oil from anywhere, then all you are changing by stopping the pipeline is that they will supply the same customers with oil from somewhere else. Oil companies are just intermediaries, what matters here are what people consume.
This is yet another example of an activist Federal judge exceeding his authority, and assuming functions that properly belong to the Executive branch. It is very likely he will be overruled, and all he will have accomplished is to delay the project and thereby increase its costs.
There was a thorough review of the benefits and costs of the pipeline, and our elected president and Executive Branch regulators decided the benefits justified the downsides; the review included thorough assessment of environmental impact. I note that there are geopolitical considerations as well; it is probably not to US advantage to be more dependent of Saudi Arabian oil in lieu of Keystone supplied oil. It also may not be environmentally wise if we have to increase domestic fracking.
Now, a Federal judge has decided he knows more than the rest of the government.
Incidentally, Gov. Cuomo recently decided to shut down a carbon-free energy source that supplies 25% of NYC’s electrical power, substituting the burning of fossil fuels, much of which are obtained through fracking, to make up for the loss. This decision to close the Indian Point nuclear plant was a tough call, and the governor may have made the right decision. But the important point is this: these are complicated and difficult decisions. it was Cuomo’s job, aided by his regulators, to make the decision, not a single judge’s.
4
Trump paid off t by e review board.
Heartfelt thanks to Judge Brian Morris of the United States District Court for Montana!
This is what WE THE PEOPLE need to do. WE each need to listen to our better selves and take action to stop the wholesale destruction of OUR democratic form of governance The Con Don and his Robber Baron brethren are trying to force on us.
Please, Good People with great power, join WE THE PEOPLE - the millions of us who participated in the Rapid Response demonstrations in over 1000 locations across America last night to protest this corrupt hostile financial takeover of OUR United States of America - to protect/preserve/restore true democracy.
17
It seems the only thing the judge failed to ask for proof of is on the question of why we all have to die. Unless this is just a preliminary ruling. Keep putting the same oil in rail cars, I guess, because they're so safe.
3
Oh thank God. And this common-sense judge.
10
Bravisimo. A win, I hope, for the planet. Death to the GOP agenda by thousands of legal cuts.
17
I can’t keep up with all of the Trump failures. Or the Trump lackeys that are losing elections. Soon, we’ll also not be able to keep up with all of the Trump indictments. But hey, MAGA?
9
If it is written in crayon does it count as an agenda?
4
@Gordon
Trump uses a black Sharpie.
Incongruous, a Sharpie wielded by " The Very Stable Genius" ....but then, it's Crazyland!
1
YES!
4
Good.
4
Trump supporters who can't understand why the rest of us don't support him need to read and re-read this paragraph until it sinks in.
“The Department instead simply discarded prior factual findings related to climate change to support its course reversal,” he wrote. He cited a United States Supreme Court ruling that noted, “An agency cannot simply disregard contrary or inconvenient factual determinations that it made in the past, any more than it can ignore inconvenient facts when it writes on a blank slate.”
Facts matter. Trump Lies Matter. The ends do not justify the means.
54
@Matt As of 12:32 PM EST this story is still nowhere to be found on Fox News site. (NYT reports it so Fox doesn't--there's your "balance".)
1
Judge Morris, thank you for bringing facts and reason to governance.
6
Good news. Trump has to be reeled in - otherwise, he'll take us to the very brink of environmental destruction, all in the name of cheap oil.
13
@mark alan parker-my understanding is that the pipeline will not decrease gas prices in America, but will sell at the world market prices. It is just a way of the rich to get richer and the poor get poorer.
6
The forces of good are winning every day! Fossil fuels are out.
5
@Eli
How do you feel about the decision to close Indian Point, and substitute the burning of fossil fuels to meet NYC's electricity requirements?
These are tough decisions, and it is not the job of a single judge to make them.
2
The Trump administration failed to present facts or a “reasoned explanation” to those arguments as required, Judge Morris wrote.
Please apply above quote to everything 45’s administration says and does.
11
Interesting reference to the little known " Alberta Clipper " pipeline approved by Obama in 2009, perhaps intended as a jobs program sponsored by the new incoming president.
As long as silly lawsuits like "a landmark lawsuit on behalf of children asking the government to stop the rise of planet-warming gases" are allowed to go on, and some Federal Judge is allowed to impose never ending requirements for a project that has gone through several government approval processes (except, of course the final non-determination by Obama's state department, likely a political, weaselly cover up for a president who was pressured to change his position) in order to get the policy results he wishes, we will be allowed to operate as a sovereign people.
Trump, whatever his faults, acted correctly on this one. For the judge to say he had ignored scientific studies is ironic as even state's study said XL would not effect the price or use of oil worldwide. And if any project that would increase green house gasses must be stopped, then that would pretty much mean ALL projects that helped increase the size of our economy.
4
@Delmo I suggest you reread the article. It's pretty clear about how the science on the environmental impact of the Pipeline has been intentionally ignored by the administration. Trump can't just say "na na na, all scientists are involved in a liberal conspiracy" and ignore facts. As much as Trump fights against the truth, his supporters love to say facts > feelings, and in this case the feelings are your belief that this disaster will somehow help us, and the facts are science that disputes that.
7
Aside from the body slammer, the great state of Montana is doing its best to help protect our country. How will the rest of us help?
4
I don’t want oil sands exploited, but it does not matter. Humans will cook this planet , destroy our oceans and tropical forests. That’s a fact. Very few of us will give up one creature comfort, not one.
2
Thank the judge for some common sense. And to all the commentors who feel climate change is not an issue, I am no longer going to refer to you as climate change deniers, I think more appropriate phraseology would be to refer to you just as s people who do not understand climate change. That's all. There are people like this judge who understand what climate change is, and those who do not understand it, and don't seem inclined to try.
30
It is pretty well known that Oil (that is: black gold, Texas tea) is historically the world's most lucrative industry, and oil companies have had "record profits" for many years over the last couple of decades.
Yet the reason they give for this massive pipeline is that makes the most financial sense -- or is cheaper -- than the alternatives to distribute Alberta's massive oil reserves.
Yet how could it be cheaper to build new lines and pipe tar sands oil a couple thousand miles from Alberta to Houston than to use the existing pipelines to pipe it just 500 miles to refineries in Vancouver? (Note: the existing lines to BC don't move enough oil fast enough for oil execs, and First Nations groups lawfully oppose and prohibit expansion.)
Something doesn't add up here, and as usual it's the amount of Big Oil's concealed greed to chase massive profits at the expense of anyone or anything that gets in the way, even if it's our sacred environment.
After all, their mansions won't be along the pipeline route, and their money reserves will be enough to keep them comfortable as the world burns. The comfort of their descendants? Not their problem either.
31
@D.A.Oh, I find it ironic that such a virtuous place as Canada whose comments here are always bemoaning the fate of we crass, unsocialized and uncivilized Americans, just happens to a major source of one of the dirtiest and most polluting forms of energy on earth that just happens to help subsidize such self-indulgence.
@D.A.Oh
If this pipeline does happen, and the dirtiest (thereby, cheapest) oil gets refined, where does it go after? Back to Canada via another pipeline? What is the price Canada will pay to have the oil cleaned - hey time (cleaning oil) is money and if it's cleaned at a US refinery then surely the US should should benefit from the transaction.
There is a glut of oil world-wide and millions of gallons are burnt off daily because of the limits on production. That causes environmental issues before we even talk about this one.
Elucidate?
Welcome to the world of Trump. “Reasoned Explanation” is beyond the grasp of Trump. … That is why he can, “…simply disregard contrary or inconvenient factual determinations.” Under Trump removing all obstacles to even higher corporate profits takes precedence over truth.
23
I support reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but just to inject some facts: its the 'demand' for fossil fuels that is the key factor. The Gulf refineries currently refine heavy oil from the Gulf especially Venezuela. Refining heavy oil from Canada instead will not change the output of CO2. Being more energy efficient and replacing fossil fuels with alternate energy sources, mainly solar are the ways forward.
11
@D.S.Barclay
Right you are!
And, incidentally, a case can be made that a major driver of energy consumption is worldwide population growth and overpopulation. But that's a discussion for another day.
1
This is a political decision. Elections have consequences. Obama made a unilateral political decision. Now Trump is doing the same. Judges have to get out of politics and doing what they think is "right". The people decide, not courts.
6
@Alan Klein
You would have to read the full decision for that. It may have been based on an existing environmental law. Donald can't disregard that. Otherwise, I agree. The legislature makes the laws, not the courts.
2
Alan Klein, there's nothing even remotely "political" in requiring the administration to consider FACTS in its policies and orders. The Obama administration considered facts. The Trump administration ignored facts. Simple, no? Any court would have done the same.
16
The Judicial Branch ruled here that the Executive Branch has overstepped its authority to sidestep laws made by the Legislative Branch.
This is how our system of checks and balances works.
Be thankful we are not a dictatorship. Not yet, anyhow.
11
Not to worry, science denialists!
The Supremes will be getting right on it, expediting the inevitable appeal, meeting in emergency session, ensuring the pipeline gets built ASAP.
4
"He cited a United States Supreme Court ruling that noted, “An agency cannot simply disregard contrary or inconvenient factual determinations that it made in the past, any more than it can ignore inconvenient facts when it writes on a blank slate.”
Not what 90% of Trump's appointees believe.
76
Obama appointed judge. No surprise here. Numerous studies contradict the Judge’s opinion.
6
@Sue Mee
please quote the "numerous studies"
12
@Sue Mee Why don't you name one? Not bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, of course.
5
@Leicaman The "numerous studies" that you quote, please refrain from quoting studies that were published by researchers paid for, or associated with those who stand to profit (oil-related companies), or by the current administration. Otherwise this looks like the scientists paid for by big tobacco who, for decades, claimed that cigarette smoking does not cause lung cancer.
2
How is a fully enclosed and insulated pipeline a "threat to the environment and a contributor to climate change"? Where do people come with this bunk? Now an activist judge has overturned a perfectly legal executive order to pander to the climate change fanatics, demanding that the Trump administration prove that it would not contribute to climate change. That is demanding to prove the unprovable. Yet Obama's executive order linking the pipeline with climate change was perfectly acceptable, without a shred of proof, right? What hypocrisy, but nothing new from the left which would stop all development of America's attempts to be energy independent.
8
@paul We have recurring leaks from pipelines. However, the ruling is based on the impact of burning the products carried by the pipeline itself and the subsequent contribution to global warming.
23
I was under the impression that a group of ranchers in Nebraska didn’t want a pipeline full of foreign oil (remember Canada is our enemy) crossing their property because even a small leak could destroy their one and only source of water for generations, and they sued.
If you truly love America, you cannot support piping the enemy’s oil across our glorious Red Rectangular States of America.
9
@paul Keystone was, according to earlier studies, supposed to leak "1.1" times every ten years. In its first year of operation it leaked 12 times.
If you had read the complaint and the judge's decision you would have known that the government ignored studies and findings that addressed the negative impact the pipeline would have on the environment.
8
This seems ridiculous to me.
Where the president has the authority to issue an executive order, I'm not aware of a standard that says he must also provide reasoning to a satisfy a federal judge.
Where does it say such orders can't be arbitrary or based on faulty rationale as long as the executive has the authority?
Just as Congress may pass bad laws as long as they are acting in an area they are delegated to act, it would seem the same with the president.
At what point would such reasoning, if provided, be deemed sufficient?
3
@Jack Rhodes It is a matter of the ruling satisfying our constitutional laws and regulations. It is the responsibility of the judge to see that it does that.
11
@Jack Rhodes
You seem to be dismissing the judicial branch in lock step with your masters. That's what they want; it appears to be working.
An executive order, or an act of Congress, still has to abide by the terms of the law; you can't just order that innocent people be murdered. And ONLY the judicial branch gets to determine what the law means.
There are reasonable burdens of proof that can be met regarding climate change. A good starting point is to believe in climate change.
7
The Executive doesn’t have the authority to override environmental laws that some writing here appear to be unaware of. These laws, including the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) require review and public comments- and responses to those comments - to be science i.e. fact-based and to consider outcomes of the changes on the environment. Obama didn’t waive a magic pen and order it to be so without environmental review. Trump tried to waive his and and make it so and staffers running to attempt to comply with the law, filed arguments not based on facts or science but by manipulating assumptions and ignoring evidence. It’s Trump who dictates results based purely on fiat and without regard to the public good or other impacts. Thank goodness there is still the court system able to respond based upon truth and justice and not merrifield the preferences of the politically-well-connected. But the zealous pursuit of ideological judge appointees continues apace. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court is going to be able to rise to the standards of our Founders who warned us about the perils of corruption.
5
Finally, somebody with the guts to rip the imperial scepter out of Trump's hand and slap him in the face with it. Thank you, Judge Morris.
79
The decision of an activist judge, of the sort who should not be on a federal bench. His decision is based not on legal bases, but on personal opinion in matters he is not expert in.
6
I am in favor of the pipeline, but it sounds like the judge is following a legal process and it is the Trump administration that was sloppy in its efforts. We have seen as lot of them missing or bring sloppy on details.
24
How do you feel about the Whitaker appointment?
3
@Samuel Spade He wouldn't be an activist judge if he was appointed by republican president. There are many judges appointed by trump & approved by McConnell who should not be on a federal bench. Some of them couldn't answer basic questions from law school. Now they are in the not so supreme court.
5
This will be won on appeal. There were over 10 oil pipelines built in the U.S. under Obama, yet he rejected this one for "environmental reasons". It made no sense and still doesn't. The reality is if it isn't, the oil will still get to the refining facilities by train, a much more dangerous method of transportation.
10
But Obama!
2
@DGL47
It makes perfect sense.
This project Transports toxic bitumen which is extricated from Tar Sands And which is provably the dirtiest form of energy generation in the world.
This was actually the formal conclusion of the US state department per their multi year study.
So trump is somehow rejecting the United States government's conclusions without providing any reason.
Of course Trump has no reason, he seems to be cognitively impaired.
61
@DGL47 you can just go ahead and send it to China instead.
3
This is encouraging, but the continued theft of elections and federal courts by the Grand Old Pirates means that this is a temporary delay until a higher, rigged, Republican court can dismiss facts and manmade global warming as irrelevant and defer to Gas Oil Pollution and Greed Over People and politically-assisted-planetary-suicide as America's manifest destiny and inalienable 'free-dumb' to destroy nature for short-term private profits.
Don't let your children grow up to be Republicans and Republican operatives.
There is only one Mother Earth.
We should stop raping her.
198
Socrates-
Unfortunately, Republicans won’t independently stop abusing Mother Nature until the Koch Bros and major GOP corporate donors say it’s ok.
37
It's good to hear the court systems still work in regards to holding agencies accountable for their actions. The law requires that relevant facts be considered in decision-making, and arbitrarily tossing out inconvenient information won't cut it.
133