Republican victory in US: The rush to omnicide.

Experience has shown me than when you think it can't get any worse it usually does.

How do I perceive the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the US? I see the difference as being between criminal and insane on the one side; and criminal and TOTALLY insane on the other.

Emboldened Republicans to strike early on Keystone pipeline approval

Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) holds a news conference marking five years without a decision on the application for the Keystone XL pipeline project in Washington September 19, 201

Reuters,

5 November, 2014

Senate Republicans will charge ahead early in 2015 with a bill to approve the long-stalled Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, a move that would back President Barack Obama into a corner and set the tone for how the party taking control of Congress will govern the next two years.

The $8 billion project would deliver heavy Canadian oil sands crude from Alberta to Nebraska and make it easier to deliver oil from North Dakota’s Bakken region to the U.S. Gulf Coast. It has languished for six years awaiting presidential approval, which is needed because the pipeline crosses a national border.

Legislation earlier this year to approve the pipeline in a proposed end-run around the administration already had an estimated 57 votes in the 100-member Senate, and is now thought to have a filibuster-proof 61 votes after Republican gains in Tuesday's mid-term elections.

In addition, Republican Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, who has authored several Keystone bills in the past, will propose a new bill for Congress to use the Foreign Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution to green light the pipeline without the need for presidential approval.

"I've got a bill right now that's got about 56 co-sponsors," Hoeven, who has fought for years in Congress to advance such a bill, told Reuters. "And with the election results, we'll have over 60 who clearly support the legislation."

Shares in TransCanada, the builder and owner of the XL and other branches of the Keystone pipeline system, rose as much as about 3 percent on Wednesday on renewed optimism that the pipeline will finally go ahead.

Political observers look for Mitch McConnell, the expected new Senate Majority Leader, to quickly back a Keystone bill because it has bipartisan votes and the support of key constituencies, such as organized labor.

Hoeven’s North Dakota counterpart Heidi Heitkamp, said she would do what she did a few months ago when she got 10 Democratic senators to support full approval of the pipeline.

"I’ll continue to work with both sides to get it done," she told Reuters in a statement, adding that its approval will "allow us to move on and focus on the larger energy picture in this country."

Democrats Tom Carper and Chris Coons, both from Delaware, have also indicated previously that they support the pipeline.

“If McConnell plays his cards right, he might be able to get the Democratic votes necessary to get a bill out of the Senate. Whether or not the president would sign such a bill is a whole other question,” said Jim Manley, a former adviser to current Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Some observers think McConnell will try to set a constructive tone for the new congress by starting with a Keystone bill rather than more confrontational measures, such as blocking coal regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

"There is a lot of concern about not overreaching and being seen as extreme. They want to show that they can govern," said a former Republican aide and political consultant.

Keystone legislation would also force Obama to either veto a measure with bipartisan support, or let a project advance that he has vowed to stop if certain emissions criteria are not met.

“The main result would be Republicans getting it on the record and using it to demonstrate an obstructionist Democrat-Obama stance on the issue,” said Divya Reddy, director of global energy at political risk consultancy Eurasia Group.

The pipeline has become a symbol for environmental groups and the oil industry, galvanizing the green movement and forcing the White House to focus on climate change.

For industry, the delay in its approval has come to represent what they say is the Obama administration's over-regulation and hindering of energy development.

Energy markets have largely moved past Keystone, though, since alternative means are already on hand to move oil around the country.

For now, the pipeline’s proposed route through Nebraska is still entangled in a legal battle that could potentially drag on through 2015.

Beyond Keystone, Republicans could look for other energy priorities that could garner Democratic support, including a bill to speed up liquefied natural gas export approvals and increase reliability of the electric grid.

"The name of this game is negotiation, not necessarily legislation," said Scott Segal, head of the Policy Resolution Group at industry lobbying group Bracewell Guiliani.

But as he signaled on the campaign trail, McConnell said from his Kentucky headquarters on Wednesday that he is prepared to play hardball on Republican priorities, such as battling EPA carbon regulations.

“We will use the power of the purse to try to push back against this over-active bureaucracy and of course we have a huge example in this

GOP Senate expected to advance oil and gas industry agendas

Republicans emboldened by their Election Day victories are poised to use their new power on Capitol Hill to advance oil and gas industry priorities, beginning with approving the Keystone XL pipeline.

US Senator Lisa Murkowski hoists a chair over her head as she tells an election night crowd that she is poised to become chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources as the Republicans take control of the senate.

ADN,

5 November, 2014

Supporters of that TransCanada Corp. project now count a filibuster-proof 61 votes in the Senate for legislation authorizing the pipeline and are preparing to advance the measure early next year, once Republicans take control of the chamber.

But they won’t stop there. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, in line to chair the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is expected to use her post to press aggressively for an end to the nation’s long-standing ban on crude oil exports.

And GOP leaders could look for middle ground on energy policy with proposals to accelerate natural gas exports and a popular efficiency bill that has been bogged down by the fight over Keystone XL.

Murkowski said in an interview Wednesday that in terms of Alaska’s energy needs she plans to concentrate first on “the lower-hanging fruit” -- with work on hydroelectric, geothermal, ocean energy and other alternative or renewable areas that are likely to win broad support.

“For me to be setting the agenda on energy initiatives, I think is huge for Alaska. It really is an opportunity for our issues to be heard, to have that venue. It’s not to say it’s going to be all Alaska all the time,” Murkowski said.

Alaska is already exempt from the oil export ban but lifting it will still benefit the state, she said.

“It makes our oil that much more competitive and we have will additional markets,” Murkowski said.

Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling is a top priority, but she is not optimistic that the Republican-controlled Congress will accomplish it.

“ANWR, even with the chairmanship, is not a given that we can advance an ANWR initiative to successful passage,” Murkowski said. “You’ve got a president that is pretty committed to drawing a line in the sand. That doesn’t mean we won’t push it and push it very hard.”

American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said he expects the new Congress to “waste no time advancing a pro-energy, pro-growth agenda,” with measures expanding access to domestic oil and gas resources as well as efforts to rein in “duplicative and unnecessary regulations.”

Although Republicans will control the Senate and have an even bigger advantage in the House of Representatives, they cannot count on 60 Senate votes to advance all of their energy and environmental policies past Democratic filibusters.

They can press some stated goals -- such as chipping away at environmental regulations or encouraging the Obama administration to relax the rules for crude exports -- through committee oversight hearings.

For instance, Murkowski is likely to step up the energy committee’s oversight of the Interior Department -- giving the panel a chance to scrutinize the department’s approach to protecting endangered species, leasing public lands for oil development and permitting offshore drilling. She also chairs the Appropriations subcommittee over the Interior Department.

That’s “budgetary oversight of the National Park Service. Of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Forest Service. BLM. The Indian Health Service. The BIA. And the EPA,” Murkowski said. “When you think about the federal agencies that have impact on Alaska and our daily lives, it’s this alphabet soup that I just rattled off.”

Kara Moriarty, president and chief executive of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, said both of Murkowski’s leadership roles are significant. Those federal agencies have been the source of “regulatory delays and overreach,” she said in a written statement.

Two years ago, Murkowski and her staff put out an extensive blueprint to guide the nation’s energy needs, Energy 20/20. The Energy Committee will have it along with various white papers as soon as they start work in January, Murkowski said.

“As chair, she gets to set the agenda,” said Rick Rogers, executive director of the Anchorage-based Resource Development Council.

“There’s no question that some of our Alaska issues will be front and center.”

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who is likely to take over as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, could use panel hearings to grill Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy and other Obama administration officials about plans to limit carbon dioxide emissions and crack down on methane from oil and gas operations.

Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said in an interview that Republicans will focus on loosening the “regulatory burden” that he said is holding back the energy industry and other sectors -- first through stand-alone bills and, if those fail, by using provisions in spending bills to defund those initiatives.

“A Republican majority will have priorities that never saw the light of day under Democratic leadership,” said Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon.

But he suggested the earliest legislative options could be holdovers ensnared by the current Congress’ gridlock.

One of the candidates is a bill by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Rob Portman, R-Ohio, that aims to boost energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings.

Keystone XL is high on the list too. Hoeven, who is the lead sponsor of legislation that would authorize Keystone XL using Congress’ authority under the Constitution’s foreign commerce clause, said Obama could sign off on the measure as an olive branch to Republicans.

“After the first of the year, we’ll bring the bill forward as is, we’ll have more than 60 to pass it, and we’ll do so, and then we’ll send it to the president and see if he’s willing to work with us,” Hoeven said. “Given the clear vote from the American public and strong bipartisan support, he may decide it’s time to start working with Congress, and this is a good example of a place to start.”

Hoeven said it’s possible he could attract 67 votes to override a presidential veto of Keystone XL by picking up a handful of Democrats who have either criticized the government’s lengthy scrutiny of the project or have backed non-binding resolutions endorsing it.

If not, Hoeven said, another option is embedding the Keystone XL approval bill in a separate measure to fund part of the federal government or speed up the government’s permitting of proposed natural gas exports.

On Wednesday, Obama signaled he was staying firm on Keystone and will wait for a State Department review process, which in turn is on hold pending a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling on a challenge to the pipeline’s route through that state.

“There’s an independent process. It’s moving forward, and I’m going to let that process play out,” Obama said.

Brigham McCown, a former pipeline regulator, suggested Obama could take a pragmatic approach to the project if a bill authorizing it lands on his desk. Signing legislation permitting Keystone XL — or allowing it to become law without his signature — could shield Obama from some environmentalists’ criticism while ending a distracting, long-running debate.

Oil industry leaders basked in the election results on Wednesday — claiming they proved that embracing traditional energy development propelled candidates to victory. “Energy was the clear winner,” said Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute. “In race after race, voters from all regions of our nation and both political parties voted for pro-development, true all-of-the-above energy policies.”

Environmentalists were struggling to regroup — and bracing for big fights renewable energy tax policies, coal exports and land protections.

“The oil and gas industry and other special interests spent big on yesterday’s election, and now expect those investments to pay off in the new Congress,” said Matt Lee-Ashley, senior fellow with the Center for American Progress.

Murkowski said she has a collaborative style and intends to work with Democrats – but just how closely depends on who ends up as the ranking minority member.

She’s comfortable with the Democrat now in the post, Sen. Mary Landrieu of oil-producing Louisiana. Landrieu, however, must win a December runoff to return to D.C. If she fails, Washington’s Maria Cantwell is next in line.

“Sen. Cantwell has a different perspective. She has been one of the leaders in the Senate working to block any development of ANWR,” Murkowski said. “It’s going to be important to know who I am serving with.”

Meet the Senate's New Climate Denial Caucus

Shutterstock

Mother Jones,

5 November, 2014

Well, folks, it wasn't such a great night on the climate action front. It looks like the millions of dollars that environmental philanthropist Tom Steyer invested in the midterms didn't buy much other than a fledgling political infrastructure to sock away for 2016. With Republicans now in control of the Senate, we're likely to see a bill to push through the Keystone XL pipeline coming down the pike soon. And Mitch McConnell, probably the coal industry's biggest booster, retained his seat.

In fact, McConnell and his climate-denying colleague James Inhofe of Oklahoma—the likely chair of the Senate's Environment and Public Works committee—won a lot of new friends on Capitol Hill last night. It probably won't surprise you to learn that most of the Senate's newly elected Republicans are big boosters of fossil fuels and don't agree with the mainstream scientific consensus on global warming. Here's an overview of their statements on climate change, ranging from a few who seem to at least partly accept to science to those who flat-out reject it.

Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska): In September, Sullivan, a former Alaska attorney general, said "the jury's out" on whether climate change is man-mad. 

(Actually,the jury came in, for the umpteenth time, just this week.) He repeated that positionlast month, when he said the role human-caused greenhouse gases play in global warming is "a question scientists are still debating," adding that "we shouldn't lock up America's resources and kill tens of thousands of good jobs by continuing to pursue the President's anti-energy policies."

Tom Cotton (R-Ark.): Cotton has seized on a common but misleading notionamong climate change deniers: "The simple fact is that for the last 16 years the earth's temperature has not warmed." He admits, however, that "it's most likely that human activity has contributed to some of" the temperature increase of the last hundred years. Still, he supports building new coal plants and the Keystone XL pipeline. 

Cory Gardner (R-Colo.): Gardner is shifty on the issue. In a debate last month, hewouldn't give a straight yes-or-no answer on whether mankind has contributed to global warming. "I believe that the climate is changing, I disagree to the extent that it's been in the news," that humans are responsible, he said. Yet at the same time,he admitted that "pollution contributes" to climate change. Gardner doesn't seem interested in cleaning up that pollution: Last year he said the Obama administration is waging "a war on the kind of energy we use every day—fossil fuels… because they want to tell us how we live our live."

David Perdue (R-Ga.): "In science, there's an active debate going on" about whether climate change is real, Perdue told Slate this year, adding that if there areclimate-related impacts to Georgia's coast, some smart person will figure out how to deal with them. Perdue has also slammed the Obama administration for waging a "war on coal" and has called the EPA's new carbon emission rules "shortsighted."

Joni Ernst (R-Iowa): Ernst is another rider on the "I don't know" bandwagon. "I don't know the science behind climate change," she told an audience in September. She also hedged the question beautifully in a May interview with The Hill: "I haven't seen proven proof that it is entirely man-made." But she supports recycling!

Bill Cassidy/Mary Landrieu (La.): This race is going to a runoff. Landrieu, the incumbent Democrat, has never been much of a climate hawk—she recently saidhumans do contribute to observed climate change but criticized Obama for "singling out" the oil industry for regulation. But at least she's better on global warming than Cassidy, her Republican challenger, who flatly denies that climate change exists. Hesaid last month that "global temperatures have not risen in 15 years."

Steve Daines (R-Mont.): Daines is a harsh critic of Obama's energy and climate policies, which he said "threaten nearly 5,000 Montana jobs and would cause Montana's electricity prices to skyrocket." While in the House, he signed a pledge that he will "oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue." He believes global warming, to the extent that it exists, is probably caused by solar cycles.

Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): During a North Carolina Republican primary debate, all four candidates laughed out loud when asked if they believed climate change is a "fact." Ha! Ha! Then they all said, "No." Later, Tillis expanded on that position, arguing in a debate with his Democratic rival, Sen. Kay Hagan, that "the point is the liberal agenda, the Obama agenda, the Kay Hagan agenda, is trying to use [climate change] as a Trojan horse for their energy policy."

Ben Sasse (R-Neb.): Sasse hasn't said much about climate science, but hesupports building the Keystone XL pipeline and opening up more federal land for oil and gas drilling. He also wants to "encourage the production of coal."

James Lankford (R-Okla.): As a member of the House, Lankford called global warming a "myth." He also, along with Gardner, Cotton, Shelley Moore Capito (R. W.Va.), Cassidy, and Daines, voted to prevent the Pentagon from considering the national security impacts of global warming, even though top Defense Department officials have repeatedly issued warnings that climate change could worsen conflicts around the world. Lankford also floated an amendment to an energy appropriations bill that would have blocked funding for research related to the social costs of carbon pollution.

Mike Rounds (R-S.C.): Rounds appears to accept at least some of the science on climate change. As governor of South Dakota, Rounds said that "there are a number of different causes that we recognize, and the scientists recognize, are the cause of global warming," and that humans are "absolutely" one of those. He fervently supports the Keystone pipeline.

Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.): In a debate last month, Capito said, "I don't necessarily think the climate's changing, no." Then she clarified that her opinion might change with the weather: "Yes it's changing, it changes all the time, we heard it raining out there," she said. "I'm sure humans are contributing to it." I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Capito is also a founding member of the Congressional Coal Caucus.