Meanwhile, in Politics, there is REEing over reduced fossil fuels. If there were reeducation camps, I'm guessing forced screenin

. . . forced screenings of Waterworld would count as cruel and unusual punishment.

It's not that we want to kill the environment...it's that we think it's bad to suddenly destroy jobs that employed Americans with no backup plan.

What do you say to that?

Jobs that barely existed to begin with.

XL was doomed from the start over a decade ago and primarily because it relied upon taking land from people illegally (tribal lands) and would’ve been an environmental nightmare. That, plus the fact that it never would’ve created any long-term jobs anyway.

The US had a net loss of over four million jobs in the last eighteen months and you’re reeing over a few thousand union jobs? Interesting. I’m a union operating engineer and the United Association of Plumbers was well aware that Biden would nix the Keystone XL permits if he got in office...and they still backed him anyway.

Are you aware that the only “unions” that backed Trump were police unions? Not one single labor union backed Trump. Not one. And everyone knows that police unions aren’t real unions.

Keystone doesn't run over any tribal lands. It runs by them, and I would preferred they ran the pipeline a mile away from said lands, but don't say it runs on them. They would never have gotten build permits otherwise.

Unless your union works on gas pipelines I see no reason why they'd oppose it. People and organizations don't waste time lobbying for stuff outside their spheres of interest (I work in the MT state legislature, so I have a very good understanding of that part of our politics).

Besides, your argument is still essentially that it's fine to suddenly put thousands out of work at a whim. I think that's wrong.

I’m card-carrying operating engineer. Operating engineers are directly affected by the shuttering of Keystone XL.

Keystone would also run through federal lands and require private land owners to give up right-of-way access along the pipeline.

(https://omaha.com/news/nebraska/eminent-domain-process-for-keystone-xl-pipeline-begins-in-nebraska/article_be96c7a6-6063-55a0-a90d-37788ddd9a52.html)

It also 100% crosses tribal lands.

(https://www.narf.org/cases/keystone/)

So even though you work for the Montana state legislature, it doesn’t seem that you understand anything regarding the intricacies of this wholly illegal project which is bizarre considering the bulk of it runs though Montana.

The cancellation of the XL project (again) didn’t “suddenly put thousands out of work”...they couldn’t be working on a project that hadn’t been approved yet. A small 1-mile section had been completed near the Canadian border (again, in Montana) but other than that thousand or so union workers, no one else had been working on the pipeline anywhere else. Lawsuits have prevented it.

(https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/01/22/keystone-pipeline-jobs-lost-joe-biden-executive-order-cancel-fact-check/6673822002/)

The cancellation of proposed union jobs stings, but it’s more important to have an honest analysis of what’s actually at stake. Those few thousand temporary union jobs vs. the environmental impact of a pipeline who supposedly will make oil cheaper (it won’t) and transport oil safely (it probably won’t).

Why has TransCanada spent $720 million lobbying for this project? Is it because they really care about “energy independence” or feeding working class families? It’s about money. They want to make gobs of it and that’s exactly what will happen at the public’s expense if this goes through. They want to ram it down to Louisiana where they can export it worldwide at a cheaper price.

https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2021/01/20/president-joe-biden-cancels-keystone-xl-pipeline-tribal-members-montana-react/4215834001/

You'll probably think I'm being dodgy, but I honestly only knew that it didn't cross MT tribal lands. Other state affairs aren't something I generally know too much about. I'll admit to being mistaken and thank you for correcting me.

Now, regarding Montana affairs I reject your offensive claim that I know nothing about XL. It has longstanding bipartisan support in this state, and the aforementioned article regarding Ft. Peck notes that the pipeline ran near, not through, Native American land. So far as I'm concerned you have every right to control your own land, but not that of your neighbor. That doesn't mean the concerns of the Ft. Peck tribes aren't valid, or that they shouldn't voice them, but they don't own the land over the proposed river crossing (the source of their issues.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh in my response and for that I apologize, but the spirit remains. Regardless of the bipartisan support, it remains a largely illegal project for a myriad of reasons. There’s a reason why it hasn’t been able to pass even the most lax environmental review and why Donald Trump had to issue illegal executive orders for TC to be able to obtain the permits just to proceed with the mile that they got done.

I believe the crux of the matter boils down to this: TC claims the pipeline will create jobs (short-term, yes, long-term, no), it’ll make oil cheaper (it most likely won’t), and it’ll make transporting oil sands safer (it almost definitely will not). TC is lying to make more money.

Essentially, we’ll be giving right-of-way rights on American soil to a foreign company to provide oil that we don’t need and possibly create huge environmental issues in multiple states (think Flint, Michigan, but for the entire Midwest) so a multinational corporation can make more money. Because transporting by rail car is twice as expensive as a pipeline that’s essentially given to you...there goes all the profit.

Now, all snark and sarcasm aside, I’m not willing and will never be willing to put any faith or trust in corporations to do the right thing by the common man. Bipartisan support in the Montana state legislature only leads me to believe that state Dems and Republicans have been properly greased.

Maybe that makes me a cynic, but history...and by history, I mean in the last two decades...has taught me to believe half of what I see and none of what I hear.

Apology accepted, I appreciate it. :)

With regards to our legislature, the sentiment is as follows: It would create MT jobs, even in just the short term, and we sorely need that. Since any real problems associated with the pipeline are out-of-state issues, everyone here recognizes that it can only improve our economic position. Our DEQ is solid and I'm confident in their ability to ensure the pipeline would be sound over the river crossings, which meets the concerns voiced by our Native American tribes.

With regards to the national scope of the project, what I thought I knew about it has been exploded as of today, so I'll refrain from making any more rash and/or uninformed observations. Thanks for keeping it civil.