Keystone Vote Falls Short in Senate

[Alnitak]

The oil will not be running out anytime soon as the tar sands excellently illustrates, there are significant oil deposits still in the world that are not tapped because it was too expensive to make it worth while. We may be past 'peak oil' but the downward slope is longer than most doomsayers predict. There are plenty of alternatives available such as biofuels that can and will start to pick up the slack once the price rises high enough to make them worthwhile.

So the squandering of the future's fortune is okay because you think it might take longer?

 

[bankside]

That doesn't mean that it makes sense for America to pay Canadians to squeeze oil from tar - so they can sell it to somebody else.

If this were a project to squeeze oil from soybeans instead of tar, I rather expect you would be screaming bloody murder. That would be environmentally conscious and would actually help America become energy independent.

But you Republicans don't want what's good for America. You want what's good for the Koch brothers.

Squeezing oil from soybeans is nonsense. It requires huge areas of arable land and that sort of monoculture, deforestation, water use, disrupts the environment like any intensive resource operation. See "ethanol" under "US Policy Greenwashing Boondoggles."

Surface mining of oilsands certainly causes localised disruption. If you google a map of Alberta, the disturbed area is equal to a couple of pixels on the screen, and when an area is closed, it is returned to forested land by the developer. It's ridiculous to say that the environmental disruption is better when caused by the US bioethanol from corn. The area of arable land dedicated to that is large, and the bison aren't exactly running free any more across the "great" plains.

Water use used to be a problem with the oilsands. Enough water was used in production to drain the equivalent of a major river dry. This is no longer the case. The latest trend is in-situ processing. They snake steam vents into the ground, release the oil with heat, draw it up via another pipe, and that's it. They don't even need to do surface mining, and the old-style water wastage is gone. And it truly was wasted water. Not like flushing your toile where the water ends up back in the river. This stuff was pumped hundreds of metres under ground where it would stay pretty much forever, lost from the water cycle. So I'm glad we've moved past that.

The important thing for any fossil fuel is carbon emissions. Even there lots of progress has happened with carbon capture and storage projects that would be applicable not just to oilsands but any fossil fuel. This will happen with research and investment.

Want solar powered batteries to run your cars? Then you get to destroy this unique environment for the lithium to make the batteries, instead of a tiny corner of Canada's forest.

Want wind power instead of solar? Then you get to kill bats and upset that food chain, and induce migraines in the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Want to sit in a mud hut thinking sustainable thoughts? Hmmm.


there is no one right solution to our energy needs, and oilsands can be part of the picture.

 

[Stardreamer]

So the squandering of the future's fortune is okay because you think it might take longer?

Didn't say that, just pointing out economic realities. I'd personally would like to see us move to carbon free wind, solar and nuclear for energy production with electric and carbon neutral synthetic fuels for transportation. But I'm also acknowledge that as long as fossil fuels remain so readily available and economically viable, combined with paranoid hysteria over nuclear, its not going to happen any time soon.

 

[T-Rexx]

Energy and independence are good for America.

Precisely.

So, why do Republicans not support measures that would help us get there?

 

[hotatlboi]

Ok, people on both sides of this issue have distorted it WAY beyond the point of absurdity just so they can try and make it a symbol and "win one" for their team.

On the right: This is not some huge jobs program that will be a big economic impactor. It's impact will be minimal.

On the left: Whether or not this gets built will have no effect on global warming. We are still going to import oil from Canada and consume it. It will just be transported by rail or sea or by the existing Keystone pipeline that already exists (remember this was just an extension of one part of it, an entire pipeline already exists from Canada to the gulf).

 

[Ninja108]

And what are we supposed to do when oil runs out? In fact there are plenty of alternatives. I guess you won't be around so you don't have to worry about it. Gee that's real responsible.

Just like with climate change.
These people don't care because they'll be dead by the time the effects are felt.

 

[Benvolio]

It is unfortunate that the cause of environmentalism and climate change were taken up by the anti-capitalist, pro-socialist liberals. They see it as an ideology which can justify any control they want to impose upon the economy and our lives. The communists use class warfare and equality to justify totalitarian control, while the Nazis used race. Our liberals use both class and racial hatred, but now add climate change. Everything affects the environment, so if liberals are entitled to control what effects the environment, they can control everything, right?
Notice the hypocrisy in that the same people who pretend to care about the environment what to flood the country with millions and millions and millions of additional people adding to the problems, but voting democrat, which is what matters.

 

[Vitamin]

Only you Ben, could work in immigrants in a topic about climate change.

 

[Benvolio]

Only you Ben, could work in immigrants in a topic about climate change.

Struggle to be logical. Immigrants like other people, create emissions, sewage, garbage etc. it makes no sense to promote population growth and simultaneously expect Americans to make sacrifices to reduce emissions.

 

[frankfrank]

People will cause sewage and garbage, cause more energy to be consumed, etc. WHETHER OR NOT they become emigrants/immigrants somewhere. Yes, true, people will consume more energy if they live in "certain" countries (generally the "First World" places), but there are probably too many people on the planet now for the biosphere to assimilate all of the energy-related emissions successfully, even in a world with reduced energy consumption.

The looming water crisis is arguably even WORSE than any energy crisis that will ever be experienced. A report on 60 MINUTES [CBS] last night presented a very scary scenario of the groundwater supplies in many of the "breadbaskets" of the world; in California the supply is crashing and burning quickly.

YOU CAN'T FOOL MOTHER NATURE. I'm not sure this planet is capable of supporting more than half or two-thirds the current population of humans. There doesn't have to be any kind of genocide to cause the population to decline catastrophically. Mother Nature will eventually take care of it.

Meanwhile, western and south-central Asia [THINK Middle East, India], much of Africa, and quite a few other parts of the world, have populations which are growing-like-topsy. Furthermore, in some parts of the world, modernization is kicking in and ordinary people are buying refrigerators, cars, etc. (China quickly comes to mind) which is likely to more than offset any "savings" the USA could realize by more sensible energy policies.

All told, Benvolio's massive immigration (into the United States) scenario is not much more than a small blip on the global problem.

If the U. S. does implement sensible energy policies, which could start by adopting European vehicle mileage standards which use far less fuel than we do, the U. S. could be the "leader" and it may give the rest of the world more motivation to imitate and follow.

I'm still not sure it will be enough - even if energy consumption crashes (because, possibly, usable fusion technology is FINALLY found and put into effect worldwide), that still doesn't solve the water problem, or possibly related problems with other sources...OR, for that matter, a dying population of BEES worldwide which is probably caused by pesticides.

Bees are one of the most important links of all, in the global food chain - even though the bees themselves are not "food" - but they successfully help food to be created on a massive scale.

 

[Benvolio]

Americans will remain skeptical of your climate hysteria while you continue to insist on importing more polluters. Your actions belie your words.

 

[mightbe]

Um, they'd pollute basically the same wherever they are?

One thing that the U.S. should do is tighten regulations on emissions and set a high minimum on gas mileage. Forget raising taxes. Outlaw it. Taxes are ineffective at controlling energy consumption. The only thing taxes do is fill the public coffers. Furthermore, add a regressive additional tax to purchases of vehicles within 10 mpg of the national minimum (i.e., a much higher tax on vehicles at the minimum and a progressively lower tax as mileage improves until 10 mpg above the minimum, at which point there is no tax on low but legal performance).

 

[Benvolio]

Um, they'd pollute basically the same wherever they are?

One thing that the U.S. should do is tighten regulations on emissions and set a high minimum on gas mileage. Forget raising taxes. Outlaw it. Taxes are ineffective at controlling energy consumption. The only thing taxes do is fill the public coffers. Furthermore, add a regressive additional tax to purchases of vehicles within 10 mpg of the national minimum (i.e., a much higher tax on vehicles at the minimum and a progressively lower tax as mileage improves until 10 mpg above the minimum, at which point there is no tax on low but legal performance).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...768504-69e6-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html

But the democrats want to commit Americans to make big sacrifices to limit emissions in specific amounts. Recently, Obama promised China that the US would make this commitment: "Obama announced a target to cut U.S. emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, the first time the president has set a goal beyond the existing 17 percent target by 2020."
The flood of millions and millions and millions of immigrants will make those goals much harder. We bring in at least a million legally a year and no one knows how many illegally.
Why should Americans make sacrifices for the immigrants to come here to take jobs from US and live off our welfare--and crime?

 

[Rolyo85]

Republicans always have reasons to not want to stop killing the planet. Benvolio always has reasons to blame immigrants for everything. Must be Friday.

 

[Ninja108]

Republicans always have reasons to not want to stop killing the planet. Benvolio always has reasons to blame immigrants for everything. Must be Friday.

Well he can't very much blames the LGBT community for all the woes of the world can he?