#keystone pipeline definition

[kitkatt0430]

for the AU 5+ headcanons ask game, Cisco takes a leap of faith and tells Barry he's in love with him somewhere in the middle or second half of season 1. i hope it's a prompt that works for you?

I do love a good Barrisco headcanon. This'll be cute. ^_^

So Cisco tags along to karaoke night with Barry and Caitlin and instead of Linda showing up to hit on Barry, Cisco takes the opportunity while Caitlin is singing to tell Barry how he feels. And Barry is surprised - not necessary blind sided, but he's definitely having a 're-evaluating events' moment. Caitlin calls them up to sing with her before Barry can really respond. So Cisco just kinda assumes that they're gonna leave things as friends and be a little awkward about it at first.

However, Barry is aware that being left hanging sucks and so as soon as they've squared away drunken Caitlin on Cisco's couch for the night, he asks Cisco on a date. And apologizes for not responding earlier. He was surprised and taking care of their drunk friend was kinda the priority, but he likes Cisco a lot and the idea of going on a date with Cisco is giving him all the butterflies, so... Cisco cuts him off with a chaste kiss before Barry can get too into rambling mode and agrees to the date.

Their first date they start off both trying a bit too hard because they're nervous but once they realize that's why things are a bit stilted, they both laugh and unwind and it's a wonderful date.

Barry realizes that something is up with Cisco with regards to Hartley and it's more than just Hartley being a jerk to Cisco in the past. So Cisco loops Barry into the whole thing about Ronnie maybe being alive and how guilty Cisco feels about being the one who closed Ronnie into the pipeline in the first place. So Barry gets to be a supportive BF both in helping Cisco deal with his survivor's guilt and with getting info out of Hartley regarding what really happened to Ronnie the night the accelerator exploded. Hartley still winds up escaping somehow but Cisco doesn't have to bear that weight alone this time.

I think Barry would turn down the bowling double date here, citing that it's still early in his relationship with Cisco and he wants their date that evening to be just the two of them. Since Cisco is well aware of Barry's feelings for Iris, Barry wants to make sure Cisco feels secure in their relationship before doing any double dates with Iris.

During the day that wasn't, Barry and Iris do not kiss (hate that kiss anyway, any reason to throw it out) but Barry does call Cisco for help with the oncoming storm problem that's poised to decimate both Central City and Keystone. Only EoWells answers Cisco's phone because, um... Cisco cannot come to the phone right now. Barry doesn't think hard on it at the time because DANGER ahead is more pressing. But after resetting time it definitely sticks out to him as strange.

Lisa does not manage to honey trap Cisco because Cisco is flattered, but not interested and this is his boyfriend right here, isn't he so cute? Which means that the Snarts + Rory go with plan b which is kidnapping both Cisco and Barry. Cisco stalls for time until they're down to just Mick watching them and when Mick isn't paying attention Barry knocks him out and rescues Cisco and Dante. Dante comes out of the ordeal shaken but otherwise unscathed and impressed with his brother's courage. It's the first step towards mending their relationship and moving them more towards being the close & supportive brothers Cisco and Dante are in the comics.

Somehow Len does figure out Barry's identity from this (hidden camera?) and thus Barry does still have to make his deal with Len. But Len's outta luck if he wants Cisco to build him new guns. Good thing Len made blueprints off the original guns in case he had to make new ones the hard way. (Barry - that is not in any way a good thing >_<)

The experience is still traumatic enough for Cisco that it triggers his nightmares/early manifestation of his vibes of the timeline where he died. Good thing Barry is there in bed with Cisco to hold him after startling awake from that. Barry soothes Cisco back to being calm and listens to Cisco talk about the nightmare afterwards and while he doesn't know what to make of Cisco's subconscious associating Dr. Wells with the Reverse Flash, he does know that the idea of losing Cisco terrifies him. And, huh, for some reason he's reminded of how weird it was for Dr. Wells to answer Cisco's phone in the day that wasn't...

Being with Cisco mellows out Barry's 'don't tell Iris' reflex so when Eddie finds out about Barry being the Flash and wants to tell Iris the truth, Barry agrees over Joe's protests, noting that keeping her in the dark hasn't actually protected Iris the way Joe insisted it would. So the whole situation actually makes Iris & Eddie closer instead of causing the relationship drama from canon.

Finding out that Cisco's nightmare actually happened for real? Infuriates Barry. Cisco has to talk Barry down from going after Wells immediately, but Barry is just done with Wells taking away the people he loves. Killing his mom, framing his father, and now killing Cisco in another timeline? Which might also be when Barry realizes that he's fallen in love with Cisco and doesn't want to be without him.

The Iris West-Allen newspaper byline is explained by Gideon to be from the OG timeline, but it still shakes Cisco, who doesn't quite realize Barry is relieved that's not from this timeline. Eddie questions his decision to propose to Iris afterwards, but Barry pushes him to go forward regardless of what Joe might think. That timeline is gone and they should focus on living their lives for themselves, not live up to the destinies of people who lived entirely different lives from them.

Eobard still tries to break up Iris and Eddie while he has Eddie kidnapped, but Gideon nonchalantly updates the by line to West-Thawne and Eobard takes the psychic damage instead.

Eobard tries dangling the whole 'save your mother, reset to the real timeline' carrot in front of Barry but Barry talks things over with his dad and admits he doesn't want to give up the life he's building with Cisco for the life he could have had with Iris, but he wants to save his mom so much... Henry is able to talk Barry out of the time travel this time.

Cisco is of course very surprised when Barry comes back from Iron Heights and puts an end to any time ship building. They're not helping Eobard Thawne in any way. They wind up talking through everything and Barry tells Cisco he loves him.

Cisco - *heart eyes* I love you too, Barry.

Eobard escapes and tries to force Barry to cooperate anyway, but Cisco uses his vibe blasts instinctively to protect Barry. Eobard swears he'll be back, but he's concerned about risking Cisco accidentally severing him from his speed entirely - made easier by Eobard's speed still being so unstable - so he hoofs it out of town, faking his death in the process. The Harrison Wells identity is well and truly burned, so he might as well give Barry something he wants. That way it'll hurt all the more the next time Eobard takes something - someone - away from him.

Thus Ronnie and Eddie survive the S1 finale, but there's a lead in for a Rogues centered S2 with Snart getting the gang together - not just the metas from the pipeline that he rescues from Team Flash, but Hartley as well - pushing the Earth-2/Zoom story line to Season 3.

[diatribeofamadman]

#39

Global calamity.

We're facing it regardless of what we do. Essentially regardless the cause, Earth will one day be uninhabitable. However, I get frustrated that we seem in such a hurry too Make it uninhabitable. I'm not on the global warming gravy train trying to end coal mining. I'm also not for the keystone pipeline. But this rant is specifically regarding geoengineering in the form of cloud seeding. A dirty little practice that should be be considered an act of war. The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, was signed in '77 and enacted in '78. Although we argue that encouraging rain in California is not a hostile act regarding weather modification. We apparently seem more than ready and willing to neglect any consideration of how adjustments to weather in one area will have effects on weather in another. This means that we don't need to use modifications to cause drought in Iran. We can simply encourage moisture in California, therefore evaporating that available moisture from the other areas that it would have otherwise fallen onto. Causing trout in Iran. This is definitely not the case, just a metaphor to understand that everything is connected, everything we do matters, we see that clearly regarding the ecosystem in North America post colonial devastation. Damned up rivers prevent fish from respawning. Roads and fences disrupt migratory routes. And pipelines that could be maintained and could have failed safes in regards to a double piping system don't. Because greedy cocksucking mother fucking Jeffrey Epstein like assholes have the money and want to keep it that way. Fuck you all have a good night.

[financialsmatter]

“Winter of Severe Illness and Death”

In Case You Missed it, the winter of severe illness and death was a quote from Stinky Joe last year as a veiled threat. O’Biden publicly chastised the unvaxxed population last year saying: Do the “right thing,” and you will “get through this.” And he went on to say: Those selfish enough to choose medical autonomy were “looking at a winter of severe illness and death for yourselves, your families, and the hospitals you may soon overwhelm.” And now we know how that worked out. Ironically (or NOT) we now have definitive proof that Pfizer did not test the vaccine against transmission. As a result, Governments globally pushed a false narrative, a blatant lie, to force people to take these dangerous vaccines. And O’Biden’s memorable speech demonized a large portion of the population. What’s even more amazing is now that the lies of the CoronaHoax have finally been revealed, the White House is still pushing Americans to receive yet another booster. So, don’t be surprised when Washington and the CDC unleashes a new marketing campaign to sell the toxic shots…just in time for the midterm election. Fortunately, fewer will comply this time. In fact, Politico reported that they expect less than 30% of the population to receive the next clot-shot. Upcoming Severe Illness and Death But here’s the bad news. 2023 will be the winter of death and destruction. But it won’t be because of COVID. Wait, What? The energy crisis will cause death and destruction, as will the war in Ukraine and every nation they pull into their money laundering war/scam. Meanwhile, our resident Brandon keeps getting the finger from our “alleged allies” in Saudi Arabia.         Maybe Joe needs to beg more. Or Maybe he needs to threaten them with “Nuclear Armageddon.” Or maybe, JUST MAYBE instead of depleting our precious oil reserves – and looking like a fool to the rest of the world – we should re-open the Keystone Pipeline. Another choice would be to follow the advice of the Global Climate Expert (A 19-year-old autistic girl named Greta) and use nuclear energy. READ: When Hypocrisy Meets Freezing to Death (HERE) SPOILER ALERT…these problems won’t just disappear. But you can learn how to profit from the madness we’re facing. And the easiest way to do so is by reading the October issue of “…In Plain English” (HERE). Seeing the world with a different set of eyes “…In Plain English” helps you understand how to prosper AND thrive in Turbulent Times. What are you waiting for? Go (HERE) now! And share this with a friend who might be worried about another winter of severe illness and death. They’ll thank YOU later. We’re Not Just About Finance. But we use finance to give you hope. FYI ************************** Invest with confidence. Sincerely, James Vincent The Reverend of Finance Copyright © 2022 It's Not Just About Finance, LLC, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Read the full article

[rockyp77mk3]

Biden doesn't have control over oil prices. OPEC does you brainless twit. One thing you can blame on Biden. He doesn't whine like Trump did/does. Everyday Trump would complain that people were picking on him. Trump is to Blame for all of the turmoil and anger and divisiveness in this country now. He loves turmoil. He loves the attention. For 5 years he talked about infrastructure but he didn't do a damn thing about it. Instead, he gave the rich and the corporations tax breaks and you didn't get a fucking thing.

I would like to thank you for one of those rare questions that presents me with the problem of not knowing where to begin to tell you how wrong you truly are. It is the very definition of a target rich environment.

1. Oil is a commodity much like orange juice or pork bellies. Therefore, when Biden cancelled the Keystone pipeline, ended oil exploration on government lands and otherwise restricted oil production on US soil, the price of this commodity automatically started to rise. This was a windfall for OPEC, Russia, China, etc. It damaged the US economy, security, and energy independence. It also directly increased inflation by increasing the cost of transporting goods to market. As a by product it shifted some petroleum refining to other countries who do not give the furry crack of a rat's behind about clean air or water and increased the carbon released into the atmosphere.

2. I'm pretty sure that a chant of "C'mon man" can be considered a low intensity whine. It is also not an answer to a reporter's question.

3. I am also sure that the anger and divisiveness in the country is the result of lies (Steele Dossier, Russian collusion, etc), and leftist butthurt at Hillary losing. Trump was hounded from day one by a hostile media biased firmly for the hard left and was never given a chance. Still Trump accomplished more for America in his first week than Biden has in eleven months.

4. Congress has to pass all spending. It is in the Constitution, you may have heard of it. The president can propose and ask congress but the executive branch cannot legislate spending. Trump wanted real infrastructure reconstruction but the "Honorable" members of Congress were far too busy with false charges and truly stupid impeachment drills to act on anything to benefit the people of the country.

5. Over taxing the rich or anyone else, and trust me everyone is about to feel the iron shod boot of the IRS on their necks pretty soon, is not an answer. High taxes impede growth. Smart spending is the solution.

6. "Brainless twit"? Seriously? That is the best you can do?

[187days]

Day Ninety-Nine

So. I mentioned yesterday that I decided to change up the lesson I’d planned for today, and I’m glad I did because it turned out super well. 

In Block 1, I started by asking students what they’d written their current events about. Where there was some initial shyness yesterday, there was none today; three or four hands went up immediately. We discussed scientists studying an asteroid’s composition, the FBI searching for people involved in the terrorist attack on the Capitol, the upcoming Gozilla vs. King Kong movie (my class thinks Godzilla will win), the Keystone XL pipeline, the hippos attacking towns in Colombia (every time that story comes up it catches someone’s attention)... It was good. 

After that, we did some vocab practice. I had students study independently for about ten minutes, then do a crossword I’d made on Studystack. Then we played a game: I wrote all the vocab terms on the board, divided the class into two teams, and gave each team an eraser; in each round, I gave a definition, and someone from each team had to run up to the board to erase the correct word; whoever got it first got a point. It was silly, and spirited, and I got a few requests to play again on Monday (obviously, I said yes to that). After the game, we took a quick break, and then I gave out books (I’d asked students to review my book list and choose their top three for homework). I explained the paper they’ll eventually write, and read a finished paper from last semester aloud with them as an example, and then gave them the remainder of class (roughly twenty minutes) to begin reading. That was a perfect amount of time for them to start, I think.

In Block 2, I assigned seats at the beginning of class, which sparked a somewhat predictable uproar. I told students that there had been too much disruptive, off-task behavior yesterday and the day before, and it was affecting everyone’s academics, so I wasn’t going to allow it to continue. The students who’ve been disruptive and off-task said I was being stupid and unfair, a couple of them called me a communist (which is such a sign of the times, right?), and one flat out refused to move. He cussed me out, so I sent him to The Vice Principal’s office, seated the rest of class, and told them they could call me whatever they wanted, grumble as much as they needed to, etc... I said it doesn’t hurt me, and it won’t change how I operate; I care about them and their academic success, and I make my decisions based on that. Now, I’m pretty confident in my classroom management decisions at this point in my career (not saying I’m perfect, but I think I have good instincts by now), but if I wasn’t, the relief on the faces of the students who’d been stressed by the disruptions would’ve been enough to reassure me that I’d done the right thing. And class went totally smoothly after that, even when the student I’d sent out came back, which is also pretty telling. 

I didn’t do exactly the same lesson as I did in Block 1, but I started the same way: with current events. Then, because some students had asked me if we could watch all of 4.1 Miles after I showed the clip from it yesterday, I did that, and we discussed the situation in Syria (and also Afghanistan and Yemen) now, how it might trigger another round of mass migration, etc... So that got us talking current events for a bit longer. Then I had students do the vocab crossword, but I didn’t play the game with them because I thought that would just invite bad behavior again. Plus, the timing worked out so they finished the crossword right before lunch. After lunch, I gave out books and had them start reading, which mostly worked. One or two were very slow to begin, but that’s to be expected. Reading is a challenge for a lot of people.

But, overall, both blocks were good, I’m happy with the decisions I made, and now it’s the weekend! Woohoo!

[rjzimmerman]

President Biden’s first blunder as he tries to establish his environmental and climate change credentials. The administration basically told the judge that it had not yet made up its mind about what to do with the Dakota Access Pipeline, probably reacting to conflicting positions taken by separate Native American tribes. Some want it shut down and others, whose members work the oil fields in North Dakota, want it to continue operating. Additionally, he wants a complete environmental review from the Corps of Engineers to ease the basis of his decision, and that review is still in process. Regardless: wrong decision.

Excerpt from this story from the Duluth News Tribune:

President Joe Biden's administration said in a federal court hearing Friday, April 9, that it would not force an immediate shutdown of the Dakota Access Pipeline during an environmental review, likely leaving the fate of the embattled project in a judge's hands.

The much-anticipated announcement came as short-term relief to a North Dakota oil industry that has been on edge for months awaiting clarity on the new Democratic White House's intentions for the pipeline. It's also a blow to environmental and Indigenous groups who have seen Dakota Access as a test of the new administration's climate priorities.

Though the administration was mum on the years-long Dakota Access dispute in the first months of Biden's presidency, officials staked an initial position in Friday's status hearing before a federal judge. A Department of Justice attorney told the court that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not have plans to shut the pipeline down "at this time," though he said that could change based on their ongoing environmental review and consultations with North Dakota and tribal officials.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg told attorneys that he was "a little surprised" that the Army Corps hadn't reached a more definitive position at this point. The federal agency was previously scheduled to present its plans for the pipeline before Boasberg in February, but the judge granted them an extension at the time.

The further delay from the Biden administration may leave the fate of Dakota Access to Boasberg, the same federal judge who ordered an immediate shutdown of Dakota Access last summer. That order was overruled by a federal appellate court, but the tribes opposed to the pipeline filed a separate shutdown motion before Boasberg last fall. The judge's ruling on that motion could come down this spring.

Many observers had billed the Friday hearing as a moment of truth for the new administration's intentions for the controversial pipeline. Two federal courts in the last year agreed that Dakota Access is operating without a key legal permit at the Missouri River crossing, and in January an appellate court deferred to the Army Corps to decide how to handle the pipeline's tenuous legal status.

The Biden White House came out of the gates with several warning shots to the oil industry, and calls for the administration to take swift action against Dakota Access were energized by the president's Day One decision to cancel a permit for the not-yet-completed Keystone XL oil pipeline.

But North Dakota officials and leadership from the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, an oil-producing American Indian tribe in North Dakota, each sent letters to the Army Corps in recent weeks requesting meetings before any drastic action is taken regarding the pipeline. Department of Justice attorney Ben Schifman told Boasberg that the Army Corps wants an opportunity to take those consultations into account as it decides how to proceed.

[indizombie]

David Braziel, CEO of RBN Energy, an energy markets consultancy based in Houston, Texas, said that when the Keystone XL project was first announced, back in 2005, the U.S. was certainly in need of the additional capacity that would have been produced.  But as the project continued to stall, the industry found alternative supply chains. Producers began relying more on rail to transport oil supplies while other pipelines expanded incrementally to help move those additional barrels to U.S. markets, Braziel said.  The U.S. is also counting on the expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which heads west from Alberta to B.C. and connects with a pipeline to Washington state, and Enbridge Line 3, which also begins in Alberta and crosses Minnesota to Superior, Wis. In late July, the Trump administration approved the existing Keystone pipeline to ship 29 per cent more Canadian crude into the U.S. Midwest and Gulf Coast. "So, there's a lot of additional capacity that could come on to fill the gaps. If the Keystone XL was there, [we would] definitely use it, but if it's not there, then there are other ways to get to market," Braziel said.

Mark Gollum, ‘Why the U.S. isn't in desperate need of the Keystone XL pipeline’, CBC

[confusedawkwardadipose]

Hey! I realized that I hadn't considered something.

So President Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement! That is cool, in my opinion.

Second thing I realized... President Biden ended work on the pipeline we were building with Canada.

I'm going to say that again.

President Biden ceased building the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Let's consider a few things:

Working on the pipeline was halted

The pipeline would be transporting fuels

Fuels will still be transported without the pipeline

People invested money into the pipeline

Working on the pipeline was halted. This means that the people who were being paid to work on it are out of a job. Just how many people is that? Interestingly enough, it depends on where you hear the information from. There are some sources saying upwards of thousands. Fact- checking sites say about 1,000. Why is there such a big difference? Well, from what I read, the pipeline was supposed to employ an estimated 11,000 people over the time span of it being built. However, these jobs were also mean to be temporary. The 11,000 figure is from the amount of people it employed total over time, from my understanding. Be that as it may, even a thousand people is significant, even if they are employed in temporary jobs.

Also to my understanding, the pipeline would serve as a method of transportation of fuel. It's design was meant to be efficient and actually decrease the amount of fuel. (The fuel, I believe, was from Canada and I know for a fact that they have different rules and regulations pertaining to fuels). I believe the pipeline was an alternative to transportation via train, which ironically creates its own pollution.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that the money to build this pipeline likely didn't come from nowhere. These sorts of things take investors, some of which may actually be communities of people that really needed this sort of investment to work in order to profit.

All in all, this post is an observation. There were sources that said if the pipeline ran, there would be definitive water pollution that would affect other people. However, stopping the progress on the pipeline means that the economy takes a small hit.

In my opinion, how you see this event may directly correlate to how you see these trade- offs presented. I don't try to be partisan, but I'm aware each version of the same event impacts each person of each political belief differently.

Mind you, President Biden isn't the only President that signed somewhat counter-intuitive legislature initially drafted for a good reason.

President Trump signed the Great American Outdoors Act. This act funds land and water conservation as well as protects the national parks in the United States. However, the funds used to preserve our national parks come from money generated by "royalties from offshore oil and natural gas." In order to preserve our land, we have to destroy other people's land.

Really makes you think, a bit, about how we problem solve.

[pamelasuebond]

The sun’ll come out tomorrow

Several twitters this week stated that President Joe Biden is a cold and calloused man because he has done nothing to address the gasoline prices crisis going on at the pump. The per gallon price Americans are paying is well over seven dollars. Of course, Republicans are quick to point out that prices were less than half of that amount when Donald J. Trump left office.

Some of the cost increase is directly the result of inflation; some of it came from the change in plans to build the Keystone XL Pipeline; some of the cost developed because of President Biden’s concern about climate control; and much of the increase came because most nations that produce fossil fuels for consumption are run by dictators who deliberately attack and thwart American consumers.

Vladimir Putin is the dictator under discussion most often this year because Russia is the second largest producer of natural gas and because Russia started a war against Ukraine in February. The United States is the largest producer of natural gas; Iran is third. Petroleum reserves are mostly highly controlled by Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Canada in that order.

Vladimir Putin stopped deliveries of natural gas to Ukraine back in 2008 as the result of a payment squabble. The same type of difficulties developed with Poland and Bulgaria this year. Next there was Finland which Putin describes as “unfriendly” secondary to their application to NATO,and now this week he has cut off supplies to the Netherlands and Denmark.

Russians have not thought about the European reaction to naked men fleeing countryside villages with blood soaked hands spritzed with human feces. To pictures of beheaded children with their heads stuffed in medicine closets ripped off of bathroom walls. Friendship is not a subject Russians will be allowed to broach in a European future.

Europe is claiming that they don’t want to pay their gas bills in Rubles because the Russian bookkeeping system breaks down in too many areas of penalties and outright cheating. The type of money required actually raises the price of gas. Europe also does not want to bolster the Russian economy by purchasing gas, cutting consumption is a kind of sanction.

Germany cut their consumption of gas this year by decreasing the 55% of their national supply purchased from Russia to 35%. Europe as a whole plans to decrease their total consumption of gas by 66% percent by the end of the year. Putin’s goal of holding veritable nations hostage to his psychological lessons is not at all attractive to the cravings of the democratic European mind. According to the Copenhagen criteria EU countries must have “stable, democratic institutions which can insure the protection EU’s fundamental values.”

As a part of their intentions not to remain dependent on Russian gas deliveries they plan to insulate buildings better, erect farms producing Green energy like wind and solar facilities, and pay strict attention to common sense conservation efforts. Fossil fuels developed in a geological past not controlled by human deduction take a geological era system to reproduce. Green energy is by its very definition renewable on a human being type of timeline.

Ukraine learned today that their application to EU has been accepted; they will become a member. Georgia and Moldova applied after the February Russian invasion of Ukraine. North Macedonia, Turkey, Albania, and Serbia are also on the waiting list. EU has not accepted any new members since 2013. Leaders of Italy and France have suggested a two tier speed for Europe to deal with a the process of joining the European Union which may now require “decades”.

Written by Pamela Bond ic

[annette-macroecon]

Chapter 13

1. The first topic(s) that I found interesting were those of open and closed economies. By definition a closed economy is “an economy that does not interact with other economies in the world.” An open economy is “an economy that interacts freely with other economies around the world.” The idea that caught my attention was closed economies. Not only was it a term I had never really heard of, but it immediately made me wonder if we had any countries that are truly closed economies. I did a little research and learned that there are no countries that are completely closed; every country interacts with at least one other. The closest thing we have to a fully closed economy is a tribe called the  Sentinelese who live on an island in the Indian ocean. They refuse any and all contact with outsiders and attack anyone who comes near their island. Though they are not their own country, they definitely live in a closed economy. I learned that every country in the world is considered an open economy because they all rely on each other for imports, exports, or something of that manner.

2. The next topic that intrigued me is the idea of imports and exports. Though I already knew these terms, I feel that they are highly relevant in our society today. With everything happening with Russia as well as the shutdown of the keystone pipeline, our economy is changing greatly. We now need to import thousands of gallons of oil and gas every day, but this soon may be affected by the conflicts with Russia. What we were used to in the ways of regulating our resources are now changed and will continue to do so for a long time. Learning more about the importance, costs, and dependence on our imports and exports really makes me think more about how scary the world can be if one thing goes wrong.

3. Finally,  the last topic that I enjoyed reading about was depreciation and appreciation. When I think of these two words I naturally think about cars and homes. When you purchase a home, it appreciates over time, on the other hand, when you purchase a car it depreciates almost immediately. I tend to attribute these words to purchasable goods as that is all I've been previously taught. In chapter 13 the concepts of appreciation and depreciation were instead used to describe the changing values of money rather than goods. Rather than the value of the good itself changing, it is instead the value of the money being spent on the good that is changing. This makes perfect sense however I have never thought about these concepts in this manner, so it was really cool to get a different perspective.

[gaycey-sketchit]

(Gary anon) And it lead to him being one the most famous Pokemon memes. (Yeah, this site can get pretty brutal when it comes to certain [fandom] opinions; seem quite a few people get exiled here for the silliest of things) Now both parties have big families feel with friends and Pokemon! (Heh, I always pictured Gary being more punctual when it came to giving his grandpa updates. If he and Ash ever traveled together, for Delia if she by the house, he's the closest to a pipeline on getting a)

.

(Part 2) (consistent status on her son. It's awkward for him on both ends, because he has to give an answer that isn't totally lying but doesn't cause any alarms, while giving Ash not-so-subtle gestures to call his mom) I think I've seen a few get a head-start; we're just 3 weeks away from it. (I still think Gary was intentionally nerfed in that fight. Didn't expect him to really stop anything, but he definitely could have done more, or come back later with the main group) I think it might be

(Part 3) mainly Ash rivals getting physical appearances, but if we were to get to lucky, Zoey and Drew feel like the most likely for non-Ash ones. (I hope so; Paul [and maybe a few other rivals] being here for a possible rematch is making me think it might not happen. Or we'll get something 'smaller' battle-wise than what's planned for Paul) I don't see Gary secretly being in PWC, but I could see them compensate for being the only glaring person who isn't Champion. And it really depends on

(Part 4) what happens after Leon; or rather, how many episodes left) Me and a few others have a theory involving Cynthia and her likely match with Ash, and it might be showcased through Iris on what he's to expect. (A few clips shown for the episode yesterday; I'm already dreading T-tar's debut, which doesn't bold well for Arcanine either since Umbreon is looking to be the final last stand) Tokio has a similar goal to Goh, plus he was unintentionally one of the reasons why Goh had trust

(Part 5) (issues and didn't make friends often) I actually thought he could be the last Chaser; not a lot of choices seem to fit. I expect teamwork on their end similar to Ash and Gary's back then. (Clemont and Bonnie will have a 1-hour special for the anniversary. Clemont is going to helping Ash with training and what looks to be Dracovish and *Sirfetch'd development) *Most are predicting its signature move here. (Drasna is the next Ultra Class opponent and finally debut in the anime)

(Part 6) (Her rank is 12th and Ash is 15th; if he wins I guess he'll be 9-10th. With likely Flint or Paul next; I think we might get another Masters drop or those two being set up for Ash) Mega Altaria being in the match here is making me question if the Syvleon trainer is Lisia; but she had a Keystone in the OP.

Oh, I remember the era of Gary Motherfucking Oak memes. What a time to be alive (and using the internet) that was.

Yeah. There also this really concerning "one strike, you're out" mentality that seems prevalent in a lot of online spaces, and this tendency to just... assume the worst of anyone who makes a mistake. Freaks me out.

Yeah! Good for them!

Oh man, that’s great. Love that.

So soon! I dug up some of my unfinished PalletShipping oneshots and I’m going to attempt to finish at least one in time.

Yeah, it’s unfortunate. He had such a rough time in DP for like... no discernable reason. But at least he’s doing well now.

Oh, I would love to see Drew again. And in my RespectShipping heart I would love for him to see Ash again.

Yeah, I don’t see Gary having any involvement in the PWC--Project Mew probably has him busy enough. I feel like a battle between he and Ash (if it happens) would just be for fun. I guess we’ll have to see what happens.

Oh boy, poor Tyranitar getting felled by an Articuno of all things... ouch. I need to see the clips myself though. (Or maybe I’ll just see when the episode drops the day after tomorrow. Sorry it is taking me so darn long to answer this, DST threw off my sleep schedule and I keep waking up too late to have time to do much before I have responsibilities.)

Yeah, I remember him now! It’s just been. Quite a while since we saw him. I do think it’s nice he’s showing up again with more plot relevance! And it does make sense, yeah; excited to see how all four of them work together.

Oh, good for them! That should be interesting.

Ooh, Drasna. I remember her from the games. Good for her making her anime debut.

Ash has really climbed up the ranks! I can’t believe how close to the end we are.

Hm, I wonder.

[telltale-vixen]

I’m telling you, one thing we can definitely do as Americans right now is urge our people in Congress and the White House to reopen the Keystone pipeline. Seriously, write to every senator and representative in your state and not encourage, but DEMAND that the Keystone pipeline be reopened!

[ryanlevyblst129blog]

Blog Assignment 1/14/22

Blog Post

In the prologue of his work, “Stamped From The Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America,” author Ibram Kendi discusses numerous ideas to show how racial disparities date back to even before America was founded. This is such an important work for everyone to read and understand today. It seems as though whenever we turn on the news, we hear of another unarmed black man senselessly gunned down by the police. However, as Kendi shows, this is an issue that has ties dating back centuries. One thing that Kendi tries to point out through the prolougue is from where racial disparities originate. To understand this, Kendi points out three different viewpoints for its causes: “A group we can call segregationists has blamed Black people themselves for racial disparities. A group we can call antiracists has pointed to racial discrimination. A group we can call assimilationists has tried to argue both, saying that black people and racial discrimination were to blame for racial disparities” (Kendi, P.2).

These countering arguments have all been used to explain the violence against the African American community in the United States. In order to fully understand these three viewpoints, one must look back at the racist history of the United States. These three perspectives are vitally important to understanding how people respond to the injustice towards the Black community. It is clear that there are countless issues, as these viewpoints stem from racist ideologies beginning years and years in the past.  Kendi’s analysis only touches the surface here, as the connection between the past and present is important to a deeper understanding.

Shifting to another work titled “Settler Colonialism as Structure: A Framework for Comparative Studies of U.S. Race and Gender Formation,'' author Evelyn Nakano Glenn, seeks to understand a concept called Settler Colonialism. As stated in the reading, “It is a framework that highlights commonalities in the history and contemporary situation of indigenous peoples in many parts of the world.” However, although it may seem to be best suited to explain the racialization and treatment of indigenous peoples, I agree with Patrick Wolfe (1999) that settler colonialism should be seen not as an event but as an ongoing structure. The logic, tenets, and identities engendered by settler colonialism persist and continue to shape race, gender, class, and sexual formations into the present. To summarize, settler colonialism is the process by which foreigners push out an indigenious population from their land and settle it as their own.

This is very clearly and obviously what took place in the founding of the United States, as European settlers moved across the lands, removing the indiegnous Native Americans from their land and claiming it as their own. This historical event was certainly an early example of settler colonialism, yet it influences the current makeup of the United States.

While the practice of settler colonialism is strongly looked down upon as something many of our ancestors did, it has not gone away. Instead, it has taken a different form to cover up what is still taking place. In order to increase profits, oil companies, with the help of many members of the United States government, have pushed for building numerous pipelines that run through indigenous land. One such example that has received a great deal of attention is the Keystone pipeline. This pipeline runs through several sacred and ancestral native lands. This pipeline is an example of settler colonialism still existing in the United States today. Indigenous people continue to be pushed away and even arrested for resisting these mega organizations and the financial disparities among different groups of people.  

Racial issues in the United States have been around since the beginning of the United States. Whether it is towards African Americans or the Indigenous people of the land, it has been a major problem throughout our history. While racial disparities have been discussed for many years, it does not appear to be going away anytime soon. However, as more people become informed about the problems and learn the history, change can happen.

[nativeskins]

More than 500 treaties have been made between the government and Indian tribes and all were broken, nulllified or amended. Nothing's changed. 

The mere fact that the Keystone XL oil pipeline has even been considered is a violation of law and shouldn’t have seen blueprints, let alone having this North American monster voted on by the Senate and House of Representatives.

The unmitigated arrogance of it all! U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators had no right to even vote on the Keystone XL. A treaty is a law, and breaking a treaty, or attempting to break a treaty, is a criminal act. Democratic U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu is no better than the vilest of all miscreant reprobates – for throwing her version of the bill before her Senate peers. To think that a Democrat would be behind this thing is appalling to me. I've always believed the Democratic Party was the “Party of the People” and the political party that looks out for of the interests of the working class, the poor, even the underdog. Certainly, Democratic Senators would at least be sensitive to treaties the government has in place with American Indians. Well, it's definitely not the case with U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Political analysts have concluded that Landrieu’s stake in politicking for the Keystone XL was entirely self-serving. Facing Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy, who authored the bill for the U.S. House (which passed the bill Friday, Nov. 14), Landrieu's main intent in all this was to save her seat in a Dec. 6 runoff reelection in Louisiana, Vying again for her fourth term in a matter of days, Sen. Landrieu's Senate bill would have been a crowd pleaser in a state where energy is the leading industry.

In the Nov. 4 general election, Landrieu got only 14 percent of the white vote and she needs at least 30 percent of this demographic to win Dec. 6's runoff. On Nov. 4, the vote was too close to call, necessitating another election, with Landrieu getting 42 percent and Cassidy getting 41 percent. Tea Party candidate Rob Maness (R), got just under 14 percent and his support is expected to sway to Cassidy in the runoff election.    

Called “an act of war” by the president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, the Keystone XL proposal is a terrible thing. The Republican-led House is a room filled with criminals; and if the standard elementary definition of a "criminal" is defined as anyone who breaks a law – and since treaties are laws - I have no problem calling these “good and great” law breakers criminals.

"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” Cyril Scott, president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, is attributed to have said  the day after the House voted in favor of the Keystone XL.

Continue reading the full article here.

[patriotsnet]

Will Republicans Take Back The House

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/will-republicans-take-back-the-house/

Will Republicans Take Back The House

Republicans Positive To Win Back Both Chambers

Will Republicans take back the House?

Republican Sen. Rick Scott said, “This is going to be like 2010, 2012, 2014 where we pick up seats because of Obama’s agenda.” He also added, “Now what I talk about every day is do we want open borders? No. Do we want to shut down our schools? No. Do we want men playing in women’s sports? No. Do we want to shut down the Keystone Pipeline? No. Do we want voter ID? Yes.”

He also added that the;Democratic lawmakers;and Biden Administration are on the opposite side, giving them the advantage in the upcoming midterm election.;

Big Odds For Republicans To Win Back The House Of Representatives Next Year

The internal consultation of the National Republican Congressional Committee revealed that their party has favorable conditions to retake the majority of seats in the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections to be held next year.;

Contributing to these good predictions is that voters prefer Republicans as their leaders, and the increased unfavorability of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to data provided by the NRCC website on April 26.;

Even the decennial census results are on the side of a Republican triumph because the data presented by the Census Bureau show that they gained seats in the new distribution, although it is not definitive.;

Likewise, throughout the 100 days of the Biden administration at the helm of the White House, Americans have become alerted to the convenience of changing the political course.;

In this regard, NRCC spokesman Mike Berg commented in a statement, The Democrats dangerous socialist agenda is providing the perfect roadmap for Republicans to regain the majority.

Among voters most pressing considerations are the border crisis and the rampant illegal immigration that the Biden and the Democrat open border policies have fostered.;

At least 75% of voters see the border situation as a crisis or significant problem, while 23% say the border is a minor problem or not a problem at all.

Thus, 57% of voters do not believe that the CCP Virus stimulus approved by Biden is helping them and their families.

Pelosi Tells Republicans To ‘take Back’ Party From ‘extreme Right’

Nancy Pelosi has urged her Republican colleagues to “take back” their party from those at on the extreme right.

Accepting an honorary degree from Smith College in Massachusetts, the Speaker of the House said that the “country needs a big, strong Republican party” so that politicians can compete ideas for governance. Ms Pelosi urged members to prevent the party from being “a cult of personality on the extreme, extreme, extreme right”.

“This isn’t about liberal or conservative, they don’t believe in governance” she added, “Take back your party, which has done so much for the country”.

You May Like: Trump 1998 People Magazine Interview

House And Senate Odds: Final Thoughts

There is less than 1% equity on the notion that Democrats will win the House and lose the Senate, because while New Hampshire could move in a weird, contradictory manner, if Democrats win the House, the nation will be sufficiently blue that they hold all three of Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, and they will gain Pennsylvania too.

Races are too nationalized and partisanship too entrenched for the Senate GOP to outrun a national environment blue enough to win the House, which means you can get a Democratic Congress for another term at $0.21. Its a better value than the House outright market for almost no extra risk, and thats the best kind of value.

Dont Miss: What Are The Main Differences Between Democrats And Republicans

Poll: 78% Of Capitol Hill Staffers Believe Gop Will Take Back The House In 2022

78% of Capitol Hill staffers believe that House Republicans are on track to reclaim the house majority in 2022, according to a new poll.

Capitol Hill staffers were asked a series of questions, gauging congressional support for President Bidens agenda and individual issues such as gun control in a new Punchbowl News poll.;While responses to individual issue questions fell down partisan lines, 78% of respondents indicated they believe the GOP will control the House of Representatives after the 2022 midterm elections.

Seventy-eight percent of senior Capitol Hill aides believe the Republicans will regain the House in 2022, according to a poll from Punchbowl#RepublicanParty#HouseOfRepresentatives#Nrcc#NancyPelosi#PunchbowlNews

H24 News US

The poll surveyed 158 staffers serving as chiefs of staff, legislative directors, press secretaries and communications directors to members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The partisan breakdown of the survey was fairly even with 80 respondents identifying as Democratic staffers and 78 respondents identifying as Republican staffers, according to Punchbowl.

Respondents also gave their predictions on which party will control the Senate, with 70% of respondents indicating their belief that Democrats will control the Senate after the 2022 midterm elections.

Punchbowls poll was conducted between May 11 and May 28.

You May Like: How Many Congressmen Are Republican

About Agf Management Limited

Founded in 1957, AGF Management Limited is an independent and globally diverse asset management firm. AGF brings a disciplined approach to delivering excellence in investment management through its fundamental, quantitative, alternative and high-net-worth businesses focused on providing an exceptional client experience. AGFs suite of investment solutions extends globally to a wide range of clients, from financial advisors and individual investors to institutional investors including pension plans, corporate plans, sovereign wealth funds and endowments and foundations.

For further information, please visit AGF.com.

Democrats Odds Of Keeping The House Are Slimming Fast

The Democratic House majority emerged from the 2020 election so bruised and emaciated that experts gave it less than three years to live.

In defiance of polling and pundit expectations, Republicans netted 11 House seats in 2020, leaving Nancy Pelosis caucus perilously thin. Since World War II, the presidents party has lost an average of 27 House seats in midterm elections. If Democrats lose more than four in 2022, they will forfeit congressional control.

If the headwinds facing House Democrats have been clear since November, the preconditions for overcoming those headwinds have also been discernible: The party needed Joe Biden to stay popular, the Democratic base to stay mobilized and, above all, for Congressional Democrats to level the playing field by banning partisan redistricting.

A little over 100 days into Bidens presidency, Democrats are hitting only one of those three marks.

Historically, theres been a strong correlation between the sitting presidents approval rating and his partys midterm performance. Only twice in the last three decades has the presidents party gained seats in a midterm election; in both cases, their approval ratings exceeded 60 percent.

The party that controls the presidency tends to gets less popular as time goes on, and future declines are surprisingly correlated with first quarter polling.Many reasons that this cycle might be different, but so far public polling points to Dems getting 48% on election day.

It didnt.

Don’t Miss: What Will Happen If Republicans Win

National View: Republican Resurgence In 2022 Already On The Horizon

Reading the political tea leaves 18 months in advance is as tricky as making a weather forecast for the same timeframe. But every so often, circumstances combine to increase the odds in the forecasters favor. Looking ahead to next years midterms is one of them. Because if things continue on their current course, Nov. 8, 2022, will be a very good night for Republicans around the country.

For starters, history is on the GOPs side going into the campaign. Theres a long track record of the incumbent presidents party losing seats during a midterm election. In fact, since 1934, only two presidents have enjoyed an increase in their partys numbers in the House and Senate: Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934 and George W. Bush in 2002.

Excluding those two exceptions, losses are big for the party that occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Especially for first-term presidents and particularly in the House. Consider Presidents Donald Trump , Barack Obama , Bill Clinton , Ronald Reagan , and Gerald Ford . All were shellacked at the ballot box, resulting in significantly fewer members of their party in the House of Representatives.

According to FiveThirtyEight, the GOP also has a turnout advantage in midterms. Under Republican presidents since 1978, the GOP has enjoyed a plus-one shift toward party identification for those who vote in midterm elections. That margin swells to plus-five under Democratic presidents.

A Zombie Republican Party Will Overwhelm Joe Biden In The 2022 Midterms

Representative Kevin McCarthy discusses if Republicans can take back the House in 2020

President Biden promised he will restore the soul of America. Hes already running out of time. The commander-in-chief is 78 and unlikely to see out more than one term in office. By the time the pandemic crisis passes mid-2021, inshallah Biden could find his administration has run out of gas before it ever really got started. A week is a long time in politics. Two years can whizz by.

For now, Biden appears to hold the aces. He has a Democratic majority in the House Of Representatives and his vice president, Kamala Harris, can cast the deciding vote in a split Senate. The economy, stimulated to its guts, is expected to roar as this year goes on. His opposition, the Republican Party, looks prone wrecked by its calamitous marriage to Donald Trump. The Republican base still hates the Republican establishment and vice versa. The infamous storming of the Capitol on 6 January, we are told, has tarnished the American right for a generation or more.

The Republican Party, for all its problems, remains the strong favourite to win the House in the 2022 midterms, possibly by a large margin, and they may even take back the Senate

Trump or no Trump, the Grand Old Party marches on. The mistake pundits make is to confuse Republicanism with a normal democratic movement. It is more like the political equivalent of the undead a zombie army that horrifies every sane voter but somehow always wins because people hate the Democrats more.

Recommended Reading: Are Democrats Red And Republicans Blue

Mcconnell: House Senate Gop Wins In 2022 Would Check Biden

Addison Mitchell McConnellHouse approves John Lewis voting rights measureThe Hills 12:30 Report Presented by AT&T Pelosis negotiates with centrists to keep Bidens agenda afloatMcConnell urges Biden to ignore Aug. 31 Afghanistan deadlineMORE on Thursday pledged that if Republicans win back control of Congress next year they could be a check against the Biden administration, forcing it into the political center.

McConnell, speaking at an event in Kentucky, said that American voters have a big decision to make in 2022, when control of both the House and Senate are up for grabs.

Do they really want a moderate administration or not? If the House and Senate were to return to Republican hands that doesnt mean nothing happens, McConnell said.

What I want you to know is if I become the majority leader again its not for stopping everything. Its for stopping the worst. Its for stopping things that fundamentally push the country into a direction that at least my party feels is not a good idea for the country, he added. And I could make sure Biden makes his promise to be a moderate.

Democrats are trying to keep their majorities in both the House, where they have a nine-seat advantage, and the Senate, which is evenly split but where they have the majority since Vice President Harris is able to break ties.

The Cook Political Report rates both the Pennsylvania and North Carolina seats as toss-ups, and Johnsons seat as lean R.

‘the Beast Is Growing’: Republicans Follow A Winning At All Costs Strategy Into The Midterms

Much remains uncertain about the midterm elections more than a year away including the congressional districts themselves, thanks to the delayed redistricting process. The Senate, meanwhile, looks like more of a toss-up.

House Democrats think voters will reward them for advancing President Joe Biden’s generally popular agenda, which involves showering infrastructure money on virtually every district in the country and sending checks directly to millions of parents. And they think voters will punish Republicans for their rhetoric about the Covid-19 pandemic and the 2020 election.

“Democrats are delivering results, bringing back the economy, getting people back to work, passing the largest middle-class tax cut in history, while Republicans are engaged in frankly violent conspiracy theory rhetoric around lies in service of Donald Trump,” said Tim Persico, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

But the challenges Democrats face are real and numerous.

They knew they would face a tough 2022 immediately after 2020, when massive, unexpected GOP gains whittled the Democratic majority to just a handful of seats.

“House Republicans are in a great position to retake the majority,” said Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Minn., who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, “but we are taking nothing for granted.”

His rural district had been trending Republican for years. Kind won re-election last year by just about 10,000 votes.

Don’t Miss: Will Any Republicans Vote For Impeachment

Republicans Are In An Excellent Position To Weasel Their Way Back To House Control

When the Democrats took control of all three branches of the federal government following the 2020 election, they did so with the slimmest margin possible â a 50/50 split in the Senate and an 11-seat advantage in the House of Representatives, which has already slipped to a margin of just eight votes, thanks to special elections and run-offs. The first test of how well that razor-thin Democratic advantage will hold will come in 2022, and it may be decided before a single vote is cast. A new study conducted by Democratic data firm TargetSmart and published by Mother Jones found that Republican-controlled state legislatures around the country could effectively take back control of Congress simply through the shady and dubious practice of gerrymandering.

Here’s the problem that faces Democrats with the 2022 election season approaching: Despite having control of the federal government, the left has lost ground at the state level. Republicans control 61 total chambers of state governments, including holding a trifecta in 23 states. In many of these states, the party with legislative control gets to re-draw the lines for congressional districts, allowing them to create bizarre borders that serve only to set up a favorable outcome. According to TargetSmart, Republicans will have the ability to re-draw 187 congressional districts, while Democrats will only control 75.

I Ultimately Decided Against Running For Congress In A Red District But My Research Found A Way For Democrats To Make Inroads In Such Places

Political pundits seem united in their belief that Democrats will struggle to hold the House of Representatives in 2022.

The historical precedent that the party out of power in the White House always gains in the midterms and the likely impact of partisan and racial gerrymandering has fostered a consensus that Democrats will lose seats.

Theyre wrong. Democrats have the opportunity to widen the playing field in 2022 with the right candidates, a message focused on economic growth anda surprise to somea clear pro-democracy appeal designed to woo the one-quarter to one-third of Trump voters who are Liz Cheney Republicans.

My opinion is based on nearly 40 years in government and politicsbut more importantly, it is based on the last eight months that I spent actively exploring a race for Tennessees 3rd congressional district.

I recently decided for personal and professional reasons that I cannot run in 2022. But through the testing the waters process, I discovered a path to possible victory in my east Tennessee district that should be replicable in many other similar districts around the nation.

The remainder of Hamilton County, suburban and rural areas outside of Chattanooga, accounts for another one-quarter of the district population: It is Republican turf and the home to the districts five-term incumbent, Chuck Fleischmann. And half of the district vote comes from all or parts of 10 other counties, the largest being Anderson County, home to Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Don’t Miss: What Do Republicans Think About Daca

Renewable Energy And Health Care Among The Sectors That Could Get Shakeup Due To Midterms

The 2022 midterm elections are already affecting Washington, and the results could shake up sectors such as renewable energy, health care and finance.

Email icon

+0.22%

As Democrats in Washington work to deliver on infrastructure spending and other priorities, theyre trying to make progress in large part because of a key event thats still more than a year away.

That event is the midterm elections on Nov. 8, 2022, when Republicans will aim to take back control of the House and Senate and become a more powerful check on the priorities of President Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats.

What leaders are thinking about, particularly since we have unified party control, is that these midterm elections are inevitably a referendum on the governing party, said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow in;governance studies;at the Brookings Institution and a professor of;political science;at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

In that sense, shrinking time coupled with What is it that Democrats want to run on? it adds pressure on Democrats to get their priorities through the door.

Time is growing short, Binder said, because party leaders often avoid making their members vote on tough issues in the same calendar year as an election, since that can hurt incumbents in tight races. Party leaders often think primarily about what they can get done in the first year of a Congress, as opposed to counting on the second year, she said.

Sectors that could win or lose

Year

[f4rmville]

Will NIMBYs sink new clean energy projects? The evidence says no – if developers listen to local concerns

Sanya Carley, Indiana University and David Konisky, Indiana University

As Congress debates billions of dollars in new infrastructure investments, advocates are touting the social and economic benefits of building new high-voltage transmission lines, clean energy plants and electric vehicle charging stations, along with fixing aging roads and bridges. But when it’s time to break ground, will people accept these new projects in their communities?

Local public acceptance is critically important for siting and developing energy infrastructure. Strong opposition can delay project siting approval and permits. Sometimes it can sink projects altogether.

When communities oppose projects, some people are quick to point to NIMBY, or not-in-my-backyard, sentiments as a formidable and pernicious obstacle. While there’s no official definition of NIMBYism, a traditional definition frames it as someone saying that something is fine in the abstract, but not near me or my home.

But our close examination of opposition has not yielded much evidence of such NIMBYism. First, when someone is generally supportive of an energy infrastructure project, we find no evidence that they are opposed to the same type of project near their home. Second, we find that opposing energy projects generally is not an irrational or knee-jerk response.

Rather, we find that public opposition to energy infrastructure projects tends to be quite rational and understandable. While there is local opposition to some projects, typically people oppose projects when they affect their property value or sense of place, when they are concerned about their local environment, and when they do not trust the energy company.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=zkpPIzCakno%3Fwmode%3Dtransparent%26start%3D0

Jane Kleeb, executive director of the advocacy group Bold Nebraska, testifies at a U.S. State Dept. hearing on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in Grand Island, Nebraska, on April 18, 2013.

The public gets a voice

Giving the public a voice in decisions about new energy projects has been official U.S. policy since the 1970s. Laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and state equivalents provide for public involvement in decisions about many major projects. For example, utilities that want to build or expand a power plant often have to invite and consider public comments in order to obtain their permits.

Environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act also can affect energy-related projects. Opponents may sue to block new projects that they argue will violate the relevant laws.

People and groups also often mobilize outside formal channels to oppose major developments. Recent examples include the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast, and the Northern Pass high-voltage transmission line from Canada to southern New England, both of which were ultimately canceled.

Opponents argued that both projects threatened local resources – water supplies in the case of the pipeline, and scenic views in the case of the transmissions lines. They also argued that there were better energy choices than the oil the pipeline would carry or the electricity from large-scale Canadian hydropower projects that the transmission line would deliver.

Why do people oppose energy projects?

When news reports, project supporters and others assert that local resistance to energy infrastructure is due to NIMBY sentiments, the underlying assumption is that these residents are either irrational or selfish.

Yet, in surveys of over 16,000 people, including large numbers living near power plants, pipelines and transmission lines, we found no statistical evidence of NIMBYism. People who support energy infrastructure projects in general are likely also to support specific projects, regardless of whether they are nearby or farther away.

Projects like offshore and onshore wind turbines, pipelines and waste-to-energy facilities often meet significant local resistance. But often that resistance reflects a rational reaction to how a new infrastructure project affects residents’ property values or disrupts their attachment to their local landscape or community.

A truck carries a wind turbine blade in southern California. Chuck Coker/Flickr, CC BY-ND

Our research shows that people are more favorable toward cleaner energy technology infrastructure, such as solar or wind farms, than they are toward fossil fuel-based infrastructure, such as natural gas power plants or oil and natural gas pipelines. This is true when people think about such technologies in the abstract and when they think about specific local projects.

These views are rooted in people’s perceptions of various energy sources’ economic costs and environmental impacts. Simply put: Americans are more receptive in general to energy sources they perceive as cheap and clean.

It’s easier to apply these categories to renewable and fossil fuel energy sources, since they have distinctive carbon and cost attributes, than to delivery systems, such as electric transmission lines or pipelines. We have found that on average, people are fairly neutral toward power lines and pipelines, but that acceptance grows significantly when the infrastructure is associated with a clean energy project and shrinks when connected to a fossil fuel power plant.

Our research and a comprehensive review we conducted of 30 years of studies show that people oppose energy projects due to specific factors, such as concern that the projects will alter their local environments, landscapes and economies. We also find that people who have higher levels of trust in energy companies are more likely to support all types of energy projects. Others who are concerned about climate change are generally more supportive of renewable energy projects and less supportive of fossil fuel projects.

Creating a 100% clean-energy economy and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050, as President Joe Biden has proposed to slow climate change, will require massive deployment of cleaner energy sources, plus upgraded and expanded distribution and storage systems. Some of these projects will spark local opposition.

In our view, it is imperative for government agencies and energy companies to work with communities to build trust and open dialogue. The most effective way to address opposition is through genuinely addressing concerns about how energy projects affect the places where they are built.

[Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter.]

Sanya Carley, Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University and David Konisky, Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

from https://ift.tt/3xGXHWj