Posted on 02/05/2014 8:38:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind
PARIS -- An environmentalist lies down alongside his fellow organic cucumber aficionados to block the construction of an oil pipeline and wakes up a member of a proxy army serving the billionaires who are fighting against America's economic and national security interests to line their own pockets. How did that happen?
This phenomenon is on display in the battle against the Keystone XL pipeline project, the cornerstone of Canada-U.S. energy independence, set to run from Alberta, Canada, into Nebraska, then ultimately to the Gulf Coast of Texas where it can be exported.
None of this pleases environmental activists, whose actions suggest that they would rather America and its trading partners get their energy supply from foreign authoritarian regimes that are inclined to reinvest oil profits into war -- most recently in places like the North Caucasus and Syria.
"But the United States does that, too!" the activists argue. Indeed, most nations with a respectable GDP reinvest a significant portion of it into both offensive and defensive measures in the interest of their own national and economic security. The difference between siding with America and siding with Saudi Arabia, for example, boils down to ideology.
The precise term for such an activist in the Billionaire's Dictionary is "useful tool." No need for a draft when there are plenty of volunteers willing to dive head-first into the cognitive trap of substituting a billionaire's mind-set for their own. You would think the mere fact that these activists find themselves on the same side of an issue as billionaires might be cause for some soul-searching. It's as though cognitive dissonance, like critical thought, washes over them then quickly recedes, like it has somewhere better to be.
Activists have as much of a chance at stopping the march towards U.S. energy independence as they have in affecting global climate cycles with a PowerPoint presentation by Al Gore. The only question worth asking here is, "Cui bono?" Who will ultimately profit?
In the case of Keystone XL, last week's State Department report ought to have assured President Obama that there were no significant environmental red flags associated with the project. Still, the White House has said that it isn't in any rush -- a curious position for a president who had just wrapped a State of the Union address by highlighting the future star role of his veto pen on issues that have been subjected to infinitely less scrutiny than Keystone.
So then, why the holdout? Either Obama and his supporters like the idea of foreign oil, or they prefer a domestic alternative to the pipeline. Or perhaps both.
Let's assess the foreign-oil front first. After Canada, Saudi Arabia is America's second-largest oil supplier through its national oil company, Saudi Aramco, but Western oil companies benefit from lucrative joint ventures and service contracts. According to the BP (formerly known as British Petroleum) website: "Our Integrated Supply and Trading (IST) team purchase and supply a wide range of crude oil and refined products, destined for BP's vast refining and marketing networks, as well as to other international petroleum markets. The BP Representative Office in Riyadh helps to direct, coordinate and assist all BP activities in the Kingdom."
Jolly good, chaps! At least until Canada supplants BP's Saudi cash cow, right?
One of the most outspoken (if not wealthiest) anti-Keystone activists is billionaire Tom Steyer, a tireless purveyor of alarmist anti-pipeline billboards and advertisements. A spokesman for Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), whom Steyer has ripped over Lynch's support for Keystone, told Canada's Globe and Mail last year that it's hypocritical for Steyer to oppose the pipeline after making a fortune off BP stock. Awkward.
On the domestic front, if Keystone becomes a reality, rail cars that serve to transport oil will be rendered redundant. A Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight train that was hauling oil exploded in North Dakota in December. A similar train explosion in Quebec last summer killed dozens of people. Doesn't sound like a very environmentally friendly alternative to me. How many polar bears did those fireballs end up choking? Tough to measure that.
But you know what doesn't seem anywhere near as difficult to measure? The $34 billion that Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway spent to acquire Burlington Northern Santa Fe in 2009. The longer Keystone remains delayed, the more attractive the alternative of having Obama's favorite billionaire stepping in to provide the stopgap solution.
By all means, enviro-warriors, carry on. I just thought that perhaps you might want to meet your generals.
A young lady I know from church is planning on being an “environmental lobbyist.” I told her that was fine, so long as she knew for whom she was working. I told her that if she didn’t mind working for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the People’s Republic of China, neither of which give a damn about the environment, that she should go ahead and follow her dreams.
She didn’t care for what I told her.
RE: She didn’t care for what I told her.
A man/woman convinced against his/her will, is of the same opinion still. (Benjamin Franklin)
they are on the same side of the issue while being opposed to each other. IMO, the only environmental issue with the pipeline is the construction. Once it is operational it is safer than rail delivery.
It's about keeping the United States weak. Using our own energy sources will make us stronger. Cutting us off from our own resources is intended to strangle us.
-PJ
Excellent.
Most environMENTALists don’t understand that stopping a construction in the US doesn’t stop the demand for the product. Their work only moves the production into a country with less environmental control than the US and waste more energy transporting it to the US.
On this one - follow the Benjamins’.
Who is the largest stockholder in the BNSF Railroad ... indecently the largest transporter of crude from up North to Texas?
Look up our Multi-Billionaire buddy Warren Buffet.
Who’s wallet would take the biggest hit if that crude started moving by pipeline instead?
The Rockafeller’s did the same thing back in the 1880’s. They started moving oil by pipeline and bankrupted several railroads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.