Saturday, January 7, 2012

America vs Big Oil



Sierra Club - Explore, enjoy and protect the planet

Dear Reader,
Thank President Obaam for standing up to Big Oil and urge him to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline!  stop keystone xl
In 2011, we were truly inspired by President Obama's bold decision to delay and reevaluate the dirty, dangerous Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline.

But we now face attacks from greedy oil companies and their cronies in Congress who want to rubberstamp this project, all in the name of greater profits for Big Oil.

Tell President Obama we stand strong with his decision to delay the dirty Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline and that we will fight together in 2012 to reject the project once and for all.

President Obama did the right thing by putting the brakes on this dangerous 1,700 mile oil pipeline that would run from Canada through America's heartland and put our land, climate and drinking water at risk. Now the President can put American families ahead of Big Oil profits by rejecting Keystone XL.

2012 will be a seminal year in our fight to move our country Beyond Oil. Big Oil and their cronies in Congress know this as well. And they're in a panic. We're already starting to see a barrage of misinformation. Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner and the other Big Oil allies in Congress are trying to scam the American people with an expensive, unnecessary and dangerous tar sands pipeline to deliver billions in profits to oil companies.

Thank President Obama for his bold leadership on Keystone XL and tell him he has your support standing up to Big Oil.

The pipeline will not help with energy security, it will create far fewer jobs than promised, the oil brought to the U.S. will be shipped overseas tax-free and there are huge risks to our waterways, farmland and climate - TransCanada's earlier pipeline spilled 14 times in the first 12 months of operation. 2012 will be the year we decide where we stand as a country on moving Beyond Oil.

Will you start 2012 by taking a stand against Big Oil? Support strong leadership from President Obama, support his bold decision to stand firm against Big Oil and their cronies in Congress on Keystone XL. Email the President today!

Thanks for all that you do to protect the environment,





Sarah Hodgdon
Sierra Club Conservation Director

P.S. After you take action, be sure to forward this alert to your friends and colleagues!
Share this page on FacebookShare this page on TwitterShare this page with other services




Sierra Club
85 Second St.
San Francisco, CA 94105

Sierra Club

Obama, Congress begin 2012 in oil pipeline dispute


By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama and Congress are starting the election year locked in a tussle over a proposed 1,700-mile (2,735-kilometer) oil pipeline from Canada to Texas that will force the White House to make a politically risky choice between two key Democratic constituencies.
Some unions say the Keystone XL pipeline would create thousands of jobs. Environmentalists fear it could lead to an oil spill disaster.
A law Obama signed just before Christmas that temporarily extended the payroll tax cut included a Republican-written provision compelling him to make a speedy decision on whether to build the pipeline. The administration is warning it would rather say no than rush a decision in an election year.
It's a dicey proposition for Obama, who enjoyed strong support from both organized labor and environmentalists in his winning 2008 campaign for the White House.
Environmental advocates, already disappointed with his failure to achieve climate change legislation and the administration's decision to delay new smog standards, have made it clear that approval of the pipeline would dampen their enthusiasm for Obama in the upcoming November election.
Some liberal donors even threatened to cut off funds to Obama's re-election campaign to protest the project, which opponents say would transport "dirty oil" that requires huge amounts of energy to extract.
If he rejects the pipeline, Obama risks losing support from organized labor, a key part of the Democratic base, for thwarting thousands of jobs.
Obama appeared to have skirted what some dubbed the "Keystone conundrum" in November when the State Department announced it was postponing a decision on the pipeline until after this year's election. Officials said they needed extra time to study routes that avoid an environmentally sensitive area of Nebraska that supplies water to eight states.
The affected area stretches through the Sandhills region of northern Nebraska, but the concerns were serious enough that the state's governor and senators opposed the project until the pipeline was moved.
Republican Gov. Dave Heineman, who opposed the initial route, says he supports efforts to accelerate the project, noting that provisions in the payroll tax bill allow the project developer to find a new route avoiding the Sandhills.
The new route would have to be approved by Nebraska environmental officials and the State Department, which has authority because the pipeline would cross an international border.
The pipeline would carry oil from tar sands in western Canada to refineries in Texas, passing through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma. The project's developer, Calgary-based TransCanada, says the pipeline could create as many as 20,000 jobs, a figure opponents say is inflated. A State Department report last summer said the pipeline would create up to 6,000 jobs during construction.
The payroll tax cut law gives the Obama administration 60 days to decide whether to allow construction of the pipeline.
An "arbitrary deadline" for the permit decision would compromise the process, short-circuiting time needed to conduct required environmental reviews and preventing the issuance of a permit, the State Department warned in a written statement on Dec. 12. Obama administration officials confirmed that view after the payroll tax bill was approved.
Republicans call the threat little more than an excuse that allows Obama to placate environmental groups while not rejecting the pipeline outright.
"The only thing arbitrary about this decision is the decision by the president to say, 'Well, let's wait until after the next election,' " said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Boehner and other Republicans say the pipeline would help Obama achieve his top priority — creating jobs — without costing a dime of taxpayer money. They hope to portray Obama's reluctance to approve the pipeline as a sign he favors environmentalists over jobs.
Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive, said his company would do whatever is necessary to make sure the project is approved.
"We've had more than enough surprises on this," said TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard.
In Nebraska, where the pipeline faces strong resistance, state officials are awaiting an environmental study that will determine a new route. Officials have said the review will take six to nine months.
Some landowners in the Sandhills celebrated the decision to reroute the project, but the pipeline's strongest opponents say they still have concerns about the prospect of the government using its power of eminent domain to seize land, as well as liability issues in case of a spill.
"Republicans have bullied their way to get a reckless rider attached to a bill that was supposed to be about helping middle-class families," said Jane Kleeb, executive director of the group Bold Nebraska, which opposes the pipeline.
With the bill signed into law, Obama "must do the right thing for our land, water and families' health by denying the pipeline permit," Kleeb said.
Project supporters say U.S. rejection of the pipeline would not stop it from being built. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said TransCanada could pursue an alternative route through Canada to the West Coast, where oil could be shipped to China and other Asian markets.
"Canada is going to develop this no matter what, and that oil is either going to come to the United States or it's going to go to a place like China. We want it here," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Opponents call the West Coast option farfetched, noting that Canadian regulators have announced a one-year delay for a similar project that would carry tar sands oil to British Columbia, on Canada's western coast.
Native groups strongly oppose both the Keystone XL and the Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by TransCanada rival Enbridge. Canada's First Nations have constitutionally protected treaty rights and unsettled land claims that could allow them to block or significantly delay both pipelines.
Unions are watching closely. Unemployment in construction is far higher than other industries, with more than 1.1 million construction workers jobless, said Brent Bookers, director of construction at the Laborers' International Union of North America.
"For many members of the Laborers, this project is not just a pipeline, it is a lifeline," Bookers said, adding, "Too many hard-working Americans are out of work, and the Keystone XL pipeline will change that dire situation for thousands of them."
Roger Toussaint, international vice president of the Transport Workers Union, opposes the pipeline.
"The dangers of the pipeline are compelling, and no one should believe the claims of either the Republican leadership or the energy companies, with respect to the project being shovel ready or with respect to the number of jobs it's going to produce," he said.
___
Associated Press writer Grant Schulte in Lincoln, Nebraska, contributed to this report.
Sierra Trading Post

Silent Swing: On Trips Through NH, Candidates Failing to Talk Conservation


By Eric Orff

Wednesday, January 4, 2012


From Theodore Roosevelt creating the National Parks System to Richard Nixon establishing the Environmental Protection Agency to George H.W. Bush signing a strengthened Clean Air Act, Republicans have a long history of supporting common sense solutions to problems facing our wildlife, air, water and public health. Will this year’s crop of GOP candidates follow that conservative presidential tradition?


So far, the signs aren’t promising. I’ve heard plenty about jobs, but little of protecting the rivers, lakes and wildlife habitat that supports thousands of hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation related jobs across New Hampshire. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife, in New Hampshire 228,000 people spent $177 million on fishing in 2006. Every dollar spent on conservation programs here in New Hampshire delivers jobs and economic activity.


Right now the Granite State duck hunters are asking “Where are the ducks?” and fishermen and women are asking “Where is the ice?” Until just a few days ago, going into late December, there was no ice in much of New Hampshire. Worse yet to the north in Maine and beyond winter and the snow and ice normally expected by now has not happened. As a result ducks and geese have been slow to migrate south to the New Hampshire’s coast this fall. And safe ice for this state’s ice fishermen is but a wish for now. Both this state’s hunters and fishermen are impacted by a warming climate. Worse yet all of the dozens of businesses that count on these sportsmen and women are up against a tough economy worsened by the lack of ice and snow. A good old fashioned winter just can’t be counted on any more it seems.


Climate change also poses a threat New Hampshire’s economic health many other ways. The skiing industry directly employs 17,000 people in New Hampshire and pumps $650 million dollars a year into our economy, a revenue stream that’s critically threatened by warmer winters. And if ski resorts are forced to make more snow, it will cost plenty to cover one acre of ski trails with one foot of snow that takes up to 180,000 gallons of water to be pumped. Along with the ski industry is the snowmobile industry which contributes another $1.2 billion dollars to this state’s economy, according to a 2004 UNH study. Snowmobiling supports thousands of jobs as well, especially in the Great North Woods.


So I have a few simple questions for this year’s crop of presidential candidates: Where are the ducks? What’s your plan to protect America’s natural resources? Will you support mainstream values by standing up for the wildlife, our national forests, and clean air and water that enrich all Americans? Or will you be going to Washington, prioritizing special interests and protecting the few at the expense of our environment?


Eric Orff is a wildlife biologist from Epsom. He can be reached at 603-736-4663 or at his web site nhfishandwildlife.com 




Abes of Maine









Friday, January 6, 2012

Winning the Argument 2012


From: ngingrich  | Dec 27, 2011  | 17,277 views
Newt's Jobs Plan

"It starts very simple: lower taxes, less regulation, an American energy plan and actually be positive about people who create jobs -- the opposite of the Obama plan."

Visit: http://www.newt.org/solutions/jobs-economy








Newt2012NH on Twitter


Newt Gingrich21st Century Contract on facebook


Newt 2012 on YouTube





Gingrich Left ‘Speechless’ By Young Voter’s ‘Old People’ Question « CBS Boston


Newt Gingrich at a Tea Party town hall on January 05, 2012 in Meredith, New Hampshire. (Photo by Matthew Cavanaugh/Getty Images)

Gingrich Left ‘Speechless’ By Young Voter’s ‘Old People’ Question « CBS Boston

A politician at a loss for words? Rewrite the history books!



MEREDITH, N.H. (CBS) – It’s not easy leaving Newt Gingrich at a loss for words, but it happened Thursday night.
He went up to Meredith, New Hampshire to try to convince a few hundred Tea Party members that he’s their candidate in Tuesday’s GOP Presidential Primary.
At one point, a young man asked Gingrich what he would do for the future of the younger generation.
But the man took a unique way of asking the question.
“I know that many people in this room are on their way out,” the unidentified man said.
“I say that in a respectful way, that in maybe ten years, a lot of people in this room will have passed away.”
That line drew laughter from the crowd, as the man said, “I’m serious.”
 “Well that’s certainly a level of optimism we haven’t had all day,” Gingrich replied, adding the man should “revise and extend” his remarks for the audience and not defend the initial statement because “it’s gonna get worse, believe me.”
“I noticed that in my age bracket no one cares about politics because it is something for old people, I say that respectfully,” the man continued, “because it seems like a lot of the issues are catered to them.”
Then he got to his question.
“I would like to know what hope I have as a hard-working, young individual, what change will you actually accomplish in Washington? What can be done in eight years that will affect the life that I have yet to live, that you have already lived?”
That drew more laughter and applause from the crowd.
“You know, there are moments in this business where I’m just left speechless,” Gingrich said.
What do you think?  Are politics just for ‘old people’?
Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Listen to WBZ NewsRadio’s audio of the exchange:: CLICK HERE


Men's Waterproof Merrell Mid Hiking Shoes, Earth  » The Sportsman's Guide