Video: Let’s build Keystone, says … Ed Schultz

posted at 10:41 am on February 4, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

If you’re inclined to be surprised by this, think again. Unions want the Keystone XL pipeline to be built, as it will employ thousands of dues-paying members for years on the project, and they need the private-sector jobs just as much as the rest of the country does, if not more. Ed Schultz frames this endorsement as a safety issue — and it is — but you can bet your bottom dollar that Ed’s bottom dollar is talking here:

Based on safety I think the President should give this project the stamp of approval. Environmental groups obviously think differently. And so do the majority of people on the left. But this newsflash: We’re not getting out of the oil business in America. It runs our economy. Do we have climate change? Yes we do. But the construction of this pipeline does not mean we are going to consume more as a country.

I’m looking at it at from a safety aspect. I don’t explosions in small towns or any towns, or any kind of train derailment carrying oil, where there are fewer federal inspectors than ever before, and also the fact that these railcars are old and the infrastructure hasn’t been upgraded. So a brand-new pipeline, to me, makes sense.

On the safety issue, the State Department agrees that Keystone will save six lives a year, based on derailment issues on trains that now have to transport crude from the Bakken formation:

Although it excluded the runaway oil train derailment that killed 47 people in Lac Megantic, Quebec, last summer, the tragedy that first shone a critical light on the rapidly expanding trend in shipping crude by rail, the findings highlight the risks or railway transport versus pipes.

Shipping another 830,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude “would result in an estimated 49 additional injuries and six additional fatalities for the No Action rail scenarios compared to one additional injury and no fatalities” per year if Keystone XL is built, according to the report.

Keystone XL would carry 830,000 bpd from Alberta’s oil sands U.S. refiners, but has been awaiting a presidential permit for more than five years. The “No Action” options refer to the likely alternative outcomes if Obama rejects the permit or the project is not built for some other reason.

The report also showed that carrying crude by rail, instead of by pipeline, was likely to result in a higher number of oil spills and a larger amount of leakage over time.

 

Don’t expect the Schultz endorsement to make this a no-brainer for the White House, though, even with the backing of the unions. The environmental-activist base promises to make this a “sit on our hands” issue in the midterms if Obama moves forward with it — and maybe worse:

But critics say approval of the project could sow liberal discontent and hurt Democratic chances in 2014 — including a host of contests that will likely decide who controls the Senate during the final years of the Obama White House.

“It is very likely that there will be negative consequences for Democrats if Keystone were approved,” said Kate Colarulli, the associate director for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Oil campaign. “This is a tremendous opportunity to protect the climate and build the Democratic base if Obama rejects Keystone XL.”

Green groups are promising acts of “civil disobedience,” if Obama signs off on the project and contend Keystone’s approval could torpedo the president’s broader climate change agenda.

The project is a no-brainer, except for the politics within the Democratic Party. The White House may decide that punting this to 2015 is their best option.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“Fire him” –Greenies

Schadenfreude on February 4, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Let’s not forget Obama’s buddy, George Soros, runs the trains that this thing would “derail”…

RonRon on February 4, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Let’s not forget Obama’s buddy, George Soros, runs the trains that this thing would “derail”…

RonRon on February 4, 2014 at 10:46 AM

That would be Warren Buffet.

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM

The environmental-activist base promises to make this a “sit on our hands” issue in the midterms if Obama moves forward with it…

Sounds like a win-win for our side.

JimLennon on February 4, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Now that his ratings can’t go any lower, he’s searching for a new target audience.

NoPain on February 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Uh oh Ed, you stepped in it now. Gang-green will go into full boycott mode, your viewership to be cut in half down to twelve.

antipc on February 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM

They can approve it in November after the campaign contributions are in and when the employer mandate Kerfuffle with Obamacare is distracting all the media attention.

KW64 on February 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM

The environmental-activist base promises to make this a “sit on our hands” issue in the midterms if Obama moves forward with it

Well then, every Congresscritter and Senator up for re-election should be pushed on why they haven’t done more to get this no-brainer done.

Happy Nomad on February 4, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Let’s not forget Obama’s buddy, George Soros, runs the trains that this thing would “derail”…

RonRon on February 4, 2014 at 10:46 AM

That would be Warren Buffet.

oldroy on February 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Same difference.

They both sold their souls and their moms for 30 peices of silver.
They are souless bastards that will do anything for more money and power. They can’t duck the reaper forever.

acyl72 on February 4, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Progressivism kills

Schadenfreude on February 4, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Co-opting the issue to make the inevitable sound like liberal “common sense” to fog their radicalism and distance themselves from eco-nut types….for the time being?
They do this all the time. Expect more of this tactic. When caught in a fraud, claim that you’re really more honest than you are. The criminal is really a backer of law enforcement etc.

Mimzey on February 4, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Somebody should yank his heart out, kick it around for a while and shove it back in him.

Lanceman on February 4, 2014 at 11:05 AM

Me thinks my Government isn’t going to wait for
ever,..with this EnvironmentalWacko Administration!!!

canopfor on February 4, 2014 at 11:11 AM

A broken clock displays the right time twice a day….

The White House may decide that punting this to 2015 is their best option.

In that case, why not just punt it until after January 2017? That would encourage the watermelon environmentalists to support another watermelon for President in 2016.

Athos on February 4, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Punter in chief

cmsinaz on February 4, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Head injury?

Fallon on February 4, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Maybe it’s more direct than I thought.

Dec 12, 2013 · Department of Labor records appear to show that MSNBC television personality Ed Schultz collected at least $177,000 from labor unions last year

Mimzey on February 4, 2014 at 11:35 AM

“This is a tremendous opportunity to protect the climate and build the Democratic base if Obama rejects Keystone XL.”

What a load of bull shit! “Protect the climate”? How?

Typical enviro weenie. Screw the country! We want to rule!

GarandFan on February 4, 2014 at 11:38 AM

This is what ticks me off…anything “done” to the environment, can and will be undone with time.

But, you bankrupt a nation of people, destroy economic lives, those people are here for just 30-50 years of work, and that is all the time they have.

The “pursuit of happiness” is disrupted because of a mosquito, or a lizard, or a bird…who cares? Most of these people believe in evolution, so it, over time, will “re-evolve”…but a family’s livelihood, that is destroyed, won’t re-evolve, it is lost forever.

Keystone isn’t polluting, but if it was, I don’t care, keep mining coal, I don’t care.

Until you demand our competitors in the world to follow the exact same restrictions and requirements our business has to follow…I don’t care.

And I wish someone with some huevos would explain that…we are destroying lives for naught.

right2bright on February 4, 2014 at 11:51 AM

The Keystone XL pipeline, if built, would pass through Montana and South Dakota, where Democrat Senators are not running for re-election. People in those states that want jobs building the pipeline will probably vote for whichever candidate supports building it. If Obama nixes the project before the election, it will probably cost Democrats these two Senate seats.

Steve Z on February 4, 2014 at 12:04 PM

whatever his reasons i agree with ED Schultz(never thought i’d say that).

gerrym51 on February 4, 2014 at 12:13 PM

…brain phart!

KOOLAID2 on February 4, 2014 at 12:14 PM

If you aren’t a complete moron, you have to be for Keystone.

The Canadian oil sands will be harvested anyway and the petroleum will be burned anyway. With or without the proven safety of the pipelines, a substantial portion will be sold to the USA. Transporting it via trucks and rail is less cost efficient, less safe, and leaves a bigger “carbon footprint.” There is no environmental benefit at all to be gained by blocking it. Zip. Nada. None.

Adjoran on February 4, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Ed who?

Galtian on February 4, 2014 at 12:38 PM

He’ll see a brick wall if you hit him over the head with it enough times.

njcommuter on February 4, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Interesting. Obama will probably make hopeful noises about it in the approach to the election. Maybe even a provisional, but symbolic approval with economically impossible strings attached. After the election, its back to ruining the country as usual.

virgo on February 5, 2014 at 2:03 AM