A Chesapeake Bay cleanup would create 35x more jobs than the Keystone XL Pipeline!

5 posts / 0 new

When Republicans talk about killing off the EPA – they’re also talking about killing American jobs. Despite right-wing talking points that environmental regulations are “job-killers” – a new analysis by the Economic Policy Institute finds just the opposite – regulations are ACTUALLY job creators. EPI estimates that as many as 135,000 net jobs will be created by 2015 thanks to new EPA regulations.

After all, when an energy plant has to follow new pollution regulations – then they have to hire people to design and build smokestack scrubbers and buy new clean technology - all of which puts people to work. In fact – a new proposed regulation to clean up the Chesapeake Bay would create 35 times more jobs than the Keystone XL Pipeline!

The real story Republicans don’t want you to know is EPA regulation cut into the massive profits being pocketed by oil barons – while actually creating working-class jobs. Republicans don’t care about putting Americans back to work or having cleaner skies – they care about keeping the fat-cats who own them happy.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Dec. 29, 2009 10:59 am


Well, there isn't much profit in it. Efficiences of capital require money to be spent where there is the quickest, and largest monetary return on the money.

Government, now functioning on the business model, seems to agree..As long as there is clean water available to peddle in the supermarket,at way, way above its inherent value, there is no need to invest in water cleanup.

The less clean water there is, the greater the returns on the remaining clean supplies. A no-brainer.

The pipeline has the potential to shrink clean water supplies.

The pipeline wins. Increased profit and returns of capital from oil shipments. Increased profit and returns of capital from clean water. shipments Two birds with one stone. Capital efficiency.

Retired Monk -"Ideology is a disease".

Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Though I am thoroughly opposed to projects like Keystone and strongly promote and support renewables (in fact I was part of a strong campaign in 2009 in the porvince of Ontario to kill the planned $26B construction of two nuclear plants. On a campaign of nukes being too costly and 2,600 letters to the Energy Minister, not only was the nuclear deal nixed, the Green Energy Act was born. Now Ontario is at the forefront of pushing toward renewables. In 2014 all coal fired plants will be demolished and replaced with renewables. The Green Industry is burgeoning here. So activism does work, and I thought I was wasting my time!)

That said we should put keystone in perspective. Keystone pails in comparison to China's and India's road to "modernization".

Below is an excerpt from the Globe and Mail colum of Jan 21:


They’ve called the proposed pipeline a “1,500-mile fuse to the continent’s biggest carbon bomb.” If it gets built, they warn, “it’s game over for the planet.”

Or maybe not. In the larger scheme of things, Keystone isn’t that big a deal. Energy expert Vaclav Smil says the entire Keystone system would move just over 6 per cent of current U.S. crude oil consumption. The new pipeline would add just 1 per cent to the quarter of a million kilometres of existing oil pipelines that criss-cross North America. “Why, if pipeline safety is a key concern, have we not seen waves of civil disobedience?” he asked in a recent commentary. As for the biggest objection to Alberta’s “dirty oil” – the fact that it produces more carbon dioxide than other oil sources – he says that, in 2010 alone, China’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 780 million tons. That’s more than 40 times the annual emissions of all the oil that would flow through Keystone.

holymoly's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The beauty is that we don't have to choose. We can harvest our own energy and clean up our past messes. Unless there is another magical sourse of energy available. It's gotta be oil. Our oil or Arab oil?

No doubt, in the future we will find a replacement for oil. But we live in the present. So until then, drill baby drill. Or pay baby pay.

rigel1's picture
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Speaking of cleaning up......who had to foot the tab to clean up the spill in Michigan 2 years ago? I believe that you still cannot use the river!

MrsBJLee's picture
Feb. 17, 2012 9:45 am

Latest Headlines

Who rejected United States-North Korea peace talks?

There were conflicting reports on Sunday regarding a recent proposal for United States-North Korea peace talks which was allegedly made before North Korea"s recent nuclear test

U.K. Pound Falls As Markets Get Brexit Jitters

Bloomberg said on Monday the pound had sustained its biggest fall against the dollar in 11 months

Clinton: I'll defend Israel but push for 'two-state solution

Hillary Clinton believes both Republican candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz "missed the mark" with their approach to the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict

Big Oil Could Have Put A Dent In CO2 Emissions In 1970s — But Did Nothing

According to new documents from the Center for International Environmental Law, the industry chose to prioritize costs over the planet.

The new documents show oil companies chose to invest in climate denying instead of on technologies to reduce emissions.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system