Keystone pipeline falls one vote short of passing Senate

So I was unaware that this vote was even happening, however apparently the Senate took a vote on the Keystone pipeline which fell one vote short (59-41) of passing. While I don't think the Keystone pipeline should pass, I must say I'm worried that the precedent of always needing 60 votes to pass anything will remain intact. In my opinion this is not a good sign that the log jam will ever break in the Senate.

Link second link

So what do you guys think? Am I a bleeding heart (for the environment) liberal and should the pipeline should have passed? Will the 60 vote precedent hold? Also when did the environment become a partisan issue?

It means Mary Landrieu's Senate career is over.

It will pass easily under the next Congress and Obama will probably veto it.

It should pass, and hopefully his veto will be overridden.

I actually supported it too.

It is more environmentally friendly to pass this than it is not to pass it and to continue transporting the crude by rail.

Who would possibly think this pipeline is a good idea? Risks of oil spills along the line, increased pollution from the oil sands, America doesn't see the oil, instead it goes to other countries, and the jobs that are created will disappear when the pipeline is finished.

@speedfreak48t5p: Right now the oil is shipped by rail. We have already ha several train wrecks. The last one leveled a town and I believe 100 people were killed. The pipe line is much safer by a long shot.

"Despite the State Department’s repeated conclusions that the project would pose little risk of environmental damage, the pipeline has drawn greens’ ire because of the large amounts of greenhouse gases produced by western Canada’s oil sands region."

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/beyond-senate-defeat-ill-omens-for-keystone-113015.html#ixzz3JWzrioUF

Lets keep in mind that the oil on these sands region will be extracted regardless of whether or not the pipeline is constructed.

Technically yeah but this pipeline would go over the Ogallala aquifer, and should there be an accident that would affect one of the world's largest freshwater reserves and affect the drinking water of millions of people in the US. I'm not sure if that's a bet I'd be willing to take just for oil that's gonna be shipped out of the Gulf anyway.

BINGO

Can't believe folks are falling for the GOP's bullshit; the only people in the long term who will benefit from this are big oil and the oil lobbyists.

Yes, but at a much faster rate. Not to mention that part of the reason gas prices are currently lower than usual is the difficulty in getting the oil from the tar sands to the Gulf Coast. Essentially it means that Americans are currently benefiting from the lack of a pipeline in the form of lower gas prices, which is set to disappear upon completion of the pipeline. And for what? A bunch of temporary jobs and 30-50 full time jobs after the construction is complete. Not to mention the fact that the oil will then be going towards other countries once the pipeline is fully in place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/17/the-keystone-xl-pipeline-isnt-about-lowering-your-gas-prices/

wait what? source?

on topic the 2/3 majority to get shit passed in the senate has got to go. that was never the intention for how it ought to operate.

From what I've read, the environmental risks are low and the benefits are minute. Seems like a recipe for a big, "Whatever," to me.

the senate can override the veto.

Anyone who supports Keystone XL is completely ignorant of fact.

This is to no long term benefit to the USA. We are taking all the risk, and are getting nothing in return.

The only people who will profit are the politicians paid to help push it through.

Because buying oil from Saudi Arabia and other war-torn Middle Eastern nations is so much better than dealing with Canada.

I am most concerned about any effects on environments the Keystone Pipeline would cause.

You don't say.

• On the next Congress Republicans will have (most likely) 54 votes.
• 9 Democrats that voted for the pipeline on Tuesday and will still have a job next Congress.
• All the other remaining Democrats voted NO on Tuesday.
• There is absolutely no reason to think those Democrats will change their votes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00280#position

That leaves the tally: 63 yays, 37 nays.

You need 2/3 majority to override a veto, most likely 67 votes.

There you go.

Keystone pipeline will generate 2,000 temporary jobs.

The US Economy is on average generating 250,000 permanent new jobs per month.

That is %0.8 of temporary job growth the Pipeline would add

I live in a town of 60,000 people and our hospital alone employs 2,500 people.

Keystone pipeline job growth is negligible at best.

Kind of a silly reason to support something, honestly

When you risk polluting a huge source of drinking water, this won't be just "another spill". This would be a catastrophe.

No reason other than politics of course.

I hope it doesn't get passed. The design is awful. I dislike the idea of a foreign company coming in, taking land away from American citizens, and building a pipeline across a major agricultural region. When the pipeline leaks, we get stuck with mess and stretching it out from Canada to Louisiana greatly increases the points at which failure can occur. If it's supposed to be used for domestic production, why does it need to go all the way to the gulf coast? Just build new, state of the art refineries in one of the northern states to handle tar sands, or use existing ones.

If the pipeline didn't stretch across the country, I'd be okay with it. As the design currently stands, though, I don't support it.

The oil isn't meant to go to the US so it's not meant for domestic production.

some of it could be used for domestic production but yeah, a lot of it's going to get shipped to cushing and houston where it will be refined and sold on the international market. that may or may not drive down domestic oil prices. that's a bit unclear from what i've been reading. the main problem obama has with it is that the pipeline will run thru the ogallala aquifer in nebraska. an oil pipe burst would destroy nebraska's agricultural industry which is quite lucrative. people need food and water after all. but you know, damn the consequences...lets build it and if something happens...well...just hope that oil tastes good.

@softwaregeek: yeah that's not an argument I'm getting behind.

It also crosses a lot of aquifers. People think they're hard up for water now, just wait till an 'unforeseeable accident' occurs. I'm willing to bet if such does occur, they wouldn't feel obliged to build another pipe to bring clean water in.

I don't see the benefit of it, the oil is just going to go on the foreign market, just like most the natural gas that was supposedly to lessen our dependency on foreign energy. The cleanup isn't insured either, because it isn't taxed for a cleanup fund, meaning whoever's land the pipeline is going through means those people are liable for any Keystone XL spill. It's dirtier to get oil from than other sources of oil. It won't be creating that many jobs. I think there's a reason the Canadians don't want to build a pipeline to their own ports, we should take heed of that. And Obama will likely veto it for good reason, and I don't think the Republicans have a two-thirds majority to override Obama.

Find it interesting though there's such a huge fight for a rather crummy source of energy, guess there's not as many sources of readily available high density energy left, if we have to have fights over tar sands and fracking the rock beneath us we should probably be considering finding new industries of energy production and consider drastic changes to our lifestyles when the forms of energy we came to rely on aren't available to drive the economy and our lives.

The sad reality is that we will drain the world dry of oil before we even begin to seriously consider an alternative energy source.

The sad reality is that we won't drain the world dry before it becomes too costly to extract, transport, sell, as peak demand and limited supply will mean we'll have to abandon remaining reserves until it's in demand for other industries requires it (making special materials, computers, polymers, etc).

I think the larger challenge of alternative energy isn't just the political will to do so, but every aspect of our lives and economies must change in the process. Lack of high density fuels means our current economy, the ways our cities our built, the way we get around, the way our goods and food gets around, gets shipped from overseas, all that must be transformed. Food will need to be grown locally. Or cities need to be built denser. Or consumption of natural resources in general will need to decline as it comes in greater competition for other nations for resources.

I think where more on the right track than we were a year ago. China is going to cut down on coal, by 2030 (I believe) they're supposed to produce more energy from renewable energy that they currently produce with coal plants, which would be greater than all the electricity in the US combined. If China can do it, the US sure can. Still, the future will present a lot more challenges.

I had my suspicions. The Canadians can build their own pipeline to their East coast. Less risk for Americans.

Indeed, this is another issue. It's not a matter of if the pipeline leaks, but when. Like I wrote above, the Canadians can build their pipeline in their own country. If foreign markets are what they're after, they can do it without(or minimal) risk to us.

moving towards alternate forms of energy in red states is a battle. some of those states are making people with solar powered homes pay a fee to the local electric utility companies.

Lockheed is making a fusion reactor that will fit on the back of a truck. It has the potential to change everything. I wonder how red states will tax it?

Was unsure about this pipeline coming into the thread. After reading what has been said on here it sounds like the pipeline is pretty obviously a bad idea. Way too much risk for such negligible reward.

I eagerly await to see what advances are made in terms of new forms of energy. I personally do think that we will move beyond oil before it gets to critical mass. It will just take the right new sources of energy and the right people to help take down the oil companies as they won't go without kicking and screaming.

You kind of morphed different sectors of energy consumption into one large category.

72% of petroleum goes into transportation for the US http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/primary_energy.pdf

Even though petroleum has so many uses for us, the majority of our consumption comes from our use in vehicles.

Dealing with electric power is a different beast entirely. While we may be on the right track with electric power and renewable energy, it is still moving at a slow rate. We're going to have a harder time dealing with our transportation system than our electric infrastructure.