Conservative Nebraska opposes Keystone XL pipeline

  • Article by: MARY PIPHER , New York Times
  • Updated: April 18, 2013 - 2:03 PM

Nebraska is a red state and generally not friendly to environmentalists, but the proposed pipeline rejiggered our political landscape.

  • 20
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
EleanoreApr. 18, 13 2:32 PM

What does Nebraska have against cheap and inferior quality Indian steel used to build pipelines that rupture? Jeeze, you have to please everyone today don't you.

24
8
ddellwoApr. 18, 13 3:25 PM

I read this piece hoping for something with a little "meat" to it, and all I got was Leftist psycho-babble. The XL pipeline will be built, and it will safely move Canadian crude to our Gulf Coast refineries for decades -- even President Obama is smart enough to figure that one out!

17
36
sanitypleaseApr. 18, 13 3:57 PM

Yup... the pipeline "through" America will ship dirty oil to the gulf coast so it can be sold to the highest bidder. Would you let the local Holiday gas station build a pipeline across your lawn to sell gas to the neighborhood from the street corner and still charge you the same price? Didn't think so....

33
6
arspartzApr. 18, 13 4:03 PM

Would you let the local Holiday gas station build a pipeline across your lawn to sell gas to the neighborhood from the street corner and still charge you the same price?

Yes, I would. The neighbors already have a private sewer easement through the lot, so why would this be any different?

14
32
jphaunApr. 18, 13 4:38 PM

All credibility is lost the second this author suggested that the proposed pipeline be compared to the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Apparently these people are against American construction and refining jobs. These people are deluding themselves if they think opposing the pipeline will mean that Canada stops developing these resources. While these stewards of the land are busy spouting off against pipelines, they are probably plowing up every marginal acre to fill with corn and draining the aquifer at the same time.

10
28
ivehaditApr. 18, 13 5:08 PM

This pipeline will not help us one bit. If we got to keep the refined products here, I would be a little more positive about it. But with the substantial environmental risk, we could lose billions in clean-up costs for a few hundred temporary jobs. Bad move all around!

28
7
TorinGustafsApr. 18, 13 5:40 PM

There's a lot of irrational attitudes toward fracking in general, by folks whom I suspect don't understand it and have been fear-mongered. Thanks to fracking, our CO2 emissions have fallen by 12%. Ironically, we didn't sign Kyoto and have dropped, whilst the countries that did have seen an increase in CO2 emissions. Expansion of fracking gets us off the far-dirtier coal power. Additionally, I find it interesting that so many news articles leave out the fact that we have a patchwork grid of oil pipelines across the US. Keystone would be more efficient than our currently ineffective network, and can be better managed because of this. I'd think that a pipeline would also pose less risk than transporting oil by rail. Chances of a spill are slim and in the extremely unlikely chance there was a mishap, it certainly wouldn't be nearly as catastrophic as oil spills we've seen elsewhere. Transparent, rigorous safety and maintenance standards simply need to be enforced. Need I mention the resulting jobs that would be created, "fueling" the economy? Not to mention reducing the wild market swings due to our dependence on foreign oil. One would think that environmentalists would support technology that pollutes significantly less and reduces our "carbon footprint". Apparently not.

5
22
pitythefoolsApr. 18, 13 6:32 PM

ddellwo: "The XL pipeline will be built, and it will safely move Canadian crude to our Gulf Coast refineries for decades"

No, it will go to the Gulf and be sold off on the world markets. If it were to the US' advantage, they'd just pipe it to MN. We have plenty of refineries and could expand our capacity and create jobs. But that's not what this is about.

24
3
sbuzz16Apr. 18, 13 8:01 PM

Here we are in the 21st century still depending on oil which was discovered in the 19th century. It's time to move forward like all other leading nations and incorporate new energy technologies.

17
2
jcinmnApr. 18, 13 8:46 PM

ddellwo "I read this piece hoping for something with a little "meat" to it, and all I got was Leftist psycho-babble. The XL pipeline will be built, and it will safely move Canadian crude to our Gulf Coast refineries for decades -- even President Obama is smart enough to figure that one out!" Ah Yes! Eminent Domain! The right of the wealthy over the people. Ask the people of Arkansas how well their pipeline worked! The latest mess caused by Exxon Mobil

20
0

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT