In last week’s election the Republicans gained a majority in the Senate furthering their influence. They wasted no time to try and push their agendas through though. Senators McConnell and Inhofe are trying to get the EPA to reduce its regulations on oil and coal. Even though the republicans have the majority, they do not have enough power to repeal some of the EPA’s effects themselves. The main agenda they are pushing towards is the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Gulf Coast. The pipeline will be pumping oil sands (which is oil that has been absorbed by the sands and is difficult to extract from) from there and introduce another source of oil for the country to use.
But for McConnell also wants to reduce the EPA regulations to help his home state of Kentucky. Kentucky is one biggest coal producing states and coal makes up a majority of their electric power. While Inhofe is one of the biggest supporters claiming that global warming is hoax. Despite the fear of Obama vetoing the pipeline will become a reality if the Nebraska court does not make a decision before they send the bill to him. Yet people are saying that Obama is not extremely opposed to it.
Should Obama veto the bill?
Are states like Kentucky entitled to some slack in EPA regulations?
How would the pipeline be beneficial to people?
3 comments:
As a liberal, I have to say that Obama should veto the bill. Fossil fuels like coal and oil are not going to last forever and abolishing some regulations on them will only further the problem we are having. Global warming is a real thing and we ultimately need to look for a better source of energy fast. Maybe Congress should move forward and progress instead of working backwards. Hearing about this frightens me as it seems like Congress is going to attempt to repeal all sorts of liberal laws.
Both sides of the argument are valid, and the intentions of each are at least partially good. McConnell and other Republicans don't want to see a drop in economic productivity that would hurt citizens of states with imposed restrictions, and the EPA does not want to see further environmental degradation. However, I think that the EPA's motives ought to trump those of the Republican Party. As Emma said, it's frightening to think that we could potentially take a step backwards on environmental protection and do away with restrictions like these. If Republicans did round up a 2/3 majority and managed to repeal these regulations, what would that mean for the future of other environmental laws and the global environment as a whole?
If Obama does end up having to make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, he's likely going to lose support no matter what he chooses. If he chooses to veto the bill then he would further lose support from Republicans and all of the businesses and corporations that would benefit from its construction, and if he doesn't veto it he'll have environmentalists up in arms.
The Keystone XL pipeline has already passed the House (which has happened before), and would need the votes of a few Democrats to pass the Senate. Obama has not actually said whether or not he will veto the bill should it reach his desk. Obama is waiting for a few more reports to be completed and for a court case in Nebraska regarding the pipeline to be decided. The pipeline is a very difficult issue politically as Elias said. Obama has to make the choice whether he wants to retain the support of more blue-dog Democrats or environmentalist liberals. Obama's recent decisions with the EPA to ramp up the fight against climate change lead me to believe that he may be more inclined to veto the pipeline.
Post a Comment