Sunday in Lincoln, Nebraska a broad coalition of native American tribes, environmental groups, landowners and others gathered to protest against the Keystone XL pipeline on the day before the Nebraska Public Service Commission starts a week of hearings on the pipeline.
On the steps of the state capitol.
“Just following instructions”
Before the rally and march:
“No oil in our soil”
Protect the land, water, and climate”
“…before it ends us”
The founder of Bold Nebraska speaking at the rally, flanked by a landowner and leadership of several tribes:
Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska.
Someone was watching.
One of many drones flying over the rally and march. Landing on the capitol grounds.
Apparently one of the many drones flying over and near the march collided with a building. We missed that.
Immediately before the rally and march to protest the Keyston XL pipeline yesterday in Lincoln, Nebraska the organizers held a press conference and then individual press availabilities. Due to our close proximity, we were able to catch one of those short interviews:
Reporter: And why do you think a march like this, how much do you think this is going to help the process of the public hearings? How is the public support that is here today going to help?
Joye Braun, Indigenous Environmental Network: I think it’s important for the Public Service Commission to recognize that they do have a large opposition to Keystone XL [pipeline]. And by actually seeing it manifested here is a good way to show to the government of Nebraska that this pipeline is unwanted.
Reporter: And you mentioned that Keystone, or Trans Canada I should say, picks out spots with indigenous people.
Joye Braun: Yes.
Reporter: What facts do you have to support that?
Joye Braun: Well, I come from the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. That’s my home. And originally Keystone XL wanted to go straight through my reservation. Another point is, with Dakota Access pipeline, they originally wanted to go just north of Bismarck. They moved it because of the outcry of the non-native population in Bismarck, to just north of Standing Rock. Those are two very recent ways of showing that.
Reporter: Then I’m guessing you had, so you were a protester with the Dakota Access pipeline?
Joye Braun: I am a protector, not a protester. [crosstalk] I’m a protector.
Reporter: Protector, fair enough. And how are these two situations similar and how are they different?
Joye Braun: They’re similar because we’re going up against big oil. Trans Canada or Energy Transfer Partners, which was Dakota Access, is a [inaudible] with Keystone XL. Both of them don’t like safety issues brought up. Both of them don’t like to do environmental impact statements. Both of them do not look at the indigenous populations or other populations that don’t necessarily have access to big lawyers, farmers and ranchers. They don’t have access to big lawyers. So they target these areas to, to, to push their pipeline through. Pipelines leak. We know that. Dakota Access has already leaked twice. And…
Reporter: And, so, you say this does happen. You think it’s just going to leak and ruin a lot of your land as well?
Joye Braun: It will leak a lot of our land. It’s going to leak a lot of Nebraska land as well. Nebraska has the Ogallala Aquifer underneath it. Without that aquifer underneath it the breadbasket of America is not, not going, to be no longer. I mean, what are people going to do when, when they have to pay fifteen dollars for a loaf of bread? I know I, as a family, can’t afford fifteen dollars for a loaf of bread. Can you afford that? I don’t think so.
Sunday in Lincoln, Nebraska a broad coalition of native American tribes, environmental groups, landowners and others gathered to protest against the Keystone XL pipeline on the day before the Nebraska Public Service Commission starts a week of hearings on the pipeline.
“Water is life”
Bold Nebraska, 350.org and the Sierra Club sponsored a Pipeline Fighter Summit in Lincoln before the march, bringing together groups and individuals from surrounding states to share and discuss strategies in fighting tar sand pipelines. People from Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Dakota, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and other states attended the summit and marched in protest.
“Water protector”
Various local news reports stated that anywhere from 500 to 600 or more people attended the rally at the state capitol and marched through downtown Lincoln.
Today Claire McCaskill did it. She voted with all Senate Republicans and nine Senate Democrats to pass the House’s Keystone XL authorization. Of course, nine Democrats won’t be enough to override a presidential veto, so maybe she was hoping to get some red Missouri love without having to make anyone pay too big a price.
That line of thought might, though, give McCaskill too much credit. Even most Republicans have to know in their secret hearts that as far as jobs go Keystone XL is very small potatoes indeed. As Steve Benen writes today:
As for the substance, let’s recap our discussion from a few weeks ago, noting just how straightforward the case against Keystone is. At issue is a proposal to build a pipeline to transport oil, extracted from tar sands, from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Critics have said the tar-sands process is environmentally hazardous, which is true. They’ve said the project would have no real impact on already low gas prices, which is also true. And they’ve said Keystone would be largely meaningless to the U.S. unemployment rate, which, once again, is completely true.
And on the other side of the aisle, Republicans have an equally straightforward rejoinder: they really, really, really like this project. Why? Because they really, really, really do
And for some reason, McCaskill, the only Democrat I’ve got representing me in Congress, seems to share the GOP infatuation with the pipeline. She seems to really, really, really like it too. Even pertinent reminders of the problems that plague oil pipelines, events like this month’s disastrous spill into Montana’s Yellowstone River, fail to sway her infatuation with the project – and if you think such spills are rare events, take a look at this list of hundreds of such spills in the United States in the last 14 years alone. And no, engineers can’t really make credible promises to do better. As a USGS engineer observed apropos the problem of protecting pipelines routed beneath rivers, “it’s nature […]. Is it going to follow the equation? I don’t know for sure.”
So does this mean that McCaskill, who seems uber-cautious when it comes to politics, is inclined to be reckless when in the throes of fossil-fuel passion? There must be some explanation for McCaskill thowing her constituents under the bus. And don’t let anyone fool you. The answer can’t be jobs. The Keystone impact will be so small that Chuck Todd and some of his fellow NBC news staff members, deride the entire effort as laughably “small ball politics.”
Steve Benen has a persuasive take on why Republicans keep batting that diminishingly small ball back and forth:
Rather, Keystone has become a totem of sorts. Its actual value has been rendered meaningless, replaced with post-policy symbolic value that ignores pesky details like facts and evidence. Indeed, the more Democrats and environmentalists tell Republicans this is a bad idea, the more Republicans convince themselves this is The Most Important Project In The World. It’s ideologically satisfying.
Taking this one step further, my suspicion is that GOP officials find all of these circumstances quite convenient. Republicans don’t have a jobs agenda, or much an economic vision in general, but they have a Keystone bill that those rascally Democrats won’t accept.
And when pressed for an explanation on why congressional Republicans aren’t working on economic development, they immediately turn to their talking point of choice: “Keystone! Keystone! Keystone!”
So that explains why Republicans are doing what they are doing. It’s just another Benghazi in a long list of Benghazis, symbolically loaded tags that come in handy when you’re asked why you and your political allies can’t do anything worthwhile.
But this still leaves us with the question of Senator McCaskill and her Democratic allies. Surely, their goals aren’t to provide cover for GOP ne’er-do-wells. Surely, they can’t think that siding with idiots who are running for cover will provide them with the same type of cover. Haven’t they noticed the President’s spiking approval numbers now that he’s showing a tendency to stand up for a progressive agenda? Isn’t that proof that there are still people out there who reward leaders who can act the part?
Subject: View From the Capitol – Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler’s Newsletter for the Week of May 21-25, 2012
To: [xxxxxxxxxx]
[….]
Gas prices are impacting the family budget. They have doubled since President Obama moved into the White House. Most economists agree that the price we pay at the pump is tied directly to supply and demand, meaning greater supply of gasoline would bring about much lower prices. Yet, President Obama has consistently stood in the way of efforts to increase supply. He has discouraged the use of American energy, put a moratorium on off-shore drilling, and delayed the issuing of drilling permits. His rejection of the Keystone pipeline project that would bring much-needed oil from Canada is the latest in a series of poor decisions to appease environmental extremists while increasing our dependency on Middle Eastern oil.
[….]
Goodness knows, environmental extremists want middle America to have uncontaminated drinking water. What’s next? A right to breathable air?
The retail price of gas in west central Missouri this afternoon:
Canadian tar sands?
So much for the Keystone XL pipeline, right? Think again.
Senator Claire McCaskill issued a statement on Facebook about her vote yesterday in support of the Keystone XL pipeline congressional construction permit and she received a lot of comments from her political base. A lot of comments:
[….] I DO NOT stand with you on your very wrong vote! You campaigned on the premise that you understood rural Missouri so you should remember we value our land and resources and wish to keep them clean and free from pollution.
[….] No, no, no. Sen McCaskill, these pipelines spill and there’s very little benefit for the communities in their path. And burning the tar sands will mess up our climate. Stop trying to win over Republicans. It won’t work.
[….] I respectfully disagree.
[….] You need to resign
[….] You will be primaried because of this.
[….] Claire, how in the world does this boost America’s energy security? The oil is produced in Canada, transported by pipeline through the United States and exported through Texas and put on the international market. What jobs are created by building the pipeline quickly evaporates and the American taxpayer are stuck with the bill of doing any cleanup that comes from any spills. Environmentally, this oil is the dirtiest and nastiest to take from the earth and process. It’s unbelievable that you’d support this pipeline and it’s quite sad that you choose to pander to those who would never support you in any election or in most any venture.
[….] I must say, I am disappointed.
[….] I have supported you for a long time, but not on this issue.
[….] At least 41 of your colleagues have some common sense and give a dam about the environment.
[….] I cannot support you on this Senator Claire
[….] I will take your stance into consideration when you are up for reelection. At the very least with the GOP we know where they stand. I am disappointed to say the least.
[….] Very poor decision. May impact my future voting.
[….] Puke. How about a sustainable infrastructure jobs bill including solar power? I know you have to appease the Missouri demo/republcan’ts, but a spine is more important.
[….] Perhaps you should have a chat with Elizabeth Warren who seems to get it about this issue. Very disappointed in you
[….] Fifty permanent jobs. Yippee.
[….] I’m a longtime supporter of yours and believe in your work but passionately and wholeheartedly disagree with you on this.
[….] Sorry I totally disagree with you on this. Our country needs to put it’s collective mind into developing renewable clean energies so that future generations actually have non toxic world to live in. Stop catering to fossil fuel industries.
[….] This lifelong Democrat is feeling the nausea of spin, Senator. This is Canada’s oil pipes thru the US with zero requirements for any of it to remain in the US. The about face on supporting the pipeline as a “job creator” like tax cuts for billionaires is pathetic. If you vote for this the pipeline I hope it runs behind the back yard of your house and you are willing to have MO Democrats hold you accountable if one drop of oil leaks on our land, rivers or water supply.
[….] I’m sure the Koch bros approve this message. I do NOT!
[….] Less than 50 jobs,Claire. Stop.Trying.To.Pander.To.People.Who.Will.Never.Vote.For.You! Democrats acting like republicans and running away from the President is what lost us the Senate.
[….] Sorry, Claire. It’s got less than nothing to do with America’s energy security.
[….] This pipeline creates 35 permanent jobs! On the other hand when the pipeline breaks, which everyone knows it will, there is no way to clean up the tar sands and you hurt our planet. No job is worth the environment!
[….] This is definitely going to impact my support for you. I’m disappointed to say the least.
[….] Sorry Claire you’re wrong on this
[….] I have been incredibly thankful for you supporting equal rights. I am highly disappointed and completely disagree with you on this issue.
We need to be good stewards of our environment and invest in clean energy solutions. Aside from environment impact, the jobs created will be temporary and how many of them will be outsourced to “undocumented workers”?
I hope you sincerely reconsider your position in event the new congress will bring this back up.
[….] I never saw a pipe that doesnt leak.
[….] Claire, you are wrong on this one. Ask your supporters. They vote NO!
[….] Is the purpose of this pipeline an avenue for Canada to ship oil to China? Won’t it create less than 50 permanent jobs. Would rebuilding America’s bridges be a great way to create lots of jobs?
[….] You’re wrong…Just a handful of jobs after construction is completed and the US gets nothing but a pipeline for BIG OIL to use to export Canadian dirty oil..You should be ashamed for your support..
[….] Then let Canada export to the west coast of their country since the oil is going to China anyway. Oh Snap! Their people are too smart for that.
[….] What’s your plan when our water supply is polluted beyond help? You sold out Claire…….I will remember when election time comes up……and I am a Die Hard Democrat……..You sold out.
[….] You’ve lost me on this one senator and I ask you to reconsider.
[….] Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[….] I would like for her to explain how the pipeline benefits the citizens of Missouri.
1. It will reduce State revenue
2. It will cut railroad jobs
3. It will increase gas prices
4. It gives neighboring states a no-tax revenue source for infrastructure
5. We are on the hook for clean up
6. Diverts funds that could be used to develop solar and biomas to oil companies
It doesn’t even benefit America.
1. Moves Canadian oil to foreign markets bypassing US markets.
2. Cuts into US owned railroad profits and US railroad jobs
3. Allows Transnational companies to evade US taxes
4. Gives more profit to political manipulators
Claire, along with the Blunt and the Republicans persons are not just wrong they are enemies of the state.
[….] I am VERY disappointed in your vote for this bill!! Just how do you justify your support?
[….] Disappointed in your choice Clair. Can’t support you on this.
[….] I’m disappointed in your vote. It sounds like you have been drinking the GOP kool-aid.
[….] losing interest in supporting you Ms. McCaskill….
[….] Sorry Senator, you are wrong on this one. We don’t need the minimum number of jobs that would be created (even for construction). The damage to America’s water supply and ecology in general is potentially catastrophic. Let the Canadians do this if they want it. It won’t help America’s energy security, this oil will go on the international market, probably to China. I am very disappointed by your vote.
[….] I’m also surprised and disappointed. Estimates of 40,000 jobs has been discredited, and the environmental risk is real.
[….] I’m very disappointed in your actions of late. Maybe next time think about those who vote for you rather than those who might (but probably won’t) vote for you.
[….] This is extremely disappointing. The market situation takes precedence over the continued existence of the species too often. I thought you were better than that.
[….] No Claire, you do not want to support this , it is too dangerous!!!
[….] As a long time supporter of you Senator, I have to say respectfully, you are wrong on this issue. Polluting the US environment to pad the pockets of oil companies is not a risk we are willing to take. I suggest you listen to those who sent you to represent. Democrat re-elections are always tough in a red state, and it’ll be even harder while driving your base away.
[….] I believe you need to have different analysts researching this subject so they can feed you more accurate information. You are right though this is only about how it gets to market. It comes from Canada and will do nothing more than travel through the U.S. before going to market. The U.S. will take the environmental and cultural hit and get no benefits. The money will be in the oil company pockets with very few permanent jobs created. This does nothing for American security – it is not our oil.
[….] Very disappointed. How about getting behind renewable energy? Working on our infrastructure?
[….] I have supported u till now, not on this one!
[….] Disappointed. We have Republicans to spout these talking points. We don’t need Democrats to start on it, too!
[….] So sorry Srnstor McCaskill but you are wrong on this one. I’m very disappointed.
[….] Claire McCaskill is WAY TOO SMART to buy this line. Dig deep enough and we’ll probably find all kinds of connections to the petrochemical industry. I thought she was a person of integrity. She can never be trusted again.
[….] I would hope that the overwhelmingly negative response from the people who have taken the time to support/follow your page would give you an idea of how unfortunate and disappointing your decision was for the people who elected you to represent them.
And about thousand more responses along the same vein.
Somehow I don’t think the number of Keystone XL pipeline workers willing to man phone banks and go door to door at the next election is going to offset the hemorrhaging in the base.
And the Democrats in the U.S. Senate want a vote to approve the Keystone pipeline so as to “save” the seat of Senator Mary Landrieu (which is beyond saving) in the upcoming runoff election? Right.
Give the store away to the opposition in the name of “moderation” by unlocking the door, pointing out the really valuable stock, loading the truck for them, and waving as they drive away. Yeah, that’ll motivate your base.
Now Landrieu will lose with 42% of the vote and go lobby. Instead of losing with 44% of the vote and doing the same thing. 5:26 PM – 18 Nov 2014
David Dayen @ddayen
“Well, Ms. Landrieu, it says here you did try your best to get the pipeline through. That’s the moxie we’ll need in our lobbying department” 5:37 PM – 18 Nov 2014
Ouch.
Fairfax: ….Man, that’s just mean. That’s mean, man.
Today’s U.S. Senate vote on issuing a construction permit:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress – 2nd Session
Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.2280 )
Vote Number: 280 Vote Date: November 18, 2014, 05:55 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Bill Defeated
Measure Number: S. 2280
Measure Title: A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Vote Counts: YEAs 59
NAYs 41
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
[emphasis added]
In January of 2015 the republican majority will change the Senate rules about the 60 votes needed to pass a bill so that nothing like this ever happens again. At least as long as they’re in charge.
It used to be about our dependence on “foreign” oil. Right.
Yesterday, via Twitter:
Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
Passed the Keystone Pipeline today-again. The Senate now seems interested in passing this pro-jobs bill now that a senator is in a run off. 10:58 AM – 14 Nov 2014
Was that last part a subtle (or not) political dig? Just asking.
A couple of the replies:
patrick @patrick102977
@RepHartzler KPL is a ” pro jobs” bill?? isnt that like calling a armed robbery suspect ” pro law enforcement supporter” 11:35 AM – 14 Nov 2014
Good question.
Bob Yates @OldDrum
@RepHartzler With the price of gas in my part of Missouri under $2.60, don’t we already have the Keystone Pipeline? 3:02 PM – 14 Nov 2014
Heh.
The tar sands have shifted – almost three years ago:
….Voting in an effort to apply political pressure for the approval of a pipeline to transport corrosive Canadian tar sands across the United States to be refined in Texas for export to China benefits energy availability in the United States and carbon emissions in China (and the world) how?
….The answer is that Keystone isn’t meant for U.S. consumption.
In Keystone’s weirdonomics, the pipeline would actually increase prices of gasoline for much of the country, according to at least three studies that have looked into it. Keystone would divert crude from Midwest refineries to Gulf Coast refineries, where it would then be shipped to more expensive markets. Bypassing heartland refineries could drive up prices at home.
For people living in the Midwest, Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, it could add 20 cents a gallon to the price at the pump…..
….It would also add to the threat of climate change by speeding up production of oil-sands crude, which is about 17 percent more carbon-intensive than the conventional barrel.
One thing that’s not at stake: cheaper gas prices.
Be sure to thank the republicans (and Missouri republicans) in the U.S. House of Representatives for voting yesterday to raise our retail gas prices.
It certainly won’t save Mary Landrieu’s seat in the United States Senate.
