NY Times Editorial Board: Rejecting Keystone XL Is Also A Moral Decision Or Something

You have to love a newspaper which yammers on about morality, when they are 100% in the bag for all abortion on demand, including late term for no reason. Oh, and a paper which whines about fossil fuels yet uses vast amounts itself to distribute their paper edition using fossil fueled vehicles. And their decomposing papers release greenhouse gases, not too mention all the trees killed. And let’s not forget that ‘climate change’ is bad for minorities, women, and the poor, and the NYTEB is composed primarily of rich white people

No to Keystone, Yes to the Planet

Nearly every mainstream climate scientist has said that a big portion of the fossil fuels now in the ground must remain there if the world is to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. That simple fact lay at the heart of President Obama’s decision on Friday to say no to the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.

The decision, which ends seven years of legal and political wrangling, was correct, on moral as well as scientific grounds. The pipeline, when completed, would have carried about 800,000 barrels of oil a day from tar sands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

Of course, this just means Canada will build a pipeline to their west coast, and send the oil to China. Or build a pipeline to the east. And the United States will not see the economic activity out of it. It’s great that the Times is taking the position of the extreme “climate scientists” and climate activists, who want all fossil fuels left in the ground now. How will the Times distribute its papers? How will all those on the Editorial Board travel from their McMansions to their jobs?

In the grand scheme of things, this would add little to a global output that now exceeds 90 million barrels a day. But the cumulative impact could be huge: The tar sands contain 170 billion barrels of oil recoverable with today’s technology and perhaps 10 times that amount in potential resources. Because the proposed pipeline was seen as crucial to the exploitation of these resources, allowing it to go forward would have put the United States in the position of enabling a project that, over time, would add significantly to already dangerous levels of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

We were told that anything about 350ppm meant doom for the planet. Then we were told the number was 400ppm. Yet, there’s nary a difference between the early part of the 20th Century and now.

So Mr. Obama chose to draw a line. As he put it, “Ultimately, if we’re going to prevent large parts of this earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.”

Does anyone notice the hypocrisy? This from a guy who uses vast amounts of fossil fuels to jet to the West Coast, what with the helicopter to the airport, the 2 jumbo jets, the Air Force fighter jets which protect Air Force 1, and the massive almost 20 car convoy, all for typically a quick government event (due to campaign repayment costs) followed by golf and several fundraisers.

Obama, like most Warmists, is scientifically illiterate: CO2 is not a pollutant.

Rejecting the Keystone pipeline should further enhance his credibility and that of the United States on this issue. “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change,” he said. “And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.”

And there it is: it’s all about Mr. Obama’s street cred, rather than anything that could help American as a whole. Like everything else he does. He’s happy to help, or at least (mostly) patronize certain interest groups, but, he’s doing this for Himself.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Leave a Comment

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend