Keystone Pipeline rejected.

[esmith]

There is plenty of precedence that suggests oil companies are not concerned with safety, they are not concerned with environmental degradation, and when something starts to go bad, it seems likely they'll ignore it, pay some people off, and instead of fixing it early will let the problem escalate until it becomes a disaster.

As it stands now you are only expressing an opinion not based on facts. Please supply your data for the above conclusion.

 

[Draka]

Investing wind, water, and solar energy would provide plenty of jobs.

Honestly, looking at a druggie do you say..."Oh, well, he's going to use it anyway, let's just make it easier for him to use rather than try to get him off the drug." ??

Oil is like a drug. We're addicted. We rely upon it for many things but it is ruining our health, the planet's health. It has a cost attached to it that just does not make it worth staying on. And the thing is, the stuff we are relying upon it for we can modify to use something better.

 

[fantome profane]

I am sure that Trudeau is secretly pleased that this announcement has been made now before he really takes over. This would have been his first conflict with the Obama and he would have lost. And he would have looked hypocritical fighting for this pipeline while also claiming to be a better defender of the environment. It was a loosing issue for him all round.

 

[columbus]

As it stands now you are only expressing an opinion not based on facts. Please supply your data for the above conclusion.

The world in general, including the USA, has a host of environmental disasters to look at for data. Shadow Wolf's post summed up the usual issues quite succinctly.
The British Petroleum gulf mess was a recent example.
Tom

 

[esmith]

I hear you but I do not think you really understand what you are advocating. Look at the ongoing loss of human life and those that do not have the ability to better their lives, if they live, because cheap energy is not available. Are you telling these people that "Hey we already have a thriving lifestyle and we could care less about you, we only care that in X number of years, decades, or centuries fossil fuels will destroy the planet. We will save the earth and be damned with the 4 million people a year that lose their lives to indoor pollution because we really don't care. We don't care that you are stuck in the third world." Yes that is a hard reality of your condemnation of the use of fossil fuels. Now the link I am providing covers more of this that I need to. Yes you will vehemently reject the arguments put forth in this article.; Saying that renewable energy will accomplish this instead of fossil fuel. But you are wrong, at the present time renewable energy can not supply the necessary power that over a billion people on this planet need. Yes, the developed world can and will eventually migrate to more and more renewable energy as the technology makes it competitive to fossil fuel. But until that time fossil fuel must be used.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fossil-fuels-will-save-the-world-really-1426282420

below added at 11:40AM MST 11/9/15
Note link will not work. However if you put the following into your search engine and then link to the article it will.

Fossil Fuels Will Save the World (Really) by Matt Ridley

 

[Draka]

Um, here we are talking about a pipeline from Canada and here you are talking some insanity about third world countries. I'm sorry, when did Canada become a third world country? I must have missed that. So you are now advocating that we must stay on the drug to help poor drug manufacturers who we aren't even talking about?

You do realize, or maybe you don't, that there are already several countries in this world who have moved to anywhere from 85% to 100% renewable energy provided electricity? This stuff is doable. It just requires the determination to do it. It requires money (which we have if we stop investing in oil and corporations and banks all the damn time), workers (which means jobs doesn't it?), and dedication. Things we all have. There is no feasible reason to not move forward with more investment in renewable energy except for the purpose of propping up oil. Something we do not need to do. We are not the only country in the world using oil. Our movement away from it is a good thing. We have to start somewhere. Why not here?

 

[esmith]

It seems that the link I provided works sometimes; however if you put the following in google "

Fossil Fuels Will Save the World (Really)
There are problems with oil, gas and coal, but their benefits for people—and the planet—are beyond dispute
By
Matt Ridley

and hit search then link to the article it will work.

Um, here we are talking about a pipeline from Canada and here you are talking some insanity about third world countries. I'm sorry, when did Canada become a third world country? I must have missed that. So you are now advocating that we must stay on the drug to help poor drug manufacturers who we aren't even talking about?

It always amaze me, no not really, that there are those that read into something that they want to without thinking because the subject of the matter is something that they disagree with. Seems that you may be one of those. Where did you get the ridiculous idea that I said Canada was a third world country. The only mention of third world countries was that they do not currently have access to cheap (fossil fuel compared to other means of producing energy). So how about reading what I said with an open mind and not trying to read into something that wasn't there just to justify your disagreement with what was put forth.

You do realize, or maybe you don't, that there are already several countries in this world who have moved to anywhere from 85% to 100% renewable energy provided electricity? This stuff is doable. It just requires the determination to do it. It requires money (which we have if we stop investing in oil and corporations and banks all the damn time), workers (which means jobs doesn't it?), and dedication. Things we all have. There is no feasible reason to not move forward with more investment in renewable energy except for the purpose of propping up oil. Something we do not need to do. We are not the only country in the world using oil. Our movement away from it is a good thing. We have to start somewhere. Why not here?

Well let's look at your statement "already several countries in this world who have moved to anywhere from 85% to 100% renewable energy provided electricity?". Well I looked at your statement and decided you might have a valid argument so I looked. Yes there is tone country that have greater than 80% of their electricity generated by renewable energy for households, and they are. 1.Scotland which has approx 2.4 million households. Source of this data is: http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/09/countries-leading-way-renewable-energy/
So if you call 1 several......? Now you will notice that the article says "households". Now where does the energy come from for their transportation and manufacturing? Guess they sort of left that out.
You say it takes money to produce renewable energy and if we would stop investing in oil we could do it. I would like to know how you come to this remarkable conclusion. Did you even care to do any research? from:

http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2010/05/us-energy-consumption.html

Annual energy consumption in the U.S. is so great that it is often measured in quadrillion BTUs. One quadrillion BTUs, or one “quad,” is nearly equal to the energy consumed by 5.5 million U.S. households in 2009. One quad also, equals one billion million or (10)15 BTUs. The use of the unit “quad” eliminates many zeroes, shortening numbers for discussion purposes. In 2009, for example, the U.S. consumed 94.9 quads (94.900, 000,000,000,000 BTUs) of energy.

Don't know where you have been living in the past few years, but investment in renewable energy sources has increased dramatically. The only problem, and it's a Big Problem, is that renewable energy at this time can not meet the energy requirements of the US. and you have to use fossil fuel until a cost effective means of generating enough renewable energy is found. Now please read the article "if the damn thing will come up." It is a large article and does not require signing into the WSJ. At least if you use the Search option.
So tell me just where are you going to find enough renewable energy to meet those demands and the demands in the future. Well right now the only viable source other than fossil fuel that could start to make a dent in that requirement is nuclear energy. So are you willing to have a nuclear power plant build in your neighborhood?

 

[Valjean]

I say leave it in the ground where it isn't doing any environmental harm. You want jobs? Invest in green energy technology, as Draka suggested.

 

[Draka]

*le sigh*

Several countries are pioneers in renewable energy. Iceland gets 85% of the country’s electricity from earth’s heat. The country’s electricity supply is 100% renewable and depends on geothermal and hydropower. Norway is around 98% renewable and uses hydroelectric, geothermal and wind, to achieve its goal. Portugal rely on hydroelectricity for 38% to 58% electricity, wind power contributes one fifth, biomass 5% and solar around 1%.Scotland has a mandate to become 100% renewable by 2020.Paraguay uses hydropower ,to provides 90% of its electricity and 19% of Brazil’s by using Itaipu dam. The dam took 30 years to build and costs $20 billion. It now helps in displacing 67.5 million tonnes of CO2 a year. Denmark uses 30% wind and 15% biomass for its energy needs. Germany already uses 98% renewable energy.

Source: http://www.altenergy.org/renewables/wholly-renewable.html

More:
http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/09/countries-leading-way-renewable-energy/
http://makewealthhistory.org/2012/07/09/countries-with-100-renewable-energy/


There are several states in the US that are already leading the way for change. Here is a map to show the current renewable energy standings for production in each state: http://energy.gov/maps/renewable-energy-production-state

The fact is, we can get off oil. It is not the end all be all of energy. It is entirely possible. There is NO rational excuse not to.

 

[esmith]

*le sigh*
The fact is, we can get off oil. It is not the end all be all of energy. It is entirely possible. There is NO rational excuse not to.

Just answer me two questions. Can renewable energy, at the present time, supply all of the current demands for fossil fuel? If not, now when. Also what are you going to substitute for products that require petroleum based ingredients,

 

[Draka]

Just answer me two questions. Can renewable energy, at the present time, supply all of the current demands for fossil fuel? If not, now when. Also what are you going to substitute for products that require petroleum based ingredients,

At present time, no, that is why more investing in it is so important. There's your new energy, there's your jobs, there's your healthier planet and people.

As for the second question, do you think that alternatives to products aren't constantly being made? And even if there are a few small products that rely upon oil then they will certainly use far less oil and produce far less pollution if the only oil we are getting is for a few items than the mass amounts now. Cars can be changed, people can use electric items (with electricity provided by wind, solar, or hydro power), and new inventions and products can be made to take the place of many other items.

Truly, oil, and the perceived reliance upon it we have, is not as important as you seem to think. By forcing ourselves gradually off of it while building up green energy we can do so much better.

 

[esmith]

So, you still haven't said where the third world countries are going to get the energy they need to advance their economic and health related issues. Yes the developed countries have the economic growth to be able to subsidies and invest in renewable energy but they don't. And you would be surprised how many products use petroleum based compounds. From: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=41&t=6

Petroleum products include transportation fuels, fuel oils for heating and electricity generation, asphalt and road oil, and the feedstocks used to make chemicals, plastics, and synthetic materials found in nearly everything we use today. About 76% of the 6.97 billion barrels of petroleum products that were consumed in the United States in 2014 were gasoline (47% of total petroleum consumption; includes biofuels), heating oil and diesel fuel (21%), and jet fuel (8%).

\

 

[Quintessence]

Truly, oil, and the perceived reliance upon it we have, is not as important as you seem to think.

Something for consideration, as it were.

Envision the wealthiest feudal lord of the Middle Ages. Imagine his grand castle, filled with beautiful tapestries, servants, visiting bards, and feasts. Next, envision the average American. Imagine his personal automotive transportation, large climate-controlled house, nearly endless entertainment options, and out-of-season food offerings.

Recognize that today, the average American (or the average first world citizen, really) is living with luxuries that were inconceivable even a few hundred years ago. We are literally living larger than the wealthiest kings of ages past. And this is considered normal. It's an expectation. Something we think we're entitled to.

Perhaps something worthy of reconsideration, isn't it? Or at the very least, some rather uncomfortable questions.

 

[Wirey]

Obama has rejected the TransCanada proposition for the Keystone Pipeline. Some are hailing, some are condemning. I applaud. Where do you stand?

Canada just signaled their intent to withdraw our aircraft from operations against ISIS, and the next announcement out of Washington was that Keystone was rejected. The general consensus where I work (and that's in the Alberta oil patch) is that this is a temporary thing until after the next US election.

 

[Draka]

So, you still haven't said where the third world countries are going to get the energy they need to advance their economic and health related issues. Yes the developed countries have the economic growth to be able to subsidies and invest in renewable energy but they don't. And you would be surprised how many products use petroleum based compounds. From: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=41&t=6

\

http://www.informaction.org/index.php?main=susdeg_solutions&subject=Sustainable Development


Furthermore, the GEF has been a pioneer in the demonstration and deployment of new, pre-commercial technologies in developing countries. The first large-scale concentrated solar power plants in the developing world - in Egypt, Mexico, and Morocco - have been supported by the GEF.

The GEF has promoted the demonstration, deployment, diffusion, and transfer of renewable energy technologies in all levels of society—cook stoves and solar lighting and power at household level; minigrids for communities; renewable power for water and irrigation pumps in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia; grid-connected bulk power at national level.
https://www.thegef.org/gef/content/renewable-energy-developing-world-gef-makes-it-reality

Third world countries can do it as well. With help from first world countries (oh look, more jobs, imagine that) they can learn to produce energy for themselves.

I really want to know why you keep going to other countries though when the discussion is about the US right now. Why is it so important for US to stay on the teat? Why do you seem to think that our moving to more green energy is going to ruin third world countries? Why is it just so damn important for you to see everyone sucking down oil and producing CO2 at clearly dangerous levels? What is the end goal for you personally that you think we must stay on it? That investing in renewable energy is somehow such a bad idea? Yes, there are products that we have that use oils, but we don't have to use so much oil do we? If just cutting down our usage to simply making certain products rather than relying upon it for energy were done we would still have far less pollution and isn't that a good thing? No one here has said once that we can just up and quit all oil usage, but the point is actually that we can cut it down so drastically as to make this world a cleaner and safer one overall. Why do you have an issue with that? Do you not want a cleaner and safer place to live? Or are you more concerned with certain companies making bank no matter what harm is done?

 

[columbus]

No one here has said once that we can just up and quit all oil usage, but the point is actually that we can cut it down so drastically as to make this world a cleaner and safer one overall.

That is the point!
The USA wastes more petroleum than half the human race actually uses.
Put a $60 per barrel federal tax on crude, something comparable on gas and coal, then let the market sort out the details while the federal debt gets paid off and the global price drops so other countries can develop their own economies.
It's win win win. Except maybe for ExxonMobil and the politicians they buy.
Tom

 

[metis]

You are basing your argument on a false premise that if the pipeline is not built that the oil will not be refined and used. Do you not agree? As far as the statement about "regulations". Even if regulations were relaxed building refineries up north is not economically feasible for private industry, in addition even if you did build those refineries the product would still have to be transported to distribution points and to ports for sale to overseas buyers. Your comment "getting off the teats of coal and oil" is an admirable but unrealistic dream at the present time. Developing countries want the cheapest energy available to raise the living standards of their population and developed countries like China also want the cheapest energy available. Do you not agree that if China could have additional oil as an energy source that their coal fired plants could be converted or shutdown. Their coal fired plants are coming under more and more objection from the population. Fossil fuel is going to stay until a less expensive source of energy is found. Thus the US and Canada have every right to use and sell their natural resources.


Suggest you read and comment on the following:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/
in addition:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/pipelines-are-safest-transportation-oil-and-gas-5716.html
note: you will have to click on the "Read Full Report" to download and read the PDF file.

First of all, I didn't say that the oil wouldn't eventually be refined but I did say that we can control what we do. Secondly. there are many refineries in the north so one cannot say it isn't "feasible".

Thirdly, we gradually got on the teats and we can gradually get off them, and I don't at all agree that this is impossible. If we and most the other countries don't cut back on carbon emissions, there's gonna be hell to pay in future decades. That won't affect you and I because of our age, but what about our children and grandchildren? Again, we can control what we do, but we can't control what others do. Fortunately, there are many countries that recognize the problem and are doing something abut it.

To put it in brief terms, to throw up our hands and use the excuse that others are doing it is surrendering our children and grandchildren's future to the money-god, and that is immoral in my book, especially since us cutting back carbon emissions helps us in other ways as well, and you should know that.

And finally, I can't open PDF on my computer.

 

[metis]

As it stands now you are only expressing an opinion not based on facts. Please supply your data for the above conclusion.

Just take a look at what these companies have done in Nigeria whereas there's almost no regulations.

And do you think for one minute that BP and Exxon would have spent the billions on their cleanup and compensation for damages in the Gulf and in Alaska if there wasn't a legal requirement established by "big government"? If you do, can I sell you a bridge that crosses the Sahara?

 

[metis]

Canada just signaled their intent to withdraw our aircraft from operations against ISIS, and the next announcement out of Washington was that Keystone was rejected. The general consensus where I work (and that's in the Alberta oil patch) is that this is a temporary thing until after the next US election.

The Canadian withdrawal really had nothing to do with Keystone but a lot to do with the new administration there.

 

[YmirGF]

The Canadian withdrawal really had nothing to do with Keystone but a lot to do with the new administration there.

Which confirms my suspicion that this was an overt slap in the face to outgoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper.