Crossfire | Weeknights @ 6:30 pm ET on CNN

Join the debate

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

February 4th, 2014
09:23 PM ET

Van Jones: 3 myths about the Keystone pipeline

On tonight's Crossfire, host Van Jones asks fellow democrat Sen. Jon Tester how he can possibly support the Keystone XL pipeline and gives his main points against it.

A Republican Civil War?
Sen. Wicker (R-MS) responds to a ForAmerica.org advertisement slamming current GOP leaders.

Posted by
Filed under: 2014 Elections • Debates • Jon Tester • Keystone • Roger Wicker • S.E. Cupp • Van Jones
soundoff (30 Responses)
  1. 2-indy1600

    I'm adding this almost a month late, but how does sending oil to a country that takes absolutely no responsibility for their air quality help us? Any of us? The jobs will be few, the risk great, and the end result hurts then entire globe. Not to mention the hated "emminent domain" property issues. I say no to Keystone; it has disaster written all over it.

    March 1, 2014 at 3:46 am | Reply
  2. Phil

    First, TransCanada has NOT been a Canadian company for a number of years. Principle ownership is a U.S. based company (http://creekside1.blogspot.ca/2011/10/transcanada-american-company.html).
    Second... the ongoing statement that "Canada wants to send the oil sands oil to China" is not well thought out. If that was the Canadian intent and Canada had any control over it, why spend billions of dollars to build a line south to the hurricane and tornado ridden Gulf of Mexico? It would be far more economical and a shorter distance to keep it on Canadian territory going west to Vancouver and the year round port there. It's also closer to China, who you suggest is the intended buyer, by shipping it across the Pacific instead of either going across the Atlantic or through the bottle neck of the Suez Canal.
    So who stands to make money on this operation?? Not Canada. And not the citizens of either the U.S. or Canada. We can be sure the big oil companies will make a killing selling the product. Who owns the land that the pipeline is supposed to go through?? Could someone have given a heads up to state legislators who then purchased tracts of land at bargain basement prices in advance... in order to sell it to the pipeline at an inflated price?? It'd be interesting to follow the money on ALL aspects of this deal.
    Canadians and Americans pay full going world barrel price for oil and the refined products. That's the cost of free enterprise and the nature of the system. Whoever has the deeper pockets will get the product.

    February 8, 2014 at 8:01 am | Reply
    • A L

      Because Canada won't let them. NIMBY. They don't want that ecological bomb. The tar sands extraction areas are bad enough in themselves – an stripmining nightmare.

      May 9, 2014 at 10:50 am | Reply
  3. MeMelvin

    Some folks point to teenage pregnancy and declare all such pregnancies cause overpopulation.
    Other folks point to an oil pipeline and declare all such oil pipelines cause environmental disaster.

    But I believe that oil pipelines cause overpopulation.
    And that teenage pregnancy causes environmental disaster.

    My logic is just as pathetic as all those "points of view" spouted here.

    Finally I believe that most folks have to stop watching so much FOX and MSNBC.
    These folks actually believe the (noun deleted) they are being fed.

    February 6, 2014 at 1:50 pm | Reply
  4. Wayne

    This character is just making up facts and lies as he needs them! Typical Progressive!
    He is following the Obama administration's practice of lying and inventing facts as they go along.
    Come to think of it Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do the same thing! So its the Democrat standard practice.
    What they have a war on is the middle class. They want you to become part of the dependent class so they can control you and stay in power!

    February 6, 2014 at 10:30 am | Reply
    • joe

      Hey Wayne, and the rest of you believing this pipeline is a good idea. Would you support this thing in your own back yard? Do you realize how long of a distance it is form canada to the gulf? Statistically speaking, for every joint between the pipes, there is a chance for leakage and with the amounts of pipe coupling joints needed to span the US Nrth to South, it can be safely said, this thing will leak. Why risk the health of our waterways, farmland and our youth?

      All of you can't stop thinking about the economy but when this economy fails, like it does cyclically, what will we have left but a polluted environment?

      February 11, 2014 at 3:18 pm | Reply
    • CJack

      Wayne... I don't know for sure if you ARE an idiot, but from your statement, I can't prove that you're not.

      Van Jones' statements are factually accurate and not actually in dispute, though if you disagree, the burden is on you to present evidence to the contrary. Your pathetic attempt at sweeping (false) generalizations about all Democrats based on this clip of Van Jones is beyond illogical. All you have proven is your small-minded afraid-of-change worldview - makes you wonder who is really being controlled!

      February 12, 2014 at 7:02 pm | Reply
  5. Bob

    IF this pipe line was of no danger to the ecology or citizens- then why isn't Canada processing it on their own land? Because they know the dangers and have paid off our politicians to let it go through.

    February 5, 2014 at 5:15 pm | Reply
    • MeMelvin

      Bob, don't be silly.

      From the fracing wells to the storage tanks and into pipelines, Canada has similar exposures to oil spills and gas releases. Maybe more because in Canada the oil and gas transfers from one type of "container" (pipelines, tankers, rail cars, ships) more frequently than it will when flowing through one pipeline with a few branches.

      Yes, the TransCanada pipeline will largely be on US soil, but Fiats have just as many accidents as do Fords Think about it..

      February 6, 2014 at 2:01 pm | Reply
  6. ABBubba

    What;'s being left out of this whole business is Canadian resource nationalism.

    Has anyone bothered to ask Canadians if they want their raw bitumen shipped to the Gulf Coast as dilbit so that ExxonMobil can make huge margins exporting the diesel to Latin America?

    The royalties obtained by Albertans range from 1%-9% depending on the price of WTI, in other words, next to nothing!

    Canadians are selling out their resources to foreign entities, including China, and are not getting back much more than one big environmental and clean-up headache.

    February 5, 2014 at 5:07 pm | Reply
  7. CALIFORNIA

    Democrats are against it because republicans are for it. It's always that way.

    February 5, 2014 at 5:06 pm | Reply
    • iab

      It is the ppl who live in the states the pipe line would cross who are objecting. They are the ones who do not want it.

      Remember the POTUS DOES NOT WRITE THE LAWS. The POTUS can only VETO a law. Remember this.

      February 5, 2014 at 5:55 pm | Reply
    • Vicki

      That is funny coming from a republican. The only thing you can count on from republicans in the government is to be against everything that would have helped the country in any way. It was the GOP along with Bush who created the dire situation with the housing crisis and then the banking meltdown that tanked our economy. It began with the republicans all for deregulation and we all paid the price when the banks were bailed out. The GOP was all for that, but not to save the America auto companies when they needed help. President Obama gave them a loan and they paid it back with ten percent interest. Now we see that our car companies are doing well. Republicans are the contrarians who do everything against this country, but always for the rich and powerful.

      February 6, 2014 at 2:43 pm | Reply
    • peter grabowski

      Do you really believe that people will believe what you just said?

      February 27, 2014 at 9:45 pm | Reply
  8. Vicki

    The fact that this pipeline is all about corporate greed and an agenda to get this tar sands pipeline through the United States whether it is bad or terrible for the people who are driven from their homes if the pipeline comes their way. They are using imminent domain in their drive to get this pipeline done. It will impact a lot of people horribly in that way. It is not what will ever be good for the environment. I do not trust these republicans who push, and push what the greedy and wealthy want, but never care about the middle class or the working poor who are counting on this country having clean water, air and land.

    February 5, 2014 at 4:11 pm | Reply
  9. susan brabants

    I wonder how much carbon is emitted by oil tankers as they bring oil to the U.S. from the middle east. How many wars have been fought because of the U.S. need for middle eastern oil? Why not have it piped from a friendly North American source ?If Canadians wanted to sell the oil to China they would not go through Texas. There is already a ppeline going from the Alberta oilsands to a marine terminal in Burnaby B.C. which is about to be twinned, as well as a proposed pipeline through Kitamat B.C. "Tarsands" is pjorative. The correct term is "oilsands". It is a mixture of sand and oil. They are typically separately by steam which is recycled. Bitumen (oilsand) is naturally occurring at the surface in parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Take a walk and you might get it on your shoes. It is there whether it is mined or not.

    February 5, 2014 at 2:45 pm | Reply
    • iab

      I did hear Canada refused to allow the pipe line to cross their land, going west. The American Citizens who life in the states the pipe line would cross appose the P-LINE b/c of the sludge going thru it. If there is a spill like so many other times their land would be of NO USE to them for a long period of time. Americans object the P-line crossing their states. I also read the oil that reaches the gulf goes on the world market, is not for America unless we BUY it just like the other countries. I have also read we are importing less oil from foreign countries since Obama has been POTUS. Again who really wants this pipeline. Is it the big money oil companies? If Boehner and company are pushing it you can bet your bottom dollar it's for the good of the 1%. If you have another theory please say so. I have an open mind. I personally think repairing our infrastructure would create more jobs and benefit ALL AMERICANS rather than the wealthy 1%. Many Americans will have jobs throughout the US b/c our roads, bridges, dams, schools, public buildings are falling apart all over the USA. Look at the future, think FORWARD rather than BACKWARD. We can do it together, we are all Americans. I watched the SUPER BOWL they worked as one and they won. We can do the same and any group, person, organization that doesn't have constructive solutions to our problems should be ignored. We need solutions not obstructionist. THINK ABOUT IT. Make an effort to not do call others names. We need facts, figures, research, ideals that help us to move forward. rach a/

      February 5, 2014 at 5:43 pm | Reply
      • Vicki

        I agree and that is why I will always stand with those who are honest and concerned about America. We are the ones who see what is happening in our government. Republicans want nothing else other than the pipeline because it is the wish of the company that wants it built come hell or high water.

        February 6, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
  10. JJ

    Why is anybody listening to this Communist?

    February 5, 2014 at 1:03 pm | Reply
    • iab

      You never post my comments, WHY?

      February 5, 2014 at 5:48 pm | Reply
    • iab

      JJ, please define COMMUNIST.

      February 5, 2014 at 5:56 pm | Reply
  11. Pat Sides

    SE Cupp and Tester (the Wolf killing jerk from Montana) must have enjoyed talking about what to wear when you are a hasbeen football player and/or just hate animals. Of course the killer likes the pipeline – anything that will destroy the environment and/or kill all animals that he himself does not want to hunt would be ok – too bad these people live in such beautiful states they should be in Missippi

    February 5, 2014 at 4:08 am | Reply
  12. charles warren

    Vann if you read any of these post here's a item for you.Tar sands are just that sand mixed with oil.When pumped through a pipe it will be like a giant piece of sand paper on the inside walls of the pipe.It will eat away till the pipe rupture and leaks.This is what makes the XL keystone pipe line a accident waiting to happen.Every time some body talks they talk about how much gas emissions will be dumped into the air.The bigger danger is the movement of the oil inside the pipe.And what it will do to water near where it breaks.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:37 pm | Reply
    • el_redd

      charles warren –
      The bitumen (petroleum) is extracted from the sand using natural gas before it is pumped through the pipelines. This method has been used for years in Canada, but the process is still rather "young". It has been pumped to the west coast of Canada since the late nineties. We produce the natural gas they use to extract it, sending it up several pipelines already in existence. The oversight for pipeline maintenance is staggering, as the inspection and maintenance program is designated by the DOT. I've worked in aviation and with oversight from the FAA and the NTSB. The maintenance schedule for pipeline maintenance is just as stringent. Yes, you hear about blowouts or leaks, but there are 2.5 million miles of pipelines running across the US. Just as you only hear about plane crashes as opposed to the 1000's of flights that safely make their destination, you only hear about pipeline failures, not the billions of gallons of petroleum products that safely reach their destination everyday.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:44 am | Reply
      • Kurt

        While it's true you don't hear about the success... if the cost of failure is huge, a single failure is a bigger deal then millions of successful gallons pumped.

        Off shore drilling has produced tons of oil... for oil companies. Does that somehow make it okay for BP to have a disaster in the gulf?

        I'd be more tolerant if the oil industries were nationalized and owned by the US. Then at least our nation would be benefitting from the successful pumping that currently goes to the stockholders of oil corporations. Then you could say the profit is worth the risk. But the oil companies aren't nationalized (well, BP is partially owned by Britain... but they aren't nationalized by the US).

        We don't benefit from the profit of successful operations... but we do suffer when oil gushes into the gulf of mexico or if bitumen were to pour into the Aquifier in Nebraska. Why should we want any risk of destroying our country just so a private company can profit? What exactly are they paying us? Is it enouhg to warrant the risk?

        February 5, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
    • Todd

      Oil comes from the ground, plants animals and life still lives around the world where oil comes from, so what are your concerns

      February 5, 2014 at 3:37 pm | Reply
  13. charles warren

    Vann if you read any of these post here's a item for you.Tar sands a re just that sand mixed with oil.When pumped through a pipe it will be like a giant piece of sand paper on the inside walls of the pipe.It will eat away till the pipe rupture and leaks.This is what makes the XL keystone pipe line a accident waiting to happen.Every time some body talks they talk about how much gas emissions will be dumped into the air.The bigger danger is the movement of the oil inside the pipe.And what it will do to water near where it breaks.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:35 pm | Reply
    • Moxie

      Too bad you have no idea what you are talking about. I wish you morons would do your research and due dilligance before you badmouth something that you know NOTHING about!!!

      February 5, 2014 at 12:32 pm | Reply
    • Phil

      That's not the way it works Charles. There are different processes depending on whether the oil-sand is near the surface or deep underground, but in either the oil is separated from the sand. The sand is dumped as "fill" in exhausted sites and the oil is thinned out with lighter oil or solvent to allow it to be pumped. On it's own, it has the consistency of cold molasses which makes it nearly impossible to pump. The refinery then separates the oil/solvent mix, or the "mix" can be shipped to other countries for them to refine.

      February 8, 2014 at 8:47 am | Reply
  14. jack zadeh

    ok

    February 4, 2014 at 10:16 pm | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.