Comment of the Day:
"It's getting harder and harder to like President Obama. But the Republican candidates are way too scary to support. What's a Progressive to do?"–IBON4IT
Frustrated by what they see as President Barack Obama's failure to honor his environmental promises, former campaign donors are threatening to withdraw financial support if he fails to block the Keystone XL oil pipeline. CNN.com readers talked about their political choices, and argued over whether the economic benefits of the pipeline were worth the environmental risks.
longtooth said, "The choice is clear. You can support Obama, who at least admits the possibility of global warming and our role in it, or you can abandon him, and give the White House to Romney, Perry, Cain, or one of the others in the Flying Republican Circus."
757Matt said, "Given the current global economic issues and our continued dependence on foreign oil - unless the government is going to buy everyone a hybrid - it makes sense to sign this bill."
No9 said, "I am a Democrat, with solar panels on my roof, wind power for the rest of my electric, and a high mileage car. I support this pipeline. The product will be sold to someone. Why not us? Don't you want to buy from a friendly country? This is crazy, build it now."
mgcanmore, who identified as a geologist, said, "Protesting this pipeline is irrational. Transporting hydrocarbons has a small inherent risk regardless of how you do it: tankers, trucks, rail or pipeline. Here we have a huge source of North American oil - second only to Saudi Arabia - and these protesters want to shut it down."
But TruthToTell said, "It's not just the threat from the pipeline itself, the oil will be dirty oil from tar sands, the production and then the refining of which produce a double whammy to the environment. Clinton's State Department out-sourced its "review" of Keystone XL pipeline this year to a corporation that is a close business associate of Keystone. The results were predictable - 'the project is simply peachy.'"
eadfrmfront said, "The pipeline helps lessen American dependence on Middle East oil and will create thousands of jobs."
SKSPLS asked, "Why does Trans Canada want to build a tar sands oil pipeline all the way to the Gulf coast? The intent is to ship the refined products to more lucrative overseas markets, thereby negating any effect the pipeline might have with regard to U.S. foreign oil dependence."
frflyer said, "Alberta tar sands is the most destructive project on the planet. It produces 2-3 times the CO2 emissions of normal oil production. It is endangering the Athabascan River watershed, one of the most important in North America. It is endangering the Canadian Boreal Forest, one of the most important ecosystems on the planet, as well as being one of the biggest carbon sinks on the planet."
SeriousDude said, "We have a very short-term mentality in this country, so environmental issues almost always get pushed to one side when someone raises energy or jobs or virtually anything as a short-term expedient. Jobs and energy can usually be obtained by alternate means; a destroyed environment is often lost for ever."
Busted2010 said, "Poisoning ground water in a state whose economy relies heavily on agriculture is not pro-job growth."
Do you feel your views align with these commenters' thoughts? Post a comment below or sound off on video.
For those of you who would like to share news and comments that may be off topic, there is now a site where you can do just that. Here's the link:
Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.