Environmental Groups Going After Obama and Congress

Washington D.C. - Not even a week after winning the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline, environmental activists are staging a rally hours before Barack Obama delivers the annual State of the Union address. Their main focus is not just the President, but others in Congress who they see as too influenced by the oil and gas industries.


Dressed as referees, the activists are planning to “blow the whistle” at lawmakers who have taken financial contributions from the lobbying groups, but haven't specified who exactly would be the targets.
The founder of one group, 350.org's Bill McKibben, said they plan to keep the environment one of the key issues of the 2012 elections. Some of the other groups are National Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace.


Due to the fact the Keystone XL pipeline would increase the amount of greenhouse gases dramatically as well as destroy a major source of water, environmentalists plan on stopping the project altogether, even going so far as to pledge to not vote in the next election. President Obama, with his disenfranchised base, needs all the votes he can get and the threatened sit-out of the environmental groups would be a devastating blow to his re-election chances.

The Keystone Pipeline and Obama's Missteps

The Proposed Keystone XL pipeline runs through six states

United States - While Republicans are saying the Keystone XL pipeline needs to be approved as soon as possible, the Obama Administration is still questioning if an alternate route would be a better solution.  Sadly the Obama's White House is seeing this project in the completely wrong light.

Republicans have announced, however, their game plan.  If Obama rejects it - and chances are he won't given he caves in to pressure - they will force it through Congress' power to regulate commerce with other countries.

Ryan Bernstein, energy adviser to Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, said in an interview "We believe that express authority in the Constitution gives Congress the ability to approve and move forward on such a project." While Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce states, falsely, the pipeline will create about 20-thousand jobs the day it's approved.  It will create about six-thousand menial jobs which are temporary until its completion, upon which only 20 people will have a permanent job.

If this happens this could put the State Department at odds with Congress, as it holds authority when it comes to cross-border pipeline permits.

What Obama needs to do is to look at the facts and go with them.  While labor organizations are supportive of the pipeline, believing the Republican lie about how many jobs will be created, the fact is it will not only create less of them, but actually take away jobs from people.  He also has to deal with the few environmentalists who are left on his side.  Moving forward with thi idea will cause almost all of them to abandon him completely and he needs every single bit of support he can hold for the election.  The only way to solve this issue is to work on genuine energy alternatives and leave the Keystone XL pipeline idea where it's sitting.  He then needs to get the Democrats who are supporting this project in line with him and state the actual facts about the pipeline.  It's supported by Republicans and Democrats who are in the pockets of oil interests, that it harms the environment in a devastating way, and if a spill happens it could destroy the Midwest for an untold period of time.  All the people who live there will get is a dirty life, 10 to 20 cents more per gallon  added to the price at the pump and dirty water.  Nobody wants any of that stuff.

Book Examines America's Turn from Science, Warns of Danger for Democracy by Renee Schoof

WASHINGTON — Americans have trouble dealing with science, and one place that's especially obvious is in presidential campaigns, says Shawn Lawrence Otto, who tried, with limited success, to get the candidates to debate scientific questions in the 2008 presidential election.

Otto is the author of a new book, "Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America," which opens with a quote from Thomas Jefferson: "Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government."
And if the people and their leaders aren't well informed and don't use scientific information to solve modern problems, Otto suggests, the United States could soon skid into decline.
"Without the mooring provided by the well-informed opinion of the people, governments may become paralyzed or, worse, corrupted by powerful interests seeking to oppress and enslave," he writes.
Today, he adds, Congress seems paralyzed and "ideology and rhetoric increasingly guide policy discussion, often bearing little relationship to factual reality."
In 2008, Otto and a group of other writers tried to organize a presidential debate on science issues. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain was interested. In the end, the two candidates agreed to respond to 14 questions in writing, and Otto's group posted them on its ScienceDebate.org website.
Otto said the group plans to try for another science debate in 2012.

Reporters play a role in whether science is discussed in campaigns. A League of Conservation Voters analysis in early 2008 found that prime-time TV journalists asked 2,975 questions in 171 interviews. Only six questions were about climate change, "and the same could be said of any one of several major policy topoics surrounding science," Otto writes in the book.
Today's policymakers "are increasingly unwilling to pursue many of the remedies science presents," he argues. They "take one of two routes: Deny the science, or pretend the problems don't exist."
Otto said he wasn't looking for simple answers in the book:
"I don't blame corporations because they are stuck in a system we have created and they can't solve it all themselves," he said in an interview. "I don't blame the Republican Party for going anti-science because there are a lot of factors that led to that socially, and I don't think it's a decision of Republican Party leadership to one day say, 'oh, we're not going to accept science anymore.' And it's not just because evangelicals got involved in politics. There's a lot of compex reasons."

Here are some questions with the author and his answers:
- Are Americans rejecting science?
"I think it's a myth Americans aren't interested. It's a myth they don't like science and scientists ... But there's some partisan political affiliation going on, and sometimes science tells them they don't want to hear and they don't like to deal with. Climate change is a great example, because the problem is so enormous and the implications mean restructuring our economy and our energy supply system."
"Science does two things that we don't love. It does lots of things that we do love, but the two things we don't love are: Whenever we extend our knowledge, we have to parse that new knowledge morally and ethically . . . . The other thing is that it either confirms or vexes somebody's vested interested."
- Will we hear about science issues in the 2012 campaign?
"I think science is going to remain a charged issue . .. Science is such a major part of everything, but particularly our unsolved challenges."
On climate change, Republican presidential candidates generally say they don't think the science is settled, even though the nation's scientific organizations have reported a consensus view that the Earth is warming mostly as a result of pollution from fossil fuel combustion.
Things could change after the primaries, when the eventual candidate appeals for swing voters and tries to avoid an anti-science label, Otto said.
The Obama administration accepts the scientific understanding of climate change, but rarely mentions it, stressing instead ways that clean energy could create jobs and boost competitiveness.

- What makes dealing with climate change so difficult?
"Nobody wants to feel bad about the future. Everybody wants to be hopeful."
The nation was settled by "insanely hopeful immigrants," Otto said, and Americans still have a strong sense of opportunity, including the idea that hard work pays off and that people get what they deserve.
"It doesn't mean that we're bad or stupid. It just means that it's just hard. It's hard to get our minds around and embrace, because it means maybe we've screwed up somehow and nobody wants to feel that way. But the great thing about Americans is that because of that hopefulness, once we get through this painful process of self-reflection ... then we really kick it in and we can solve problems like nobody else."

Commentary: Obama and the Keystone Pipeline

President Obama's game of football when it comes to the Keystone XL Pipeline seems to have finally ended with the ball in his hands. Monday Jay Carney, his press secretary, said the decision on what happens with the pipeline will be in the State Department's hands. However the State Department really has nothing to do it. Tuesday he turned that around and said he himself will make the decision.

Obama said on KETV “We need to encourage domestic natural gas and oil production. We need to make sure that we have energy security and aren’t just relying on Middle East sources. But there’s a way of doing that and still making sure that the health and safety of the American people and folks in Nebraska are protected, and that’s how I’ll be measuring these recommendations when they come to me,” he said.

Note the emboldened words. These buzzwords need to be addressed. Instead of actually investing in alternative energy sources, probably because he's afraid of the conservative media backlash, President Obama is promoting dirty nonrenewable energy. As far as “energy security” goes what's more secure than harnessing natural and renewable sources? Is he afraid Iran will turn off the Sun (I admit I'd be fascinated if it happened)?

The fact several strong lobbyists, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Industry, and several more are backing this idea also should make one pause before they think this is a good idea. These are powerful groups which stand to make a huge profit if he decides to go forward with the pipeline. As usual they also hit their oft-repeated mantra of “This will create jobs and improve energy security.” I'd like to know how many jobs and lives would be destroyed if this pipeline – and it will if the oil lobbyists get this done – polluted the water, air, or ground. I'd also like to know who is going to be held accountable when people start getting incredibly sick. I promise you it won't be the companies. The BP oil spilled proved it.

Originally Obama's decision was supposed to come near the end of the year but now it seems it will be next year at the earliest.  Now, according to Reuters says an anonymous official said last week the deadline is likely to slide.