NYT Wants Environmental Policy Over What Is Good For America's Economy



Lead Opinion Editorial



 The title of this mornings lead OPED in this mornings New York Times boggles one's mind."No to a New Tar Sands Pipeline" is a grotesque look at the thought process of the NYT editorial board and the lack of common sense that they have.

 It begins "Later this year, the State Department will decide whether to approve construction of a 1,700-mile oil pipeline from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast called Keystone XL. The underground 36-inch pipeline, built by TransCanada, would link the tar sands fields of northern Alberta to Texas refineries and begin operating in 2013. The department should say no."

 One can only imagine why the NYT would want the Department Of State to say no.You got it environMENTAL policy would supposedly be affected.

 Here is what I mean "The environmental risks, for both countries, are enormous. The first step in the process is to strip-mine huge chunks of Alberta’s boreal forest. The oil, a tar-like substance called bitumen, is then extracted with steam or hot water, which in turn is produced by burning natural gas. The E.P.A. estimates that the greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands oil — even without counting the destruction of forests that sequester carbon — are 82 percent greater than those produced by conventional crude oil."

 Once again the NYT have to go back to the doctrine of the the GREEN movement and the Al Gore founded (or for you lame-brained tree hugging liberals out there) the made up religion of global warming with the use of the phrase "greenhouse gas emissions" another BS spin word for carbon dioxide.

They continue to keep hitting on more text book Liberal socialist scare tactics "The project poses a major threat to water supplies on both sides of the border. Turning two tons of tar sand into a barrel of oil requires four times as much water as producing a barrel of conventional oil. Operations in Alberta have already created 65 square miles of toxic holding ponds, which kill migrating birds and pollute downstream watersheds, a serious matter for native communities.

In the United States, the biggest potential problem is pipeline leaks. The Keystone XL would carry bitumen — which is more corrosive than crude oil — thinned with other petroleum condensates and then pumped at high pressure and at a temperature of more than 150 degrees through the pipeline."
     Now lets apply a little bit of common sense here shall we.There is a natural cycle that water goes through does it not?Ok.Well if memory serves me doesn't the far left have a fixation over something called"alternative energy" I not talking about solar panels but a source of energy a product called ETHANOL which would have major effects on our food supply since ethanol is extracted from corn is a natural bi-product of the corn and would not be cost effective it would be more expensive.But hey it would make the members of the Communist/Democrat Party "feel all nice and warm and fuzzy inside."And make them FEEL like they did something good .AWE!I think that  am going to cry.

Didn't President Barack HUSSEIN Obama just give a major speech earlier last week about the need for America to become more energy independent .Hey this just shows us the American people that Obama is not accountable to us the taxpayer but beholden to the whacked out so called Green environMENTALists.