1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question forEnvironmentalist on Keystone Pipeline

Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by esmith, Feb 19, 2013.

  1. esmith

    esmith Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    10,413
    Ratings:
    +1,224
    Religion:
    No name designated at this time.
    I have a question for those environmentalist who oppose the Keystone pipeline on pollution concerns.
    It seems that there is an environmental issue with the Keystone pipeline because it will bring tar sand oil from Canada to the US. This tar sand oil, opponents of the pipeline say, will have cause increased problems with climate change. Question, are these people really that dumb, or do they think if the oil doesn't come to the US it will not be used. Yeah, right; the Canadians are really stupid...if the US doesn't buy it they will just leave it in the ground. Canada has already said that if the US doesn't want it they will sell it to China. I guess China has a way to use the oil that the US doesn't have.
     
  2. Alceste

    Alceste Vagabond

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    26,030
    Ratings:
    +2,886
    If the US were to boycott the tar sands it would have a real impact on the activity there. It is an environmental catastrophe, the dirtiest oil on the market, and contributes something like a fifth of Canada's total carbon emissions.

    In addition to being filthy, tar sands extraction is also very costly. A drop in demand could potentially impact the market value of bitumen below the point of profitability, which would cause the activity to stop.

    Are people who think losing buyers in the US - our biggest customer - will not slow down tar sands development really that stupid?
     
  3. YmirGF

    YmirGF Bodhisattva
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    27,998
    Ratings:
    +13,745
    Religion:
    Beyond the Light
    Which is precisely why there is such a vested interest in killing off the Enbridge Pipeline proposal, by the "progressive" eco folks. With two avenues closed down, it would have a serious impact on further development of the "oil sands".
     
  4. tytlyf

    tytlyf The Mind's Eye

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,129
    Ratings:
    +1,792
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I understand both sides of the debate and don't really care if it's implemented or not. I do know that the oil would be pumped to the gulf of mexico to be refined there if I'm not mistaken? So the emissions would be happening in the states.
    In all honesty, I hope the president doesn't approve it. Humans have to change their energy direction for our future generations. Going even dirtier than what we currently use is a step in the wrong direction.
    The shame of it all is that these large Oil companies really don't care about the environment one bit. The all mighty dollar speaks the loudest. They have too much influence in our government.
     
  5. Dirty Penguin

    Dirty Penguin Master Of Ceremony

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    12,073
    Ratings:
    +615
    Great...you start out seemingly wanting honest opinions...but then call them "dumb".....:facepalm:


    If your friend stuck his tongue in a live light socket...would you?....:rolleyes:


    It's an expensive process, it's dirty...and

    Keystone Pipeline Project
    ("The TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) Company has applied for a right-of-way (ROW) permit through various easement lands in six U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Wetland Management Districts in Nelson, Steele, Barnes, and Ransom Counties in North Dakota and Marshall, Beedle, Kingsbury, and Miner Counties in South Dakota.")


    I know...I know.........Drill baby drill..!!!!

    [youtube]xhvRQyRdVEI[/youtube]
    Drill Baby, Drill! - YouTube
     
  6. YmirGF

    YmirGF Bodhisattva
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    27,998
    Ratings:
    +13,745
    Religion:
    Beyond the Light
    Well, trade in your car and start walking. It's not like "big oil" forces people to buy their products. The only reason "big oil" got so big is because so many little mom and pops bought cars and forgot how to walk...
     
  7. Dirty Penguin

    Dirty Penguin Master Of Ceremony

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    12,073
    Ratings:
    +615
    This says it best.....

    ("The TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) Company has applied for a right-of-way (ROW) permit through various easement lands in six U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Wetland Management Districts in Nelson, Steele, Barnes, and Ransom Counties in North Dakota and Marshall, Beedle, Kingsbury, and Miner Counties in South Dakota.")

    The construction and disruption alone is going to affect the ecosystem. The processing of tar sand and any potential environmental mishap is going to be catastrophic for fish and wildlife and even humans....and it could happen across multiple areas....:(
     
  8. Dirty Penguin

    Dirty Penguin Master Of Ceremony

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    12,073
    Ratings:
    +615
    Not really conducive or a convincing solution since many people work an hour plus away from their home.

    We need to continue to design cars that get the most out of a tank of gas and/or working on cleaner alternative solutions.
     
  9. tumbleweed41

    tumbleweed41 Resident Liberal Hippie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    20,463
    Ratings:
    +1,334
    So, your argument is, "If we don't do it, someone else will."?

    Brilliant.
     
  10. tytlyf

    tytlyf The Mind's Eye

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,129
    Ratings:
    +1,792
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Oil powers much more than just cars. If the argument is that we need more oil local to reduce gas prices, that's been debunked.
     
  11. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Ignorant Atheist Libertarian Capitalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    128,318
    Ratings:
    +31,838
    Religion:
    Flavored Chicken
    Ad hominem! Straw man! False....uh....oh....wait....you're right.
    The OP did descend into snark right away.

    The reason we need Canuckistanian tar sands to be mined is cuz Wirey needs the
    job, & Las Vegas needs his wages. Even hookers have boat payments to make.
     
  12. Dirty Penguin

    Dirty Penguin Master Of Ceremony

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    12,073
    Ratings:
    +615
    Too funny.....
     
  13. Alceste

    Alceste Vagabond

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    26,030
    Ratings:
    +2,886
    Yes. We don't want leaky, dirty pipelines through some of our most pristine wildernesses, we don't want to ship tankers full of bitumen through dangerous and extremely sensitive marine environments, and we don't want the tar sands to keep polluting our water and contributing carbon emissions to the greatest existential threat in human history. We don't want any of it, and yes we are willing to ride bicycles.

    I need Wirey to keep making those big bucks to pay for my generous social safety net, but electricians will always have jobs, even without the tar sands.
     
  14. esmith

    esmith Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    10,413
    Ratings:
    +1,224
    Religion:
    No name designated at this time.
    Look, you have one of the protesters admitting on camera that if the pipeline is approved that they would do anything, including eco-terrorism, to prevent the pipeline from being built. Now, I am not saying that they all advocate violence to justify their beliefs but history does point in that direction. The statement that if the pipeline was built and this oil refined that it would increase pollution. One would have to assume that they believe that if the pipeline is not built in the US that this oil will not be refined elsewhere. Unless the Canadian Government stops the exporting of this oil, it will be refined. It has already been stated that China will take the oil. Now what I would like ask is who has more stringent environmental rules, the US or China? Do these protesters really think that less environmental impact will be achieved by refining the oil in China than in the US. Maybe I was a little harsh in calling them "dumb". I guess the correct term would living in a bubble and really do not understand the global issues on energy. I see them as self-righteous hypocrites.
     
  15. Alceste

    Alceste Vagabond

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    26,030
    Ratings:
    +2,886
    China doesn't "take" it. We sell it to them. We also sell it to you. It's not like we have to pick and choose - there's billions of tons of the stuff. A reduction in US trade is a reduction in total trade, not a transfer of your share to some other country.

    A reduction in total trade is a reduction in the rate of extraction, and therefore a reduction in the rate of pollution.
     
  16. esmith

    esmith Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    10,413
    Ratings:
    +1,224
    Religion:
    No name designated at this time.

    I realize that you are Canadian and we do share a common language, with a few idiosyncrasies, but you are misconstruing the term "take". If one offers an item for sale to two different parties at a certain price one party might "take" the offer while the other does not. From your comment it appears that you think that I meant that China would "take" the oil and not buy it. I would hope that you realize that your comment was just lashing out without thinking.

    If I am correct,I believe that there is a considerate push and opposition to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline if the Keystone pipeline is rejected by the US. I may be mistaken, but from what I have read one or the other will be built but not both. Some sources of information are as follows:

    Energy Independence Will Die With The Keystone Pipeline
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/energy-environment/canadas-new-pipeline-woes.html?_r=0
     
  17. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    26,686
    Ratings:
    +9,137
    Only limp-wristed wussies and freaks care about the "environment." Real men won't stop digging, cutting, and burning until the earth is a barren, smoldering wasteland - like god intended.
     
  18. tytlyf

    tytlyf The Mind's Eye

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,129
    Ratings:
    +1,792
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Let's not forget that there are a lot of outspoken native tribes on both sides of the border that do not want this pipeline.
     
  19. Willamena

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    38,193
    Ratings:
    +5,777
    In the interests of pedantry, wild geese and red herrings, I'd like to point out that the Athabasca Tar Sands belong to Alberta. Not all Canadians, just Albertans.

    Also, any criticisms and harsh words should be directed there, rather than just arbitrarily tossed over the border.

    (The federal government oversees trade, but they're our filthy polluting provincial natural resource.)
     
    #19 Willamena, Feb 20, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2013
  20. Falvlun

    Falvlun Earthbending Lemur
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    12,458
    Ratings:
    +2,295
    What exactly is "eco-terrorism"? It seems like it's one of those conservative catch-phrases that is being bandied about now to refer to people who want to protect the environment.
     
Loading...