Democratic Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu defeated
"Consider what Democrats are up to in the Senate. In order to try to save the likely un-saveable Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, who is facing a run-off election, Senate Democrats are holding a vote authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Louisiana has a sizable energy industry, and the theory is that this vote will prove Landrieu’s worth to the 56 percent of voters who cast a ballot for someone else on Election Day. But a vote on Keystone will not save Landrieu. And by putting the issue up for a vote, Democrats are giving up a key Republican demand for basically nothing in return."
Happens far too often for it to be an accident.
"Congress hustles to schedule votes on Keystone pipeline" by Donna Cassata | Associated Press November 13, 2014
WASHINGTON — The runoff election for the US Senate seat from Louisiana has jump-started long-stalled legislation to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
On Wednesday, Senate Democrats abandoned efforts to block the measure in hopes of helping endangered Senator Mary Landrieu keep her seat in the energy-rich Bayou State.
I hope you environmentalists that believe in Democrats took note the way they take you for granted.
Republicans responded swiftly by scheduling a vote in the House on Thursday on an identical bill sponsored by Representative Bill Cassidy, Landrieu’s Republican rival in the Dec. 6 runoff.
It was unclear how the votes would affect that race, but Senate passage of the bill as early as next Tuesday would force President Obama to either sign the measure into law or veto it just weeks after a Democratic drubbing in midterm elections.
Republicans and several moderate Democrats insist that construction of the Canada-to-Texas pipeline would create tens of thousands of jobs. Opponents maintain that the project would hurt the environment and contribute to climate change.
The White House had no immediate comment on the day’s developments.
************
Landrieu has a strong alliance with the oil and gas industry and has pushed for an expanded drilling in the United States.
If elected, Cassidy would get a seat on the energy panel. As a new senator, he would be low in the pecking order of panel members, and Cassidy and Louisiana’s all-GOP congressional delegation would likely have little sway with the Obama administration.
As Louisiana’s last Democratic officials elected statewide, Landrieu has a difficult path to victory in a state that overwhelmingly backed Mitt Romney in 2012. Fifty-eight percent of voters supported someone other than Landrieu in the primary last week.
Republican leaders are uniting behind Cassidy, a three-term congressman, while the national Democratic Party has decided not to provide advertising support for Landrieu in the runoff.
Asked if she was a lost cause, Landrieu told reporters, ‘‘No, I don’t believe that I am.’’
Sure looking that way.
*********
The back-and-forth came against the backdrop of a new political landscape and fresh calls for an end to Washington gridlock. In the midterm elections, Republicans seized majority control of the Senate with a net gain of eight seats. Cassidy is heavily favored in the runoff, and his victory would give Republicans a 54-to-46 majority.
Related:
"Republican Dan Sullivan won Alaska’s Senate seat in a hotly contested race, beating a first-term incumbent as voter disapproval of President Obama allowed the GOP to seize control of the Senate. Sullivan, a Marine Corps reservist and assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush, defeated Senator Mark Begich as part of a wave of Republican victories. The Alaska contest was too close to call on Election Night, with Sullivan up by about 8,100 votes, but it became evident Tuesday when the state began counting about 20,000 absentee and questioned ballots that Begich could not overcome his opponent."
McConnell said the election of a Republican Senate majority has already changed the dynamic.
‘‘I hope this post-election conversion on Keystone signals Democrat cooperation on a whole host of other energy bills they have blocked, and whose passage would help to make America more energy-independent,’’ he said in a statement.
Echoing Landrieu’s plea for a vote were moderate Democrats from Republican states, who argued that the project that would carry oil from Canada south to the Gulf Coast. The southern leg of the pipeline between Oklahoma and Texas is already operational.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, has blocked the Keystone measure....
But not now?
--more--"
"House sends Keystone oil pipeline bill to Senate" by Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson | Washington Post November 15, 2014
WASHINGTON — Girding for battle with a Republican Congress over environmental policy, President Obama is signaling he is likely to veto a bill authorizing the Keystone XL oil pipeline just as momentum for the project builds on Capitol Hill.
Individuals familiar with the administration’s thinking say Obama is leaning against approving the massive pipeline. And in a news conference in Myanmar on Friday, the president rejected two of the main arguments made by pipeline proponents, saying he had ‘‘to constantly push back against this idea that somehow the Keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States, or is somehow lowering gas prices.’’
‘‘It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else,’’ he said. ‘‘That doesn’t have an impact on US gas prices.’’
The pipeline fight is coming to a head as Obama is seeking to cement his environmental legacy by forging a climate deal with China, imposing carbon limits on US power plants, setting aside more public land for conservation and, in an announcement made Friday, providing $3 billion to poor countries to cope with the impact of global warming.
There they go again.
After the midterm elections, such an approach will mean a series of fights with Congress. On Friday, the House authorized construction of the pipeline by a decisive vote of 252 to 161.
Senate Democrats have agreed to vote on the project Tuesday in an effort to boost the fortunes of Senator Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat who faces a Dec. 6 runoff against the author of the House companion bill, Republican Representative Bill Cassidy. Landrieu has been an ardent supporter of the pipeline.
Why didn't they do it before the election then?
Cassidy nearly choked up in an interview just off the House floor as he described his relief that Congress is on the verge of approving the project, saying, ‘‘If there’s another party that thinks that climate change is a winning campaign issue and they’re going to double-down on moving jobs to China, it’s their party.’’ While the pipeline may not run through Louisiana or supply any of its refineries, it has become a popular cause in a state that relies heavily on oil and gas development.
The House bill was supported by 221 Republicans, with no GOP lawmakers voting against it. Thirty-one Democrats backed the bill, while 161 opposed it. In the all-Democratic Massachusetts delegation, James McGovern of Worcester did not vote and the other eight members voted “no.”
My guy didn't vote when we have a pipeline planned for her?
The White House has indicated it is prepared to reject the House bill, though it has not issued a formal veto threat.
Though a multistep, multiagency process must still take place before the State Department recommends whether a permit should be granted, the most important process is happening — as one administration official put it — in Obama’s head.
In public, the president and his aides have said that they will wait for the State Department review, which has been suspended until Nebraska’s Supreme Court rules whether the pipeline’s route through that state was properly approved. That decision could come any day; once it does, several agencies will have a chance to comment on whether the project serves the national interest. Secretary of State John Kerry can then issue a final determination, which would be subject to presidential approval.
In private discussions, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough has indicated Obama is well aware that approving the pipeline would infuriate environmentalists, who not only lent major support to Democrats in the recent election but will serve as important allies in legislative battles as well as the 2016 presidential race.
Republicans have identified Keystone XL as one of their top legislative priorities, and it enjoys the support of several major business groups along with the oil industry.
Russ Girling, chief executive of the pipeline sponsor Trans-Canada, issued a statement on Nov. 5 saying that the Keystone XL ‘‘has always enjoyed bipartisan support and is a great example of an issue where both parties can work together to create jobs and enhance energy security for the United States.’’
On Friday, the company added, ‘‘no other pipeline has been scrutinized as carefully as Keystone XL, and it has met every environmental, economic, safety, and supply test that has been put in front of it.’’
Still, Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska, one of the pipeline’s fiercest congressional backers, said he was ‘‘very, very skeptical’’ Obama would grant a permit if the question was ‘‘left to a presidential decision.’’
Environmentalists say the pipeline is especially harmful because it lowers transportation costs and thus provides more incentive for the development of Alberta’s oil sands. Extracting a thick bitumen from those sands requires a lot of energy because the sands must be heated.
In June 2013, Obama said that he would reject the project if it would ‘‘significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution,’’ a pledge he repeated again last week in a news conference after the midterm elections. Kerry has made fighting global warming a hallmark of his career.
Related: John Kerry’s brand of Boston diplomacy pays off
The potential for a climate change agreement provided an opportunity to focus on an environmental issue that has been one of his top priorities for two decades.Yang flew nonstop on a commercial flight from Beijing to Boston, and arrived at the home of Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, in Louisburg Square on Beacon Hill. They exchanged gifts, with Kerry receiving vases and Yang given an original, hand-colored engraving showing the corner of Beacon and Park streets overlooking Boston Common. The group had cocktails and a dinner of potato ravioli and rack of Berkshire pork prepared by Boston chef Lydia Shire. Entertainment for the evening was provided by Chinese-born harpist Jessica Zhou of the Boston Symphony Orchestra."
I'm glad they are eating well while so many are hungry, but does anyone see the hypocritical contradiction there?
"Secretary of State John Kerry, immediately after a speech at an annual policy forum in Washington hosted by the publisher of Foreign Policy magazine, headed to London."
I'm so disappointed.
Sorry to disappoint you, readers, but I think I'm done for a while for the same reason as last time.
--more--"
Yup, pushing for a carbon tax is a no-brainer, and so is dropping any further reading of that piece. Shee$h!
At least the subsidies and credits are still blowing their way.
"Senate narrowly defeats Keystone XL pipeline" by Coral Davenport and Ashley ParkerNew York Times November 19, 2014
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats, by a single vote, stopped legislation that would have approved construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, one of the most fractious and expensive battles of the Obama presidency.
The web version is a total rewrite from print. WTF?
Senate Democrats on Tuesday evening rejected a move to approve the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, rebuffing their colleague, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., who had hoped to muscle the legislation through in advance of her uphill runoff election fight back home.
The vote represented a victory for the environmental movement, but the fight had taken on larger dimensions as a proxy war between Republicans, who argued the project was vital for job creation, and President Obama, who had delayed a decision on building it.
The battle over approving the pipeline, which will carry petroleum from the oil sands of Canada to the Gulf Coast, ultimately became a proxy war for the Louisiana Senate seat.
Senator Mary L. Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat who is facing a runoff election Dec. 6, had pleaded with her colleagues throughout the day to support the pipeline, leading to a rare suspense-filled roll call in the Senate. But she was ultimately rebuffed and fell short by one. The bill was defeated with 59 votes in favor and 41 against, and Landrieu needed 60 votes to proceed.
Landrieu spent the past few days working furiously to round up Democratic support for her bill, which she had hoped would be her last, best chance of holding on to her Senate seat.
The vote was also a reflection of how a once-obscure pipeline blew up into an expensive national political battle between environmentalists and the oil industry.
Let's have none of those!
Although the TransCanada company proposed the pipeline in 2005, it generated so little attention that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was poised to approve it in 2011 with little fanfare.
The Senate vote to take up the measure was 59-41, one vote short of the filibuster-proof 60 votes she needed. And despite cajoling, persuading, browbeating, and making an impassioned plea to her colleagues during a closed-door lunch — which one attendee described as “civilized but pretty contentious” — Landrieu, who has so often bulldozed her way to success through sheer force of will, came up just short.
But at that point, environmentalists looking to press Obama to act on climate change issues seized it as a potent symbol, leading to protests outside the White House and millions of dollars from environmentalists and the oil industry poured into political races on both sides.
The House, which passed the same legislation Friday, had voted multiple times already to approve the pipeline. But Tuesday’s vote marked the first time this year that the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed to hold on a vote on the bill, which he feared could have hurt the re-election changes of some of his more vulnerable members.
The political fallout, though, affected Landrieu more than the president, at least in the near term. She was able to persuade 14 Democrats to join all 45 Republicans to support the pipeline, but 40 Democrats and Senator Angus King, a Maine independent, combined to stop the legislation.
Both Mass Dems ignored her pleas.
Both Cassidy and Landrieu were eager to take credit for supporting the Keystone bill back home, where their state’s economy is heavily dependent on oil-industry jobs. Speaking on the floor, Republicans sought to cast the legislation as “Congressman Cassidy’s Keystone jobs bill,” while Democrats described it as Landrieu’s brainchild.
Republicans vowed to bring back the Keystone bill as soon as they return in January, when they will hold the majority. Speaking on the Senate floor moments after the vote, Senator Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican and the incoming majority leader, said that he would immediately bring up a Keystone bill when the new Senate convenes.
Even Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who did not support the bill and said Keystone XL stood for “extra lethal,” made sure to note that credit for the legislation belonged to her Democratic colleague, Landrieu.
Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who is poised to replace Landrieu as head of the Senate Energy Committee, said she believed “that the momentum we’ve gained means we’ll see progress and see this bill passed.”
“Sen. Landrieu is the only reason that we are debating this today,” Boxer said. “Set the politics aside. Let the record be clear forever: This debate would not be before this body were it not for Sen. Landrieu’s insistence.”
Despite Landrieu cajoling and browbeating her colleagues during a private lunch — which one attendee described as “civilized but pretty contentious” — Landrieu, who has so often bulldozed her way to success, was not able to produce that elusive final vote.
Look what I found!
Before the vote, White House aides stopped short of an explicit veto threat, but left the impression that the president would reject the bill if it made it to his desk.
Given the number of Democrats who supported the bill Tuesday, Republicans might well be able to muster a filibuster-proof 60 votes to pass the pipeline in the next Congress, but they still probably will fall a few votes short of 67, the number required to override a presidential veto.
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said, “It certainly is a piece of legislation that the president doesn’t support, because the president believes that this is something that should be determined through the State Department and the regular process that is in place to evaluate projects like this.”
The House, which passed the same legislation Friday, had voted multiple times to approve the pipeline. But Tuesday was the first time this year that the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, had agreed to hold a vote on the bill, which he had feared could hurt the reelection chances of some of his more vulnerable members.
The administration has said previously that it does not plan to offer a final decision until after a Nebraska court weighs in on the route of the pipeline through that state, a decision that could come as early as January. By then, Republicans will control both the House and the Senate, and are expected to send the bill to the president’s desk.
Both Landrieu and her Republican opponent, Representative Bill Cassidy, were eager to take credit for supporting the Keystone bill back home, where their state’s economy is heavily dependent on oil-industry jobs.
Most Americans support the Keystone pipeline — a Washington Post-ABC News poll in May found that 65 percent of Americans think the pipeline should be built, while just 22 percent oppose it.
Even if the Senate had passed the bill, Obama was not expected to sign it into law.
Then why the shell game?
--more--"
Related: Keystone XL fight sealed Mary Landrieu’s fate
La.’s new GOP senator committed to opposing Obama
Fix the Senate
Speaking of pipelines:
"Hundreds rally against natural gas pipeline; Project could affect Northern Massachusetts" Associated Press November 16, 2014
FITCHBURG — Several hundred people from three states packed a high school auditorium Saturday to rally against a proposed pipeline that would carry high-pressure natural gas across Northern Massachusetts.
Protesters from Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York staged the ‘‘Stop the Pipeline Statewide Summit’’ at Montachusett Regional Vocational Technical School in Fitchburg. The crowd included elected officials, environmental activists, and landowners whose property the pipeline would cross or pass near.
‘‘It’s all about numbers to the proponents of the pipeline,’’ Ken Hartlage, president of the Nashoba Conservation Trust, told the crowd. ‘‘They don’t care about your home, your farm, your legacy for your children.’’
Houston-based Kinder Morgan Inc. plans to route the pipeline from Richmond, Mass., near the New York border, to Dracut, near the New Hampshire line. Supporters say the pipeline, which still needs regulatory approval, would help relieve the need for more natural gas in New England.
Protest organizer Elaine Mroz of Lunenburg, along with her siblings, owns a tract of woods in Winchendon that has been in her family since 1901. She said a call from a surveyor last winter alerted her to the pipeline proposal.
‘‘That’s kind of our family homestead; we know all the rocks and the trees,” Mroz said, pointing out the land’s location on a large map of the proposed pipeline route. She said that, should the pipeline be constructed, a path up to 100 feet wide would be cut through the forest.
But Mroz said she’s looking beyond just the concerns of her fellow landowners. She said the pipeline could help feed the dependency on nonrenewable energy sources.
‘‘If we invest in this pipeline, it’s going to lock us into gas,’’ she said. ‘‘There are a lot of people here looking at how we can make a better energy policy.’’
Mroz’s sister, Carolyn Sellars of Townsend, said awareness of the proposal had spread slowly but said organizers hoped Saturday’s summit would help build and maintain opposition to the project through the lengthy federal review process.
‘‘Everybody that I’ve talked to in Massachusetts isn’t going to give this up,’’ she said. ‘‘This is climate change, right here. It might have started as a backyard issue, but not anymore.’’
The company’s prefilings with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission indicate the project would require 91 miles of new right of way in Massachusetts and 37 miles of colocation with existing power lines. The report says the project affects 1,554 total acres for construction, affecting 357 acres of federal endangered or threatened species habitat.
Governor Deval Patrick’s energy and environmental affairs secretary, Maeve Bartlett, has cautioned federal regulators that preliminary reviews show the pipeline could cross parks, wetlands, forests, conservation lands, farms, and areas where protected wildlife live.
Environmental activists and others — including some from New Hampshire, who fear the pipeline could end up being rerouted through the southern part of that state — said they hope Governor-elect Charlie Baker will intervene and help create more incentives for green energy jobs after he takes office in January.
--more--"
Related: In face of opposition, company to reroute gas pipeline
Energy company blazing new path for proposed energy pipeline
I'm sure it is all China's fault in one way or another.
So where is that stuff coming from?
"Fracking to be permitted in GW National Forest" by Brock Vergakis, Associated Press November 19, 2014
NORFOLK, Va. — Environmentalists and energy boosters alike welcomed a federal compromise announced Tuesday that will allow fracking in the largest national forest in the eastern United States, but make most of its woods off-limits to drilling.
Looks like I finally got my answer.
The decision was highly anticipated because about half of the George Washington National Forest sits atop the Marcellus shale formation, a vast underground deposit of natural gas that runs from upstate New York to West Virginia and yields more than $10 billion in gas a year.
The federal management plan reverses an outright ban on hydraulic fracturing that the US Forest Service had proposed in 2011 for the 1.1 million-acre forest, which includes the headwaters of the James and Potomac rivers. Those rivers feed the Chesapeake Bay, which is the focus of a multibillion-dollar, multistate restoration directed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
This while they had your attention focused on Keystone!
A total ban would have been a first for America’s national forests, which unlike national parks are commonly leased out for mining, timber, and drilling. But some environmentalists were pleased that at least some balance was struck between energy development and conservation.
At what point to half-victories turn to defeats?
‘‘We think the decision shows the Forest Service listened to the local community,’’ said Sarah Francisco, leader of the Southern Environmental Law Center’s national forests and parks program. ‘‘The vast majority of the forest is protected in this decision.’’
With both sides lobbying hard, Virginia’s Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe, told his climate change panel in September that federal officials had assured him fracking was off the table. ‘‘I won’t allow it as long as I’m governor,’’ he said.
But the final word rested with Ken Arney, a regional Forest Service manager. And by Tuesday afternoon, the governor wasn’t commenting.
The federal government lied to the state government of Virginia?
‘‘We think we’ve ended up in a much better place,’’ said Robert Bonnie, the undersecretary for national resources and environment at the US Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service.
The new plan eliminates the potential for oil and gas leases on 985,000 acres, and permits drilling only on 167,000 acres with existing private mineral rights and 10,000 acres already leased to oil and gas companies.
This lobbying fight was mostly over principle, since no energy company has wanted to actually drill on the land they’re leasing, Bonnie acknowledged. ‘‘The economic value of these reserves is very low. We’ve had very little interest on oil and gas on the forest,’’ Bonnie said.
--more--"
