RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "In evaluating the Keystone project, one of the challenges the State Department faced was credibly assessing what effect the pipeline's operation...would have on the global climate."

Boardman: 'Secretary of State John Kerry promised a 'transparent' assessment of the Keystone XL pipeline, and now the State Department has delivered on that promise.'  (illustration: istock)
Boardman: "Secretary of State John Kerry promised a 'transparent' assessment of the Keystone XL pipeline, and now the State Department has delivered on that promise." (illustration: istock)



Foggy Bottom Shuck & Jive

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

06 March 13

 

Keystone pipeline safe from climate change, State Department says

ecretary of State John Kerry promised a "transparent" assessment of the Keystone XL pipeline, and now the State Department has delivered on that promise - with a transparently fraudulent "environmental impact statement" which, according one critic, "makes no mention of the [pipeline's] impact on the world's climate."

After meeting with Canadian foreign minister John Baird on February 8, 2013, Kerry made his first public comments as Secretary of State about the pipeline then under review by his department. He said, in response to a question about the review: "I can guarantee you that it will be fair and transparent, accountable, and we hope that we will be able to be in a position to make an announcement in the near term."

Environmentalist opponents of Keystone XL have warned for years, as anyone attentive to the issue would know, that the development of tar sands oil in Canada would increase greenhouse gas emissions beyond the point where there is any hope of mitigating climate change. Stopping the Keystone XL pipeline would not, in itself, control tar sands development. But permitting it would mean losing control.

In evaluating the Keystone project, one of the challenges the State Department faced was credibly assessing what effect the pipeline's operation - or more precisely the effect of burning billions of gallons of the world's dirtiest oil over a period of 30 years or more - would have on the global climate.

The first signal that the State Department report would be bad news for the climate was that it was released on March 1, on a Friday afternoon, a time when news media are often at their least attentive.

Why Would Government Ignore Impact on Climate?

Two days after the release of the report, investigative historian Eric Zuesse wrote: "The study does discuss 'Climate Change Impacts on the Proposed Project,' but not the proposed project's impacts on climate change. It finds that climate change will have no significant impact upon either the construction, or the operation, of the Pipeline."

The State Department's environmental impact statement, executive summary section ES.5.5, tiptoes up to the critical question of tar sands oil development:

"Finally, climate change considerations - which are influenced by GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions - could affect the construction and operation of the proposed Project. GHG and climate change issues were the subject of many comments received during the public scoping process for the proposed Project."

But there the analysis stops, like a shell game in which none of the shells conceal a pea.

The State Department statement (section E.S.5.5.2) concludes "that approval or denial of the proposed [Keystone] Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area."

In other words, even if there were a pea under one of the shells, there's nothing to be done about it.

The State Department's analysis finds that there will be little impact on air quality or noise (sections 3.12 and 4.12) from the construction or operation of the pipeline. Even better (section 4.14), the "impact of climate change effects … on the construction and operation of the proposed Project itself" are virtually nil.

As the summary section (4.16) puts it:

  • Climate change would have no substantive effects on construction of the proposed Project.

  • Climate change would have no substantive effects on the operation of the proposed Project….

Environmentalists React With Outrage, Disbelief

So the Project, the Keystone XL pipeline, may be safe from climate change, but the State Department has nothing to say about whether the climate is safe from the Project.

The day the report came out, Sierra Club's executive director, Michael Brune, released a statement that said:

"The Sierra Club is outraged by the State Department's deeply flawed analysis today and what can only be interpreted as lip service to one of the greatest threats to our children's future: climate disruption.

"We're mystified as to how the State Department can acknowledge the negative effects of the Earth's dirtiest oil on our climate, but at the same time claim that the proposed pipeline will 'not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects.' Whether this failure was willful or accidental, this report is nothing short of malpractice."

A much longer objection came from Bold Nebraska's executive director, Jane Kleeb, who argues against the State Department analysis:

"Tarsands does not expand unless Keystone XL is built. The State Department's assumption that tarsands development does not change with or without this pipeline is wrong and laughable. Why would TransCanada spend billions on building the pipeline and millions on lobbying unless this piece of infrastructure is the - not a - but the lynchpin for the expansion of tarsands.

"Without this pipeline Canada stays at 2 million barrels a day, with it they get 3 million barrels a day. The President has the ability to keep a million barrels of tarsands in the ground a day. With a stroke of a pen he can protect property rights, water and make a dent in climate change. This report is laughable using the wrong assumption and therefore the wrong science."

The public will have 45 days to comment on the environmental impact report, once the State Department posts a notice in the Federal Register. As the Department's March 1 cover letter states:

"As part of the Department's process, members of the public, public agencies, and other interested parties are encouraged to submit comments, questions, and concerns about the project via e-mail to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , at http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov, or mailed to:

U.S. Department of State
Attn: Genevieve Walker, NEPA Coordinator
2201 C Street NW, Room 2726
Washington, D.C. 20520

The letter further explains: "Ultimately, a determination will be made on whether this project serves the national interest. The national interest determination will involve consideration of many factors, including: energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts; foreign policy; and compliance with relevant federal regulations."

There is no reference to any global interest or any other interest.


Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+14 # earlymusicus 2013-03-06 22:10
Allowing this pipeline, along with more drilling just continues the oil addiction of the U.S. So long as these projects are allowed to continue, this country will never ever move beyond fossil fuels, and that is something it will come to regret sooner than later. We are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases and because of our arrogance, we are seen by the rest of the world as a coutnry of spoiled rich brats who refuse to clean up their room. American imperialism will be our downfall. Our refusal to wean ourselves from fossil fuels will leave us sitting in the dark, figuratively and realistically. All because of corporate greed, arrogance, and politicians' dependence on big campaign dollars from Big Oil. I fear that we are looking at the end of the United States.
 
 
-5 # HowardMH 2013-03-07 07:56
All they have to do to stop this pipeline is for the Sierra Club to go tie themselves to the fence in front of the White House as a violent protest.

How much success have you had with the TOTALLY NON VIOLENT protests over the last few years?

I’m no fan of Sarah’s but this comment is just so appropriate. So how is that Hopei, Changie working out for you now?
 
 
+18 # DRPJJ 2013-03-06 23:00
What a farce. Acting like the problem is "what impact will global warming have ON the CONSTRUCTION AND USE of the XL pipeline, Not what the use of the pipeline will have on global warming. Obama doesn't need another month or even year to know what we think of the XL pipeline. He has had enough warning about its impact and how the American people feel about it already, but this sham of a "transparency issue" makes a mockery of his attempt to cover up that he will go ahead with it because that is what the big business/oil industry wants. Contention that it will bring jobs is so much garbage since, once built, those jobs go away. Maintenance of the pipeline will be as in all other scams, left to rot once its up and running giving the 1% their added riches. What a sell out of the American people.
 
 
+8 # genierae 2013-03-07 06:45
DRPJJ: Obama is being petitioned by unions to allow the pipeline to go forward. He has not been particularly good to labor even though they backed him in both elections. Now they are calling in their chips...Environ mentalists need to work to educate these organized labor groups about the real affects of this hideous project so they will join the fight.
 
 
0 # Smokey 2013-03-07 11:15
[quote name=Environmen talists need to work to educate these organized labor groups about the real affects of this hideous project so they will join the fight.

You got it backwards, Genierae.

The labor unions should be educating the fat cat conservationist s and the limousine liberals about the need for a decent energy economy that serves human need.

At the moment, thousands of Americans are caught in freezing weather without electric power. Workers are trying to hold a failing system together. Police are managing traffic on dangerous highways. Nurses and other health care providers are trying to save the homeless, the elderly, migrant workers, and others who may die in this weather.

We need an energy economy that will do some good for humanity. Union workers know what's needed. And they don't need a lecture about the polar bears.

If Al Gore had addressed the needs of working people, he would have been elected President in the year 2000. Instead, he wound up making his money by talking about glaciers in Switzerland.

If people like Van Jones and Bill McKibben supported the working class, the climate change movement would be making some progress.
 
 
+3 # noitall 2013-03-06 23:00
When does the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), kick into gear. Obama mentioned it in the SOTUA. How does that membership influence the decision that Obama CAN make after tying it up at that end? An interesting weave going on, no?
 
 
+9 # grouchy 2013-03-07 01:50
I'd like to know just what is the composition of the "crud" that is supposed to flow through that pipe and what will happen to it when it gets to the pipe's end, and if it is made up of oil and whatever the "crud" is that is mixed into that oil, what happens to that "crud" as an end process? I hope it isn't a choice of adding it to the "crud" already deposited on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, but I think that's a reasonable fear. So who get's the crud in the end of this process?
 
 
+1 # charsjcca 2013-03-07 07:13
It is reasonable to ask how America got to where it is. The Gulf of Mexico resources are somewhat different than the resources that came from oil springs in Pennsylvania
in 1850. You have never been told what came out of Deepwater Horizon. Go back and live in the 1840s context and all is well.
 
 
0 # X Dane 2013-03-07 18:12
grouchy.
CHINA........WE risk our aquifers and the pollution from refining the mess, AND the pipeline breaks that will most likely occur, because the sand in the mix damage he pipeline more than regular crude.
 
 
+9 # Pancho 2013-03-07 02:00
This is quite distressing.

This is a Koch brothers project. They own refineries at both ends of the pipeline, at Hardisty, Canada, and Port Arthur, Texas. They are the major money behind anthropogenic global warming denial, and this is a big bet that they're making, that they can keep the public sufficiently ignorant about it to give congressmen and the administration cover for bad decisions.

The Kochs have been spreading a lot of money around in the path of the proposed pipeline. That includes buying the US Senate election in Nebraska for Deb Fisher, trying to buy the US Senate seat in Montana on behalf of one of their stooges, and trying to buy seats on the Montana state Land Board. They were able to elect a snake as Attorney General there.
 
 
-5 # Smokey 2013-03-07 04:26
I'm mystified by the ways in which the climate change discussion has become a narrow discussion about the Keystone XL pipeline. At this point, this is the only major issue that receives much attention in the "save the polar bears" chat.

This morning, much of America is being hit by another winter storm. Thousands of people have lost electricity and many are suffering because of the extreme cold. Meanwhile, the conservationist s are talking about raising the price of energy.

It's possible that recent storms have been the result of climate change. Scientists can argue about that point. Key concern: The big conservation groups don't get involved in emergency services and they really don't care what happens to the public during a crisis.

Climate change is one of many energy-related problems. The global economy needs a new strategy for energy and economic justice. Don't expect much help from the big conservation groups.
 
 
+7 # genierae 2013-03-07 06:53
The "big conservation groups" are working very hard to save this planet from imperialist greed. If you live on the earth, and I must assume that you do, then they are working very hard for your best interests and that of your progeny. We cannot survive without a functioning planet, so climate change would seem to be the best priority for environmentalis ts to focus on.
 
 
0 # Smokey 2013-03-07 10:52
Quoting genierae:
We cannot survive without a functioning planet, so climate change would seem to be the best priority for environmentalis ts to focus on.


The March 6-7th winter storm is still in progress for much of the United States. Thousands of people are without electric power and the weather is freezing. Five deaths have already
been confirmed, because of the storm.

If genierae and the big money conservationist s are concerned about the weather and human health and safety, I suggest that they pick up some snow shovels and get to work.

At the very least, they can send a few dollars to the Red Cross or to some other charity that helps the needy during snow storms, heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, etc. They can tell Congress to protect entitlements.
(Will the conservationist s say "no" to the current proposals for an "austerity budget"?)

Raise the price of energy in order to "save the polar bears"? In the midst of poverty and economic recession, that's not a program that will help the needy. It won't deliver justice.

If environmentalis ts want justice, tell them to work for economic and social justice in the here and now. That's the "best priority."
 
 
+1 # X Dane 2013-03-07 19:54
Smokey.
There's nothing mysterious about it. The Tar Sands oil is MUCH heavier than other oils and will cause much WORSE POLLUTION than most other oils.

This is NOT about the polar bears. IT IS ABOUT THE PLANET......Pol ar bears are just an indication of what is happening.
 
 
0 # Trueblue Democrat 2013-03-07 04:51
No bureacracy on earth is more adept at doing the dance of the Gooneybirds than the State Department.

Add to this innate talent the inclinations of an elitist super-culture (I almost said sub-culture which would have gotten me hanged at Harvard and Yale) to always opt for the policies and programs that benefit the 1 percent exclusively and predictably you get things like State's Keystone "findings."

At times the American public has been fortunate to have a president and/or a congress that counterbalanced Foggy Bottom's Marie Antoinette complex, but not today. Today we have Louis XVI for president and congress, behind times as always,but trying to catch up.

But the real problem facing us -- we would have to go to China for a guillotine and tumbrils and back in time for people with the fortitude to use them.
 
 
+5 # fredboy 2013-03-07 05:08
Why would government ignore climate change?
Why would government avoid prosecuting any senior Wall Street bank officer following the 2008 (intentional) meltdown?
Why would Obama now call for Social Security and Medicare cuts?
My friends, I believe we are screwed.
 
 
+10 # SusanT136 2013-03-07 05:13
This would be HILARIOUS if it wasn't so tragic.

Actually stating that climate change will have little impact on the pipeline yet making no analysis of the impact the pipeline will have on climate change? It's like saying the possum who crosses in front of your car on the highway will have little impact on your car's functioning, meanwhile ignoring the fact that your car will eradicate the possum's existence.

Let's hope Kerry doesn't abdicate on this, and McCarthy gets confirmed in time to put her opinion in.
 
 
+1 # Pickwicky 2013-03-07 13:52
Susan: I'm afraid 'tragic' may only be close to the appropriate word. As I read the above article a remark a physicist made to me not so long ago kept niggling at me: "It's too late for the planet," he said. "It's too late to do anything." Is that why no gov official is rushing to kill the project?
 
 
-12 # edge 2013-03-07 05:21
Tar Sands ARE coming out of the ground..PERIOD!

The ONLY question is do they pass through the US to help make the US safer from outside forces OR does it flow to the west coast of Canada and to Japan and China.

Keystone XL will have about ZERO impact on tar sand production!
 
 
+10 # DaveEwoldt 2013-03-07 08:25
Is your pseudonym an indication of how far out in left field you are? Toxic sands oil (actually dilbit) that comes through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is bound for a duty free port in the Gulf of Mexico. It is headed for the global market, and will not make America energy independent or even contribute to energy independence. If the pipeline is approved, after it is built it will have somewhere between 20-200 permanent jobs in the US, but it's basically foreign oil headed for foreign markets. We just get stuck with the mess and watch our liberties further eroded as foreign companies are allowed to use eminent domain to steal American's property so they can continue profit-taking as the world burns.
 
 
+1 # edge 2013-03-07 10:21
DaveEwoldt, Oil here can and does leave this country EVERY SINGLE DAY!

OIL is a COMMODITY like grain or copper.
It flows to the part of the world that needs that particular kind of oil...and yes all oils are not equal.

If there were an oil shortage the US would use this oil, if there is no shortage as now, then it will go elsewhere.

Perhaps a quick view of the US supply would show that WTI is $20 per barrel cheaper than Brent, why you ask, because the US has a glut of oil in the Cushing OK area.

It makes zero difference where oil is produced, it will go to where it is needed as long as it is the cheapest for the purpose needed.

The US refiners prefer light sweet crude, like WTI, Brent or Libyan crude.
They prefer not to use the heavier sour or heavy crude from some of the other reserves.

Sorry this does not comport with YOUR dogma, but facts are facts and may not match your version of cr@p.
 
 
0 # X Dane 2013-03-07 18:35
Edge.

ALL the oil pumped or refined here is sold on the world market, no matter what, because we are part of OPEC, BASTA
 
 
0 # edge 2013-03-08 03:35
Quoting X Dane:
Edge.

ALL the oil pumped or refined here is sold on the world market, no matter what, because we are part of OPEC, BASTA


Most mainland produced oil stays here!
WHY, because it is expensive to ship. While much is traded in the futures market.

When the price between WTI and Brent gets too wide then shipping makes sense, but ordinarily it is cheaper to keep the oil here for processing.
East coast refiners do use foreign oil because there are no pipelines from the producing areas of the country to the East coast refineries. Brent crude can be cheaper to use than WTI crude coming from Cushing especially when we do not have a glut of oil...as we do now.
 
 
-2 # WBoardman 2013-03-07 09:58
Possible, maybe probable, but not a certainty.

Although predicting it as a certainty has
a self-fulfilling prophecy effect.

And is a form of surrender.

Given the resistance already in place,
the pipeline to the Pacific seems
somewhat less likely than the pipeline to the Atlantic.
 
 
+11 # peterjkraus 2013-03-07 05:42
It is always amazing to realize how tranquilly stupid we are in their eyes. They will lie, omit, re-write and do anything to keep us quietly munching.

It´s time for Change. The Change promised us was part of the deception. What we need is real Change. New economics, new politics, a number of viable political parties that can coalesce and form governments, and strong, enforced laws against bribery in any form

That would be the beginning of Change. Anything less is just there to keep us munching.
 
 
-3 # charsjcca 2013-03-07 06:58
I agree. The beginning is to boycott the use of fossil fuels, PERIOD!

Leave it all in the ground and create a different society and culture. Stop driving around from meeting to meeting, flying from conference to conference. The ability to change the dynamics of America is in the hands of Americans by not participating.

If you need to get from San Francisco to New York WALK. It is that simple.
 
 
+1 # Smokey 2013-03-07 10:59
Quoting charsjcca:


If you need to get from San Francisco to New York WALK. It is that simple.



Amazing! Although the proposal is no worse than much of what gets said in the "save Mother Earth!" discussion.

In order to protect Nature - yeah, the term gets capitalized in some circles - wouldn't it be easiest and best to eliminate humanity? With the elimination of human beings, fossil fuel consumption would drop to zero!
 
 
+1 # X Dane 2013-03-07 19:34
Smokey.

Human being are far along in eliminating human beings......Unf ortunately you keep harping on the "polar bears".....You are demonstrating your lack of understanding, that the polar bears are the "canaries in the coal mine"

They are threatened because the Polar ice is melting much faster than was realized some years ago. You also do not seem to understand that the heating of the oceans brings more precipitation: Heavier rain in the summer and more snow in the winter.

The storms are getting much more
damaging. As one governor said, the "Hundred year storms" now happen every other year. The flooding is more damaging and the drought and wildfires much more destructive.

Many forests in California are bone dry and go up like kindling. Texas was having severe drought last summer.

This is not limousine liberal nonsense.
The homeless and poor will be the ones paying the heaviest price, when it all really hits the fan, because the well off may be able to avoid the worst ..... for a while, but it will catch up to all of us before too long.

And our children will curse us for not acting sooner.
 
 
+2 # Smokey 2013-03-08 06:40
[quote name="X Dane"]Smokey.

The storms are getting much more
damaging. As one governor said, the "Hundred year storms" now happen every other year. The flooding is more damaging and the drought and wildfires much more destructive....

The homeless and poor will be the ones paying the heaviest price, when it all really hits the fan.....

X Dane misses the point.

The homeless and the poor are ALREADY suffering in the existing energy economy. And the limousine liberals don't express much concern. So we get another dreary lecture that tells us that "the polar ice is melting."

In the midst of these current storms, is that the only thing that X Dane can say?

The big money conservationist s aren't doing anything for the developing nations and for the American poor. They don't march in Washington, DC, to
defend fuel assistance programs and other anti-poverty programs.

When something like Hurricane Sandy arrives, the big conservation groups vanish from the scene. They don't support emergency services in Congress or in the community.

Why should I take the big conservation groups seriously? If they don't care about my community today, while a storm is in progress, why will they care in the future?

Work for social and economic justice.

Today is a good day to start. Read the weather report.
 
 
+1 # X Dane 2013-03-08 14:21
Smokey.

Of course I, and most other liberals, understand that the poor are paying the highest price, also now, but I...and ....again many liberals ...do not have the money needed to help them....enough.
I din NOT miss a point

Most people in the middle class have to work hard to just "keep it together". It is ALWAYS the poor and the middle class that pay the highest price.

It is made worse because the jobs that COULD be filled....by repairing the infra structure, much in need....is blocked by the house republicans.

It is too bad that you find the truth "dreary"...It is SCARY, that the polar ice is melting....too fast.

You are tiresome in your constant criticism. I am 80 and as active as I can be. You talk about something you don't know anything about. I AM working to help young people get money for college, and so are a number of my friends. So with all due respect. BUG OFF

It was the REPUBLICANS, who would not help the Sandy victims, the democrats sure wanted to bail them out.

You keep harping on "liberals" it is tiresome. We DO help as much as we can. Republicans are the ones obstructing, harp on them.
 
 
-1 # Smokey 2013-03-08 16:38
[quote name="X Dane"]Smokey.

Of course I, and most other liberals, understand that the poor are paying the highest price, also now, but I...and ....again many liberals ...do not have the money needed to help them....

You talk about something you don't know anything about. I AM working to help young people get money for college, and so are a number of my friends. So with all due respect. BUG OFF


Touchy, touch. Heavy on the vitriol.

X Dane doesn't know me but, of course, he insists that I don't know what I'm talking about when I question the big money conservation groups and their motives. Very strange.

I've got a hunch that I've been working in the energy field a lot longer than most of the limousine liberals.

50,000 people march in Washington, DC, to protest against the Keystone XL pipeline. Yet, it's tough to organize a march against the "austerity budget" that's now being discussed in Congress.

"The polar ice is melting." That's not the biggest concern that I can imagine.
At the moment, we have people in the Northeast and in the Middle West who are freezing to death.

Stop tooting your horn about the money that you pay for college. Send a few dollars to the Red Cross or to some other agency that helps the needy.
 
 
+1 # X Dane 2013-03-08 22:37
Smokey.
You assume again.....I do support the Red Cross, I give what I can...and I am a woman,....so wrong again.
 
 
+2 # Smokey 2013-03-09 08:09
Quoting X Dane:
Smokey.
I do support the Red Cross, I give what I can...


Thank you for your support for humanity.
 
 
-1 # Smokey 2013-03-08 19:38
Quoting X Dane:
Smokey.



It was the REPUBLICANS, who would not help the Sandy victims, the democrats sure wanted to bail them out.

You keep harping on "liberals" it is tiresome. We DO help as much as we can. Republicans are the ones obstructing, harp on them.



Er, well, I hate to mention the obvious.
It's President Obama who is promoting the Keystone XL pipeline. And John Kerry's State Department just provided a major boost for the project.

They're both liberal Democrats, right?
If this is what your liberal Democrats want, why bother to harp on the Republicans?
 
 
-1 # DakotaKid 2013-03-07 06:14
By putting "energy security" first on the list "factors" effecting US "national security" (see the passage from the letter referenced at the end of the article) the State Department has shown it's hand. If Obama were a poker player he'd lose his shirt (and a lot more). The Obama administration intends to approve the pipeline. You can bet on it.
 
 
+2 # genierae 2013-03-07 06:59
No one mentioned the use of "shuck and jive" in the title of this piece. This is a racist term, used by the rightwing (Sarah Palin) against President Obama, why would a progressive be so dense as to use it? In our frustration are we losing our decency?
 
 
-1 # patmonk 2013-03-07 07:23
OBAMA - PLANETARY RAPIST@
What an abomination. As he can't run for re-election he's back to political business as usual - Dialing For Dollars. Preparing for retirement and lining his nest with oil soaked feathers.
 
 
+1 # cmp 2013-03-07 07:53
One word: Corruption

And, Hillary got a pass to sneak out the back door.
 
 
+3 # Selwick 2013-03-07 09:04
"Ultimately, a determination will be made on whether this project serves the national interest. The national interest determination will involve consideration of many factors, including: energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts; foreign policy; and compliance with relevant federal regulations."

Now we all know how that is going to end. National interest is not your or mine interest of the interest of the majority of the people but the interest of the filthy rich!
 
 
+1 # WBoardman 2013-03-07 09:51
Re genierae's "lost decency" --

Well, I don't think it's inherently racist,
and I did look it up before using it.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shuck+and+jive&defid=1340082
(note #2, especially)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuckin'_and_jivin'

It's been in my vocabulary for decades as a colorful way
of describing lying liars of all stripes.

Sarah Palin shucks and jives almost all the time.
Most pols do, perhaps to a somewhat lesser degree.
Most TV talking heads do.
I suppose the phrase could be used with a racist intent,
(Palin or Cuomo?),
but isn't John Kerry shucking and jiving on climate change?
 
 
+4 # Pickwicky 2013-03-07 13:56
WBoardman--the phrase "shuck and jive" has it's roots in Southern slavery slang, and while its meaning has broadened, it is sufficiently racist for kind people to avoid using it.
 
 
-2 # WBoardman 2013-03-08 12:18
Whatever does "sufficiently racist" mean?

And how is it measured? And by whom?

Given that the phrase comes from black culture,
it's not inherently racist.
And applying it to John Kerry can hardly be racist.

Still, it's probably a good idea, usually, to avoid using it
because the politically correct language police --
oh, never mind... ;-))))
 
 
+1 # Pickwicky 2013-03-11 16:03
WBoardman--gues s you never heard of using a phrase from a particular culture to mock that culture. Too bad.
 
 
+4 # Helen 2013-03-07 10:16
I wonder if anyone in the State Department ever looks at the scientific information presented by our own government, such as consulting climatechange.n asa.gov or perhaps reading the new draft National Climate Assessment at climatesciencewatch.org/2013/01/28/new-national-climate-assessment

This matter goes way beyond what is in the "national interest." What is in the interest of all humanity, and all life on earth, is surely in the national interest too. The expansion of tar sands will make climate change worse. We know this, and if we believe in SCIENCE instead of superstition, we must transition AWAY from fossil fuels now. We already have technologies that can do this. Let's start taxing carbon and stop sacrificing our grandchildren's future for the benefit of a few plutocrats and politicians.
 
 
+1 # Pickwicky 2013-03-07 13:57
Helen: And if it really is too late?
 
 
+1 # Smokey 2013-03-08 06:26
It's international Womens Day. (March 8.)

For a long, long time, this has been the day when women throughout the world have marched against violence and in support of social and economic justice.

However: Don't expect the big conservation groups to mention something like international Womens Day. The big conservation groups have never expressed much support for womens rights.

Climate change? Energy? These are womens issues. Most of the the poor people in the world are female. In the developing nations, women gather animal dung and firewood to warm their shacks. Homes are filled with smoke. Millions of women want electricity and
adequate housing and transportation.

In the United States, the poor ask for energy assistance. Older women, especially, suffer during the cold. Some will be abandoned, when something like Hurricane Katrina arrives.

Energy is a womens issue. It's a very big issue for poor women. (The rich can afford all sorts of gimmicks and gadgets.)

Don't tell an 85 year old woman to "turn down the thermostat" in order to save the polar bears.... Don't tell her that she can get a job installing solar panels.... Don't tell her that she'll get a tax credit after energy prices are raised. She needs help now.

Don't tell women that the landlords are eager to install a windmill or a new system for "saving energy." If the landlord does anything, he'll probably raise the rent.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN