March 9th, 2013
12:47 PM ET

On GPS Sunday: Debating Keystone, and what comes after Chavez?

"Fareed Zakaria GPS," Sundays at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN

On GPS this week, should the Keystone pipeline be allowed to go ahead? Fareed presents his take on the proposed oil pipeline, and then invites a dissenter onto debate the issue: Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune.

What does the future hold for Venezuela and the region with the passing of President Hugo Chávez? And what does it mean for U.S.-Venezuela relations? Fareed convenes a panel of thinkers including Moises Naim, a former minister of trade and industry in Venezuela, Rory Carroll, author of the new book Comandante, and Nikolas Kozloff, author of Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics, and the Challenge to the United States.

“In the next few months and perhaps years, they would need to find international external scapegoats and scapegoats at home,” Naim says. “Someone will have to explain to the people that are now addressing President Chavez why the situation, their standard of living, has declined so dramatically. Someone will have to explain why, without Chavez, life is not as good as it used to be.”

And, China’s new president: How Xi Jinping will manage the world's most important relationship – that with the United States? Fareed speaks with China watcher Evan Osnos.

Post by:
Topics: GPS Show

soundoff (6 Responses)
  1. Susan Kelton

    We are very disappointed in your argument for approving the pipeline. "It will be developed so we might as well be the ones to have" is not very compelling. For once, can we not be the ones to say no to this dirty source of energy.
    More importantly, you didn't mention that the route planned is through the sandhills of Nebraska right over the Ogallala aquifer creating the possibility of a serious oil leak into the largest aquifer in America. Disaster in the making. Montana has already blocked this line from coming through their state. The number of jobs promised has been proven false. Let's not do this.

    March 10, 2013 at 10:43 am | Reply
    • Pete

      @Susan,we won't recieve any of it ..This toxic mix of sand,crude is going to China because there's no refinery as of yet designed or built to refine such a nasty,toxic mix..Woodriver BP in Illinois is retooling to refine it but it'll be years before it'll become a viable refinery in refining this crude..If its so great why doesn't Canada refine this crap there or was just turned down a plan to pipe it westward to their tanker docks on Canadians west coast because its that toxic plain and simple ..Americans would take it thinking delushionaly that'll end up here but it won't because Canada has a deal pending with China that's all!!We have our own massive crude find right here stateside in N,S Dakota and Montana similar go Canada called the Bakken Formation,read up because its as large if not larger than Canadas and one in Texas that's found bigger than the Saudis as well..We can keep our crude stateside and be independent if corporations in oil weren't so greedy..We should be like Europe and have our own government controlled crude and gas stations because its not OPEC its our own greedy oil companies that's all that's screwing us!!

      March 10, 2013 at 11:39 am | Reply
  2. Patrick Henry

    The Sierra Club arguments are delusions that ignore the real scientists out of CalTech, who have quantified the rate of growth of energy demand worldwide and ascertained that clean energy can only meet a minor fraction of that demand. Solar instead of natural gas? Hogwash. What about nighttime? The storage batteries do not yet exist that lead to a lower carbon footprint than natural gas, when one includes the entire life cycle, including disposal of the the batteries at end of life. And wind requires government subsidies to even be viable. Please replace your hopeful fantasies for the future with science and mathematical modeling, Mr. Zakaria and your guest from the Sierra Club!

    March 10, 2013 at 1:18 pm | Reply
  3. Jeanne Johnson

    Fareed, not only are your arguments flawed, but so are your facts. We have NOT reduced our emissions to 1990 levels. There was a brief hiatus during the worst days of the Great Recession but now emissions are on the rise again. Furthermore those "jobs" are temporary. Citizens along the route will have their land confiscated by eminent domain and the environment stands a good chance of being contaminated as well. Someone must tell the world that Nebraska and Kansas produce more of their agricultural products by irrigating. That water comes from the Ogallala aquifer, a source for most of the irrigation which has been depleted by overuse in some areas. Now you want to threaten it with spills? Fareed, go back and check ALL the facts.

    March 10, 2013 at 6:16 pm | Reply
  4. Jeanne Johnson

    I forgot to say that we don't need the oil. The new CAFE standards and other conservation efforts underway coupled with the growth of natural gas mining will more than meet our near and medium-term needs. If Canada finds other ways to ship the oil, fine, but that will drive up the price of oil and reduce its use, as well as delaying the development of tar sands oil, which is, contrary to what Fareed said, much more toxic than most American oil.

    March 10, 2013 at 6:21 pm | Reply
  5. In Home Personal Training

    I believe that we need to get of oil/gas. However i feel we need the Keystone pipline for now to help us get off of foreign energy dependence.With that said we need a plan to move past this substance. It truly can change the world.

    April 14, 2014 at 9:33 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.