Overheard on CNN.com: Pipeline benefits worth the risks?
Opponents of a proposed oil pipeline protest Tuesday near a San Francisco fundraiser attended by President Obama.
October 28th, 2011
05:29 PM ET

Overheard on CNN.com: Pipeline benefits worth the risks?

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

Green donors warn Obama: 'Do the right thing' on Keystone pipeline

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:

Open Thread: Talk about the news

Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.

soundoff (191 Responses)
  1. Scottish Mama

    @dragonex I thought the same the least amount of pipeline in the US the better. I think another company was involved and sold their pipeline to the Canadian Company. Suckers I bet they are calling them. The oil company billion trillionaires are getting ready to change to another fuel, fracking, gas.

    October 28, 2011 at 7:56 pm | Report abuse |
  2. bobcat2u

    Not me @7:56PM

    October 28, 2011 at 7:59 pm | Report abuse |
  3. bobcat2u

    You said fracking gas. Tee Hee

    October 28, 2011 at 8:00 pm | Report abuse |
  4. gung hoe

    Man did doughtry belt that out or what Me being a vet and my love of country It brought tears to my eyes GO CARDS!!!

    October 28, 2011 at 8:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scottish Mama

      Let's play ball!

      October 28, 2011 at 8:04 pm | Report abuse |
  5. RUFFNUTT (pit bull trainer)

    A CRACKPIPE is always dangerous.. no matter how big or small..

    October 28, 2011 at 8:02 pm | Report abuse |
  6. chrissy

    game on now! hi joey u gettin any rest?

    October 28, 2011 at 8:06 pm | Report abuse |
  7. bobcat2u

    @chrissy
    How about you, did you get some rest ?
    Guess what ? The trolls have started with me too. I thought I was immune. Oh no. Whatever will I do ?

    October 28, 2011 at 8:16 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    chrissy!
    Yes, tonight I rest, then two big days of work, then one off.

    October 28, 2011 at 8:19 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    Still not sure–would chrissy say "whatever will I do?"

    October 28, 2011 at 8:21 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    Bobcat said that?
    Now we need picture IDs.

    October 28, 2011 at 8:23 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    Now chrissy doesn't answer?
    Der Meistertrolljoker
    stands often not questions answering.

    October 28, 2011 at 8:31 pm | Report abuse |
  12. noah bird

    How about investing serious money into renewable energy. The return in relation to oil and money from this pipeline will come decades from now. Also, it is time to tax the oil companies.

    October 28, 2011 at 8:32 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    @ noah bird:
    Wouldn't that require governmental planning beyond the next presidential election or two?

    October 28, 2011 at 8:36 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    I think it's a good idea, noah bird.
    Who remembers, from GONE WITH THE WIND, the line, "we must ask Mrs. O'Hara?"
    "We must ask President Bush."

    October 28, 2011 at 8:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • chrissy

      May I ask just what does this senseless comment above have to do with the North Dakota to Texas pipeline? Gee whiz, I've never seen so many meaningless, unfunny and senseless posts as I see here!!!

      October 28, 2011 at 8:55 pm | Report abuse |
  15. bobcat2u

    @JIF
    Man, it's getting harder to tell whos who on here. Hopefully our writing styles will keep us identified.

    October 28, 2011 at 8:59 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11