I don’t need Tom Steyer to tell me how bad “Most Conservative Member of Massachusetts Delegation” Steve Lynch is on the Keystone XL pipeline. I have Steve Lynch and Lynch mouthpiece Scott Ferson for that. Now, I knew that Lynch himself thinks people who oppose this environmental disaster are part of a “left-wing environmental faction” and that Ferson did him one better, calling us “radical environmentalists.” But I wasn’t sure I heard right until Ferson doubled down on on Wednesday:
“This sort of behavior exemplifies the problem with the Washington establishment,” said Scott Ferson, a senior Lynch campaign advisor, in a statement sent to the press. “It’s not enough to support environmental efforts 94 percent of the time, as Congressman Lynch does. You need to be with every radical group 100 percent of the time or they will unleash millions of dollars against you.”
That Scott Ferson sure is insightful. I was just sitting around this weekend with my friends discussing this problem. Every time a Member of Congress wants to hook up a giant Canadian oil company, there are all these damn radical environmentalists threatening to flood the airwaves will millions of dollars in propaganda.
It’s an outrage how badly these radical environmentalists have distorted our political discourse. Their campaign dollars and outside spending just DWARF, I tell you, the money spent by our honest friends in the oil, gas and coal industries. Those poor industries have practically no friends in the government. Everyone in Washington is so scared of repercussions from Big Environment that they’ll hardly take a meeting with the energy industry.
There are few more pernicious evils in our political system. It’s almost as bad as the way those annoying concerned parents of schoolchildren always outlobby the NRA, or those radical consumer groups make it so a poor Member of Congress barely can even hear what our financial industry’s titans would like to see in the laws.
This is Scott Ferson’s biggest doozy since the time – three weeks ago – that he said the First Amendment ends all discussion about whether the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in South Boston should discriminate against gay people. No panderer, that Steve Lynch:
“Congressman Lynch’s positions don’t change based on the office he’s running for,” Lynch campaign spokesman Scott Ferson said in a Saturday statement. “He has consistently maintained that this is a first amendment issue, and the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that private parade organizers have the right to decide which groups can march. Congressman Lynch’s support of the first amendment doesn’t change simply because he is running for Senate or because some candidates for office want to play politics.”
I had forgotten that opposing discrimination is “playing politics.” Certainly it is not a core component of the Massachusetts Democratic Party’s platform (“We believe that discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, religion, age, and disability has no place in our communities.”). You know who really played politics? That Martin Luther King fella. Repeat after me, Scott: Having a First Amendment right to discriminate does not mean the parade organizers should discriminate, or that Steve Lynch should continue to participate in their parade in spite of their discrimination.
So opponents of the pipeline are radical? Because Americans have the right to know who’s part of this radical cabal, here’s a partial list of those radicals:
The Congregationalists, Unitarians and this Interfaith group.
These folks and the signers of this letter.
Me.
Apparently some people think we should continue to risk our planet’s health, and our state’s coastline. For what? For Canadian oil profits? Oh, I’m sorry, it’s for the sake of a few thousand temporary construction jobs in places like Kansas. In that case why don’t we just have MEMA cut a check to the building trades unions of the Great Plains for the salaries and skip the destruction? Because, if we do have environmental problems in the future thanks to the project, I’m not sure I’d like to count on the Red States in which this pipeline will be built to come to our aid.
In weary anticipation of the hoots and howls of Waltham-based embedded Republicans, at the very thought our state might be in danger from climate change, I submit this:
Yeah, we don’t have any significant portion of our population in Massachusetts living near water, do we? Ask officials in Scituate, Marshfield, Duxbury if they think we have a problem with rising ocean levels.
But once again, even the new-and-oh-so-liberal Steve Lynch shows he has no business representing the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the United States Senate. Normally, before the primary, there is at least an effort to hide the campaign’s disdain for the progressive wing of the party. The one that actually has been right about everything.
Although I prefer “Fierce” for anyone who saw Project Runway’s Christian Siriano, you know what I mean. Seriously, the DINO voted with the Republicans, I am also Shocked, Shocked I tell you.
Don’t forget President Barack Obama in our list of “radicals”.
because, with the Transcanada-written State Dept. report, I fear the fix is in and he just wanted to get the election in the books first.
I share your concern, and at the same time I very much want to believe that President Obama shares our vision and goals. I wonder, therefore, if his policy directive provides a circuit-breaker that he can use to stop the pipeline even if given a pro-Keystone State Department report.
If the climate change impact of the additional CO2 emitted by the oil moved through Keystone is included in the environmental impact analysis of the pipeline, the project will have a difficult time being approved.
The new directive could well change the equation within the Executive Branch, though the recent 62-37 nonbinding Senate vote in favor of Keystone XL gives me concern. 17 Senate Democrats voted in favor of this thing:
Baucus (MT)
Begich (AK)
Bennet (CO)
Carper (DE)
Casey (PA)
Coons (DE)
Donnelly (IN)
Hagan (NC)
Heitkamp (ND)
Johnson (SD)
Landrieu (DLA)
Manchin (WV)
McCaskill (MO)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor (AR)
Tester (MT)
Warner (VA)
As a general matter, I, too,
but that’s not the same as actually believing it. He’s been too much of a disappointment on too many issues.
If I was president, I wanted to stop the pipeline, and I knew I had tough sledding in the Senate within my own party, I’d want to do everything I could to take it out of their hands.
I am more disgusted with those seventeen Senate “Democrats” than I am with President Obama on this issue. It appears to me that he’s doing what he can.
This is another issue where I’d like to know what steps Senate Majority “Leader” Harry Reid is doing to change those votes.
Particularly Bennet, Carper, Casey, and Nelson. They are all in states that have nothing to do with this and are usually solid center-left votes, as opposed to center-right like the rest of them. And don’t worry Tom, at this rate Reid won’t be “Leader’ for long, he has squandered his majority and will lose it soon enough.
Anyway no need to add another blue stater for keystone to the list, send Markey instead of Lynch.
For much of organized labor, supporting Keystone is a make-or-break. FWIW, the issue isn’t the few permanent jobs that would be created, but employment derived from constructing the pipeline.
Further complicating matters is the fact that all four of the Senators you cited come from conservative States – extremely pro-energy in the cases of Pennsylvania and Colorado.
Many of the pro-pipeline Democratic votes came from Senators who would otherwise be vulnerable. For example, Casey and Nelson had uphill fights last year. This makes Bennet’s vote even more interesting, given his position as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Long story short: Many of the Senators voted to protect their perceived flanks insofar as labor and economic growth are concerned.
The estimates (not those paid for by the Canadian oil industry, like Dan cites) are of fewer than 4,000 temporary construction jobs. It’s not like we don’t have other infrastructure needs.
At some point the damage to be done is nowhere near worth any benefit from a small number of fleeting jobs. Where does it end? We could nuke Houston or Atlanta and imagine the construction jobs THAT would create. Doesn’t make it the right thing to do. I used to work for the AFL-CIO but I won’t support their PAC if they’re doing stuff like this.
From the New York Times:
And from an interview with AFL/CIO President Richard Trumka:
I for one do not want to watch repeats of the 80s and early 90s when the environmentalist wing pushed CAFE standards and Kyoto and the labor wing killed it. Obviously protecting GM from fuel regulations ended up making it less competitive and nearly crippled the UAW. Let’s hope they learned from this lesson and start pushing the many hundreds of thousands of green jobs that could be created.
The AFL/CIO is simply wrong — dead wrong — on this, and we need to educate the men and women (and voters) they represent about why they’re wrong.
The environmental consequences of the proposed pipeline far outweigh the claimed and illusory benefits to the workers represented by the AFL/CIO. Most of the benefits will go to corporate interests, and most of those will go to overseas corporate interests.
This is another example of wrapping self-serving greed in rationalizations that require the suspension of clear-headed rational analysis. Although most commonly practiced by the right wing and GOP, this sort of delusional thinking is spreading elsewhere in our culture as well.
If the mainstream media had been doing its job for the last several decades, the sheer ignorance about climate change that enables and produces such lunacy would be greatly reduced.
They Canadians will sell their hydrocarbons no matter what, one way or another, with or without XL. Denial of THAT is delusional, not the American majority’s desire to have the US benefit from that sale.
There is also a strategic, geopolitical reason to the US to tap into that resource: our national security. Every Canadian barrel purchased means fewer dollars going to corrupt, jihad-supporting OPEC states.
Congrats to the Lynch Campaign for exposing the extreme elements of the Democratic wing, similar to John McCain exposing the religious extremist of the Republican Party in 2000, when McCain went to war against Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson.
“Construction of the pipeline would generate 20,000 shovel-ready jobs, and according to the Canadian Energy Research Institute, pipeline operations would create 179,000 American jobs by the year 2035”.
More importantly, Keystone and the extra $800,000 barrels of oil a day, flowing safely down into the U.S. WILL HELP LOWER GAS PRICES….YES, LOWER GAS PRICES….SUPPLY AND DEMAND AT WORK PEOPLE……
We should being getting oil from ANWR as well, that god-forsaken place that nobody will ever visit. There’s billions of gallons of precious oil that could be safely explored and delivered, all while we look for new ways to power our vehicle and heat our homes.
Thank you Mr. Lynch for standing tall, not flinching to the extreme wing of your party. I look forward to voting for you in April.
Isn’t the oil in Canada shale oil that is much more expensive to extract? It is probably only economically viable if the price of oil is around its current level. I would not expect this to lower oil prices much, it at all.
…as refined products (gasoline, kerosene, diesel, etc) supply and demand equations will occur overseas at the ultimate destination, The pipeline will do nothing for American prices at all, and DFW, as usual, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
From the WSJ
Thus, if we increase the “global” supply, prices would likely come down. Surely, prices won’t go up because we add additional supply, will they? If so, please cite the economist who would suggest such a crazy theory.
But again, this is not the only reason to build Keystone. Jobs, jobs, jobs, and how about, “good paying” jobs. Easily over 120,000 new jobs, directly and indirectly from the pipeline, and you can’t deny it.
Furthermore, the oil from the tar sands is no more dirtier than oil off the coast of California. Stop low balling the new jobs or saying it is “dirty oil”. It is all BS and Lynch will expose your candidate if he dares to bring it up in a televised debate.
“Nor is oil produced from the Canadian tar sands as dirty from a climate perspective as many believe (some of the oil produced in California, without attention from environmentalists, is worse)”
http://www.nature.com/news/change-for-good-1.12312
From the greatest good for greatest number standpoint and longterm sustainability standpoint, the health of the planet and its inhabitants is much more important than the jobs or the price of oil. Besides, if we invested in green energy we could ultimately create more and better jobs and render the price of oil irrelevant.
We only get additional supply if the price is high enough to support the more expensive extraction methods. Furthermore, the cost of the pipeline itself will be huge. Canadian oil simply cannot push the price of oil below what it costs to extract, transport and refine plus a big enough profit margin to make it worth the producer’s while.
It isn’t necessary to understand, just need to get the Troll Dung out there.
First I read the oil in Canada is extra dirty, which it ain’t. Then it won’t create many jobs, which is a bogus claim by the detractors of this project. Over 100,000 direct and indirect jobs will bloom from Keystone.
Now you are “concerned” about the cost of the pipeline? Not one red cent of taxpayer monies is going into the project! If oil prices drop and the Keystone oil is too expensive compared to other oil being supplied, then TransCanada and their investors don’t make as much money on their investment. Thanks for the faux concern
But if oil prices continue to rise, then environmentalists get what they really desire, don’t they? You don’t want me to believe that if the a Keystone oil was “cheap”, the you would have a change of heart? I doubt it. It is any and all excuses not to create jobs in the oil sector or attempt to alleviate prices at the pump.
Please don’t feed the troll.
You appear to be either spitting out talking points regardless of what I have written or are responding to someone else’s comment.
I was simply pointing out that your understanding of how the pipeline will affect oil prices is incorrect.
How does this not lower or stabilize oil prices, if demand is flat. Yet, if we don’t increase supply and global demand increases, won’t prices continue to increase? Because it is a global commodity, does supply and demand cease to exist?
NOT ONE RED CENT of difference. NOT ONE RED CENT!!!
to have Keystone Oil b/c we will be using more “homegrown” oil from North America that employs Americans, rather than OPEC oil?
Are you?
that building Keystone is a win-win. The arguments listed above have been knocked down, it is illogical to oppose Keystone
which is why you are alone in this pathetic quest, now that you are finally accepting the point that OIL is a global market, your only argument left is that Canada cannot export its own product without going thru the US over vital rivers and fresh water supplies and risking further environmental destruction. YOU ARE WRONG!
unless you want a mindless war of soundbite-like thinking.
You may find silent use of the downrating button to be more satisfying.
Opponents are incorrect on the economics.
Backers are incorrect on the economics.
That was easy.
Ever studied ecology… for even a minute or two?
What happens in one part of the world very much impacts what happens in other parts.
From what I understand, there’s plenty of caribou and other wildlife inhabiting that “god-forsaken place” – ANWR stands for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, after all!
“human-forsaken” than “god-forsaken.” This is on us.
Reality: Thirty years later we can see the effects of the pipeline on the caribou. Walter Hickel, a former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and governor of Alaska, said that the caribou herd has not only survived, but flourished. In 1977, as the Prudhoe region started delivering oil to America’s southern 48 states, the Central Arctic caribou herd numbered 6,000; it has since grown to 27,128. Alaskas Department of Fish and Game Web site reports that in general, caribou have not been adversely affected by human activities in Alaska. Pipelines and other manmade objects have been built to accommodate caribou movements, and the animals have adapted to people and machines.”
What you said sounds an awful lot like this:
A member of the Ohio state legislature fighting against a bill was brought forward to protect the Passenger Pigeon, not so long before it went extinct.
Caribou population went up.
And your quotation is from 1857, 50 years before extinction. It’s 2013 now, and things have changed.
Modern game management prevents such extinctions from happening today. A clear example of this is dove hunting in South America where a single shooter can bag over 1,000 birds per day. The population is scientifically managed through the issuance of licenses and setting of shooting seasons.
And the shooting is beneficial to the dove population as it reduces food competition. Catch is usually cleaned and donated to charity food organizations. Plus a lot of people are employed by the lodges which cater to sportsmen.
you’re not up to date on the statistics.
Extinctions are happening at record rates.
We may be good when we’ve mounted very public campaigns in a few cases, raising large numbers of resources… but in all too many cases, we’re fighting on losing fronts.
Our efforts for caribou may be one of those success stories thus far, but things can change quickly… which would almost certainly be the case with the Keystone project.
When you were oh so wrong about the caribou living near Prudhoe Bay?
I addressed your straw man (caribou) by suggesting it sounded as blindly ignorant as what others have said in the past about other species that were once abundant.
The keystone project would have a huge ecological effect, mainly from the destruction that would occur in the forests of Canada due to the development of the tar sands. You seem to have put absolutely no thought into this matter. For shame.
The choice, then, is to benefit from the commerce or not benefit. I say let’s benefit, and a majority of American and their elected representatives agree.
There’s a lot of unemployment. Let’s create some jobs. I understand that’s not the priority of this administration, but putting people back to work would be very helpful.
The alternative is a Canadian pipeline to their west coast.
is to make the project economically unfeasible. Tar sands are very expensive ways to develop oil. Making it more expensive by not giving them the Keystone pipeline means much less of the tar sands will be developed, and with the potential that the whole project could collapse.
As for the government of Canada… unless they’re willing to bankroll the project, what they say simply doesn’t matter very much. Moreover, it’s only the very conservative and unpopular government of Canada that supports it. That government’s majority in the parliament is, of course, subject to change.
Admit it. It could be free, and you would oppose the pipeline to bring the oil down. You want oil so expensive that we don’t drive anymore, and all the bridges you and most want to refurbish will be used for bikes and rollerblading.
Bostonshepherd- talking about jobs falls on deaf ears. Many say it’s a good thing, the progressive thing, to layoff American workers, so poor workers in other countries, can get a job. That is why free trade is pushed by so many here.
When are you going to get it into you head that oil is a global commodity and the price of oil is set by its international demand. It will have no impact on the price at the pump AT ALL (which is why so many articles are saying that this is not a SUPPLY AND DEMAND issue. Because it isn’t. The gas is already being targeted for EXPORT. You are perpetuating lies.
So:
Because Lynch is wrong on this, he is wrong on reproductive/women’s rights, he is wrong on LGBT rights, he is might as well be a Republican for all the good he is.
I’m obviously not in favor of making things more expensive, if all else is equal. I do not stand to gain from high gas prices. In fact, high gas prices have a tremendous impact on me and hurt me more than most.
Yet, 1) the keystone pipeline would have absolutely, positively no effect on the price of gas, especially since most of it would be going abroad and 2) all that really matters is the state of the planet. We don’t need the keystone oil to keep humanity chugging, but the damage it could do to this world is considerable.
BTW: if you can’t address my actual points, instead of just making ridiculous attacks up from thin air (like I somehow want gas prices to be higher just for the sake of them being hire, like I’m some cartoon villain or something), then I won’t reply back to your comments. I don’t respond to trolls.
I would bet dollars for donuts most are in favor of keeping them high, regardless of the hurt it causes on the working poor, so as to force people to drive clown cars or take public transportation, all in an attempt to save the world from global warming or climate change or Lynch’s district from becoming the next City of Atlantis.
I don’t like repeating myself, but Keystone is America’s largest infrastructure project, and we cannot say no to the jobs nor the tax revenue it will bring. Canada is going to extract the oil, whether you like it or not. We must partner with them to bring it through the USA.
British Columbia residents do. Not. Want. It. Either.
Except they prove nothing.
Our coastline has and will always be changing. Simply look at historical aerial photos of Monomoy. It grows, then it’s washed away. Plum Island has always been and will always be eroded because of wave action.
Houses built in floor plains will, eventually, get flooded. Please get a FEMA flood hazard map.
Breezy Point (Rockaway) sits between 5 and 10 foot MSL, and FEMA velocity zones run to 14 feet, so, duh, of course it’s a disaster when it’s in the NE quadrant of a hurricane.
It is asking quite a bit of the photos to require them to prove anything.
What is clear is that we have a steep increase in the number of extreme weather events. No one, other than straw men, are claiming that we didn’t have extreme weather events before 1998.
Another point, too. We humans do tend to congregate near rivers and ports. Maybe for economic reasons? And cities near rivers and oceans are at flood risk.
What makes the pictures telling is that each one is since June 2011. When was the last time you remember us having two hurricanes and two more snowstorms with major flooding, a tornado or two, and an earthquake felt in Boston all within a year and a half? Like Gov. Cuomo said after Sandy, we now have a once-a-century storm every two years.
A huge percentage of Massachusetts’s population (and the U.S. population) lives near oceans, bays, rivers. The Commonwealth has 192 miles of coastline and 1519 miles of tidal shoreline.
Unfortunately quite a few Democrats (though still a far lower number than Republicans) are backing Keystone, whether because they are easily swayed by oil and gas money or because they believe they can find a compromise that makes everyone happy (perhaps President Obama), but Lynch and his campaign are different because of they way they are relishing the chance to attack radical environmentalists. As the diary eloquently points out, the real radicals are those who are ok with business as usual: destabilizing the climate of the only planet we have.
As for the claim that we everyone else is doing it so we should just join in, that is immoral. Whenever we see someone making money through exploitation and destruction we should just let them go ahead. Better yet, we should try to share in the profits because someone else might.