If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved, I’m Blaming LA Kings’ Coach Darryl Sutter.

Darryl Sutter - President ObamaI don’t follow NHL hockey much but if I did, my team would be the Vancouver Canucks. Now, assuming the Canucks were my team, and President Obama approved the Keystone XL pipeline project, the first shirt I would buy would say:

“My favorite team is the Vancouver Canucks. My second favorite team is whoever is playing the LA Kings.”

Why? Because yesterday, President Obama met with the two Los Angeles teams that won their respective league titles – MLS’s LA Galaxy and the NHL’s LA Kings – and one member of the party, LA King’s coach Darryl Sutter, wanted to lean on the Prez a little and talk about the Keystone XL pipeline. Alberta-born Darryl Sutter owns a 3000 acre ranch near Viking and he wants to see the pipeline get built. From The Globe and Mail:

“I’m gonna ask him about it – damn rights I am. It’s 20 feet underground. How can we not want to keep North America [energy self-sufficient]? Why does the border have to separate that? It doesn’t make sense. For sure, I’m going to ask him.”

I hope Coach Sutter wasn’t as successful with the President as his team was in the Stanley Cup finals – we don’t need Canada’s dirty tar sand oil.

So if by some miracle, President Obama decides against the KXL pipeline, I think there’s an opportunity for TransCanada to domestically refine their own tar sand oil in Alberta and they can do it on 3000 acres of land near the town of Viking. Sorry coach. [The Globe and Mail]

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Everything You Need To Know About Tar Sand Oil And Keystone XL In One Video.

The Keystone XL Tar Sands Climate Threat video perfectly explains the environmental costs of the tar sand oil and the importance of President Obama’s decision to build, or not build, the Keystone XL pipeline.

US politicians supporting the Keystone XL pipeline point to energy independence as one of the main reasons why it needs to be built. Unfortunately, they never considered how important energy independence is going to be in our warming future. Sounds like the “Cut off your nose to spite your face” doctrine is in full effect . [CDCW]

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Is The Keystone XL Pipeline Decision A “Shit Or Get Off The Pot” Climate Crossroads For President Obama?

Keystone XL Pipeline decision and President ObamaWith tar sand oil, I truly believe that nature was trying to tell us to leave the stuff in the ground by making the franken-oil so costly to extract. Tar sand’s oil is the shit sandwich of liquid fuels and we’ll be sucking on it for 50 years if the 2000 mile Keystone XL pipeline is approved. President Obama volleyed the decision forward into his second term but he’ll soon have to make a tough choice that environmentalists believe will show what side of the climate change issue he’s on.

But wait – are members of his own party who oppose Keystone XL already giving him preemptive out?

Here’s a quote from Henry Waxman on President Obama’s upcoming decision (Guardian):

“This [Keystone XL] is only a small issue compared to the overall objective that the president and we want to achieve. What would you like me to do? Should I say to the president, ‘If you don’t agree with me on Keystone, I’m not going to work with you on solving the climate change issue’? That would be a little bit childish and counterproductive.”

Henry Waxman… really? Sure sounds like Rep. Henry “Future of our economy lies in clean energy, not increasing our reliance on the dirtiest source of gasoline imaginable” Waxman, who is political bros. with President Obama, is giving him a free pass on this issue and that worries me.

If I were to place a bet today, I would put my money on President Obama approving the Keystone XL pipeline. I think Rep. Waxman’s current take on the decision is very telling – it’s like he’s readying himself for the bad news from the President he normally supports. We’ll see how it plays out. [Guardian]

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

President Obama Adresses Climate Change: Signs Bill Exempting US Airlines From EU Carbon Tax.

Plane flying over Heathrow Airport.The US had a opportunity to take action and lead non-EU countries on the issue of climate change and we did – by going in the opposite direction. The Guardian posted “Obama fails first climate test by rejecting EU aviation carbon regime” about President Obama’s decision to sign into a law a bill exempting US airlines from paying into a European Union carbon tax. It’s part of the EU’s effort to create an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) that would assess a tax on flights to Europe that originate in the US. The tax would’ve cost US airlines $3.1 billion by 2020. President Obama claims that addressing climate change is a priority of his second term but it sure feels like getting a member of his own party elected in 2016 is taking precedent. Global Warming 1, Climate Action 0. [The Guardian]

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Congressman Allen West Of Florida Is Not Happy That It Costs $70 To Fill-Up His H3 Hummer

Congressman Allen West is not happy it costs $70 to fill-up his H3 Hummer.I’m surprised it only cost Congressman Allen West $70 to fill his Hummer’s tank – sounds like he’s getting the Hugo Chavez price for his gasoline. There are so many ways to go with this but I think the beauty [and stupidity] of his post on Facebook should speak for itself. [BuzzFeed]

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Why Would US Auto Dealers Object To Higher MPG Standards?

I have been struggling with this story for a couple of days now – Reuters posted an article, U.S. auto dealers fight Obama fuel rules, and I can’t figure out why auto dealers would be opposed. Maybe they didn’t like how President Obama was able to push these higher fuel standards, a fleet average of 54.5 mpg by 2025, on the industry in a way no politician has been able to in the past. Or maybe the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) truly believe that the new fuel standards are going to drive the cost of cars up too high for price sensitive car shoppers.

But that doesn’t seem accurate. Any possible car price increase is going to be immediately made up by consuming less fuel with more efficient vehicles. And according to a study by Maritz Research for Ford Motor Company, 42% of the people polled said that fuel economy was an “extremely important” factor in driving new car purchases.

Jubbling’s take: We really don’t care if the automakers or NADA are behind the objection to the new standards but we are sick of the foot dragging, politicizing and special interesting of every decision like this. We felt the same way about the clowns who were part of the whole “Light Bulb Freedom” thing. Sure the Big 3 really didn’t enjoy being held over a rail, nearly bankrupt and in need of bailout money when they agreed to these new standards because they’re used being the ones holding the cards in negotiations with the Dept. of Transportation about fuel efficiency targets. Not only is this no longer the case, but now they also get to deal with the EPA.

So who wouldn’t want to get more MPG’s out of their car? Nobody. So lets move forward with this golden opportunity to mandate higher MPG standards that will benefit future generations. It shouldn’t be a political issue because it’s really about common sense and unfortunately, common sense is not a deep-pocketed special interest group.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail