# Keystone XL Pipeline



## gnarlylove (Jan 29, 2014)

Here is the full proposed route.







Below are two pictures of the result of separating the valuable crude from the sand. I call them Sulfur Block Mountains:











These mountains will only grow with time. This is inherently ugly and is no way to go about meeting energy demands.

Luckily, latest polls show a  jump to 40% in opposition to the pipeline. There was also a drop from 65% support to 55%. The more Americans find out the less likely they are to support this bid to continue our dependence on oil. I bet very few people are aware of the scale of these sulfur mountains or that it is hardly a major job-creator. Of course this creates jobs but at $5.3B (some estimate $7B) its awfully expensive to create just 9,000 _*direct*_ jobs for 2 years or less. Long term there will only be a few thousand employed.

Let's hope this gets shut down once again just like last year! Contrary to lowering oil prices, it will do no such thing. Oil prices are set on a global level and the tar sands will not provide enough oil to significantly change the market.

However, southern points have already been marked and some built. This does not bode well. If approved, the main beneficiaries will be oil executives in Canada like TransCanada who is paying big for ads. As the crude is shipped to Texas, some oil men will score big too as their older plants are fit to refine the heavier crude. Although it will slightly reduce our dependence on Venezuelan or Persian oil, the benefits can hardly be said to go to the consumer. Largely a few wealthy men will profit over the long term and the environment and farming communities will suffer. We will still depend on foreign oil and nothing much will have changed.


----------



## gnarlylove (Jan 31, 2014)

Today the State Department released its final report on the environmental impact of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The headlines in the mainstream media faithfully repeated the oil industry&#8217;s spin. It&#8217;s true that the oil industry lobbyists did everything they could to sway this report to their liking &#8211; and we&#8217;re going to have to fight hard in the coming months to overcome their influence.

But the real news is that this report &#8211; despite being written by a deeply compromised contractor that was practically handpicked by TransCanada and the American Petroleum Institute &#8211; still couldn&#8217;t refute one crucial fact.

The State Department&#8217;s review has acknowledged&#8212;for the very first time&#8212;that the tar sands pipeline could accelerate climate change.

Make no mistake: the climate upheaval that will result from the tar sands expansion driven by the Keystone XL will far exceed the State Department&#8217;s projections&#8212;which continue to downplay the risks to our planet. Not the smartest way to proceed continuing the precedent of no action.

But the State Department&#8217;s final review provides President Obama with more than enough ammunition to reject the climate-wrecking pipeline. It&#8217;s up to him.

The President has promised to stop the tar sands pipeline if it will drive significantly more global warming pollution and climate chaos.

The evidence is now overwhelming that this project would do exactly that. It&#8217;s time for President Obama to keep his word, stand up to Big Oil and put our climate first.

The Keystone XL would pump a river of corrosive, toxic tar sands oil from Canada right through the American heartland&#8212;endangering water supplies, threatening our farms and homes and creating a grand total of a few dozen permanent jobs. Meanwhile, most of the oil will be exported.

How can that possibly be in our national interest? It's only in the interest of the few hundred people who continue to prosper wildly.


----------



## gnarlylove (Jan 31, 2014)

With the release of the State Department&#8217;s Final Environmental Impact Statement (or FEIS) the final decision is near. It kicks off the State Department&#8217;s 90-day National Interest Determination &#8211; a process involving other agencies, that should be more difficult for the oil industry to corrupt, and will allow Secretary Kerry to step in and show climate leadership.

Then, the final decision will be solely in the hands of the president. It is a decision that has wide implications for his presidency, and the progress we can make fighting climate change. He will have to decide which side he is on: Will he do what&#8217;s best for big oil or will he do what&#8217;s clearly in our national interest and reject this pipeline?


----------



## waltky (Feb 3, 2014)

Granny says if dey want more natural gas - dey oughta hook up a pipeline to Uncle Ferd's g/f's butt...

*As Keystone XL Pipeline Clears One Hurdle, WH Hints at Further Delay*
_February 3, 2014 -- The U.S. State Department on Friday released yet another "final" environmental impact statement that finds no major objection to the Keystone XL pipeline -- a project that would contribute approximately $3.4 billion to the U.S. economy and create 42,100 jobs, according to the State Department's own report._


> So why won't President Obama approve the job-creating project that's been in limbo since 2008? White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough repeatedly dodged that question Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."  "So is this thing ready to be greenlighted by the president? What would hold him back from saying, yes, the Keystone pipeline should be built, should go forward?" David Gregory asked  McDonough on Sunday.  "He laid out his view on this last summer, which is that -- his view is that, if this is to go forward, it should not significantly exacerbate the climate crisis in this country," McDonough replied.
> 
> "Right," Gregory said. "Didn't the State Department answer that and said it won't?"  McDonough said the State Department report is "important to that process. We'll hear from other Cabinet secretaries." He then noted that the U.S. is now producing more oil than it imports.  "You didn't answer my question," Gregory said.  McDonough pointed to a news report about the "terrible drought in the West" which he blamed on "climate change." "So we're going to obviously resolve the Keystone question, but that's one in a much bigger issue...climate."
> 
> ...



See also:

*'Energy Policy' Will Solve Climate Change and Create 'Mother of All Markets'*
_February 3, 2014 -- Just as computer technology greatly expanded Americans' wealth in the 1990s, the clean energy market could do the same thing in the years ahead, Secretary of State John Kerry told the Munich Security Conference in Germany on Saturday._


> He touted climate change as a societal challenge and an economic opportunity:  "We created the greatest wealth the world has seen during the 1990s, greater even in America than the period of the Pierponts and the Morgans and the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Mellons--much greater. You know what it was? It was a $1-trillion market with 1 billion users. It was the high-tech market, the personal computer mostly, communications.  "The energy market that we are staring at--that is the solution to the climate change," Kerry continued. "Energy policy is the solution to climate change. That market, my friends, is a $6-trillion market today with 4 to 5 billion users today, and it will grow to some 9 billion users over the course of the next 20 to 30 years.  "It is the mother of all markets, and only a few visionaries are doing what is necessary to reach out and touch it and grab it and command its future."
> 
> Kerry urged conference attendees to read the latest report from the Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change. "It's really chilling," he said. "And what's chilling is not rhetoric; it's the scientific facts, scientific facts. And our history is filled with struggles through the Age of Reason and the Renaissance and the Enlightenment for all of us to learn some respect for science. The fact is that there is no doubt about the real day-to-day impact of the human contribution to the change in climate."  Kerry said although climate change is solvable, the skeptics need to be convinced by the ruling class:  "There seems to be an absence of will, an absence of collective leadership that's ready to come together and tell our people -- not what they're necessarily telling us through this crazy social media... but for us as leaders to suggest to them, this is what you ought to be interested in, because it actually affects your life and your livelihood and your future."
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 3, 2014)

We can't have "inherently ugly" shit piling up now can we? 

Those sulfur blocks are ultimately removed and remediated. Sulfur is a valuable commodity, you know. 

Go masturbate somewhere else.


----------



## RGR (Feb 4, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Let's hope this gets shut down once again just like last year! Contrary to lowering oil prices, it will do no such thing. Oil prices are set on a global level and the tar sands will not provide enough oil to significantly change the market.



They already have, becoming one of the largest producing oil fields on the planet, which means they are already far past just "significant". 



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> However, southern points have already been marked and some built. This does not bode well. If approved, the main beneficiaries will be oil executives in Canada like TransCanada who is paying big for ads.



Transcanada paying big for ads doesn't much benefit oil executives in Canada. Might help out an ad agency somewhere, but the Canadian oil folks make their money in other ways.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> As the crude is shipped to Texas, some oil men will score big too as their older plants are fit to refine the heavier crude. Although it will slightly reduce our dependence on Venezuelan or Persian oil, the benefits can hardly be said to go to the consumer.



Stop using oil and then let us know how non-beneficial it is to you. Might make up for your thoughtless comments on the rest of the downstream hydrocarbon distribution chain.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Largely a few wealthy men will profit over the long term and the environment and farming communities will suffer. We will still depend on foreign oil and nothing much will have changed.



Plenty will change. I would sooner donate to the trade imbalance with Canada than some other country, particularly those specializing in using the money to try and kill Americans.


----------



## RGR (Feb 4, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> But the real news is that this report  despite being written by a deeply compromised contractor that was practically handpicked by TransCanada and the American Petroleum Institute  still couldnt refute one crucial fact.
> 
> The State Departments review has acknowledgedfor the very first timethat the tar sands pipeline could accelerate climate change.



Considering that there hasn't been much in the way of temperature change for more than a decade now, accelerating no change is meaningless.

May I recommend stopping your personal contribution to CO2 emissions if you believe so strongly that they are related to climate change? 



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Make no mistake: the climate upheaval that will result from the tar sands expansion driven by the Keystone XL will far exceed the State Departments projectionswhich continue to downplay the risks to our planet. Not the smartest way to proceed continuing the precedent of no action.



What are you talking about, no action? The world saved itself with Kyoto, for some reason right about the time folks signed that one, temperature increases stopped! OBVIOUSLY it worked....



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> How can that possibly be in our national interest? It's only in the interest of the few hundred people who continue to prosper wildly.



So you don't use any oil? You don't profit from the exploration for, development and distribution of oil by USING any? Amazing....so your computer doesn't have any plastic using hydrocarbon chemical feedstock? Amazing....what did you build it from...wood?


----------



## whitehall (Feb 6, 2014)

Statistics prove that pipelines are safer than shipping petroleum by truck or train or ship and cheaper too. Funny how everyone but the freaking president thinks the Keystone pipeline is a win win.


----------



## jwoodie (Feb 6, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Here is the full proposed route.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yah, windmills are sooo beautiful (except in Hyannisport).


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 7, 2014)

RIGZONE - US State Dept: Without Keystone, Oil Trains May Cause 6 Deaths Per Year

Feb 2 (Reuters) - _Replacing the Keystone XL pipeline with oil-laden freight trains from Canada may result in an average of six additional rail-related deaths per year, according to a U.S. State Department report that is adding to pressure for President Barack Obama to approve the line. _

About 40 people considered missing in Quebec train disaster; five declared dead | Globalnews.ca


----------



## longknife (Feb 7, 2014)

You and I both know the greenie wackos would rather have trains burst into flames or massive destruction when trucks carrying the natural gas get into an accident.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 7, 2014)

of course folks it is generally safer than trains. no one is disputing that.

the issue which i know you disagree with is that america should not be moving forward by installing a guarantee of increased fossil fuel consumption. those of us who respect that planet as our provider has seen the damage done and we think its time to change our future. the future is unwritten and we are determined to live in harmony with nature instead of pumping nature dry till.

just respect that fact that people can respectfully disagree with your ideas and be intelligent. i imagine you all are decent folks. i think the environmental impact of kxl is real and ensures future generations problems to come. its based in money and not in what's best for the world. some confuse these two and think what's good for man is necessarily good for the earth. i disagree on both accounts, it's neither good for man nor good for earth. benzene and other toxins come from this and will continue to send 100s and 1000s of people into cancer treatment and respiratory treatment in texas where the refineries are among a litany of other risks.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 7, 2014)

Gnarly if you don't want us to obtain more energy please get the fuck off of the Internet


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 7, 2014)

its called responsiblity. if we fail to be responsible to our planet, it will no longer offer us the abundance.

there is a balance, as with every thing on the planet. however, you have not striked that balance between hatred and respect.

so welcome to the internet where your kind rule: where indecency and ass holes have no conception of how to treat opposition except through ceaseless denial and personal attacks.

have a fucking fantastic day you fellow piece of star dust!


----------



## RGR (Feb 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> of course folks it is generally safer than trains. no one is disputing that.
> 
> the issue which i know you disagree with is that america should not be moving forward by installing a guarantee of increased fossil fuel consumption. those of us who respect that planet as our provider has seen the damage done and we think its time to change our future.



Guarantee  of increased consumption? Now why in the WORLD would you say that? Do you really think that the human demands for power generation will suddenly skip one of the largest resources on the planet because dumbass Americans decide to not be the ones to get their cut of the inevitable? And folks like you using hydrocarbons to provide electricity so that you can post on your computer utilizing plastics derived from those same hydrocarbons you are whining about?

But you are whining because you RESPECT the environment, and want everyone else to behave in a way you can't even emulate yourself? Sure, we always believe the hypocrites.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> it's neither good for man nor good for earth. benzene and other toxins come from this and will continue to send 100s and 1000s of people into cancer treatment and respiratory treatment in texas where the refineries are among a litany of other risks.



Life involves risk. What part of that do you so obviously not understand? Vegans can be hit by a bus...or meteorite...as easily as Texans living near refineries. Don't like your risk profile? Feel free to change it, but don't pretend your values are any different than those used by fascists down through the ages to force compliance with a lifestyle that YOU certainly can't be bothered to accept.


----------



## RGR (Feb 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> its called responsiblity. if we fail to be responsible to our planet, it will no longer offer us the abundance.



Apparently you require everyone else to be responsible...except you? See, that doesn't work so well. Frank has it pegged.

Fascists are quite common, the reason for the fascism is irrelevant, eco-fears is quite a common one right now.

Comply with my stand on all good humans should only eat granola or else off with your head!!


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 25, 2014)

Looking for quality reading on the XL? Look no further: Clearing Our Heads About Keystone | "Global Possibilities"


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 26, 2014)

Keystone PipeLIES Exposed - Spills from Center for Media and Democracy on Vimeo


----------



## RGR (Feb 27, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Looking for quality reading on the XL? Look no further: Clearing Our Heads About Keystone | "Global Possibilities"



Pretty bad reference Gnarly. Got anything that has a non-advocacy approach, and isn't trying to sell living in mud huts and eating only granola because the author wants to force everyone into a lifestyle that THEY think everyone should live like.


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 27, 2014)

Governors cite President Barack Obama saying decision on Keystone XL pipeline to come soon | CJOnline.com


----------



## chikenwing (Feb 28, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> of course folks it is generally safer than trains. no one is disputing that.
> 
> the issue which i know you disagree with is that america should not be moving forward by installing a guarantee of increased fossil fuel consumption. those of us who respect that planet as our provider has seen the damage done and we think its time to change our future. the future is unwritten and we are determined to live in harmony with nature instead of pumping nature dry till.
> 
> just respect that fact that people can respectfully disagree with your ideas and be intelligent. i imagine you all are decent folks. i think the environmental impact of kxl is real and ensures future generations problems to come. its based in money and not in what's best for the world. some confuse these two and think what's good for man is necessarily good for the earth. i disagree on both accounts, it's neither good for man nor good for earth. benzene and other toxins come from this and will continue to send 100s and 1000s of people into cancer treatment and respiratory treatment in texas where the refineries are among a litany of other risks.



So your car runs on what?,your home is heated with what?,your food is processed with what?

You think we could get a large enough sail on an 18 wheeler to get it up and over the Rockies?


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 28, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> So your car runs on what?,your home is heated with what?,your food is processed with what?
> 
> You think we could get a large enough sail on an 18 wheeler to get it up and over the Rockies?



Yourr right.

But only under this condition: humans can only survive with fossil fuels and nothing else. As long as we accept that premise, we are indeed limited to running our cars on FF and heating our homes with methane, a FF on and on.

But if you believe there is an alternative that at some point can feasibly sustain life then we should deeply encourage it for one main reason.

1. because in extraction of coal oil and natural gas (among other precious natural resources) [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp/0805092994"]we are eliminating species and ecologies at a dangerous rate, including the global climate that threatens our well-being as a species. The 6th extinction[/ame]

Indeed, fossil fuels have sustained life--as well as annihilated species and ecologies--for about 300 yrs, while life on earth has been around without burning FF for about 3 billion. And since we are reaching a dangerous change in climate resulting from FF and we do in fact have ideas on how to solve this (employ alternative energy and reduce consumption), we must demand they be encouraged otherwise we simply will face wide global scarcity.

I know this is a big hit on your ego since you are appalled by the fact nature and reality must impose on you limits. That you cannot drive carelessly and leave the car running for hours without reason. But it's a threat that implies the extreme suffering of all of the biota if we don't slow down. I know you are a really important person but without reducing waste, we will be in trouble so sacrificing a small amount now is muc better than sacrificing the well being of our species.


----------



## chikenwing (Feb 28, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > So your car runs on what?,your home is heated with what?,your food is processed with what?
> ...



You assume way to much sparky,hysterical nonsense just means ya got nothing.


What are your viable alternatives? Would you embrace the power of the atom?


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 28, 2014)

Typical, first you ridicule (which is your whole argument), then you ask a question which you have no interest in hearing the answer to. Such potent intellectual defense of your positions terrifies me into realizing there are no viable alternatives.

Without efforts put towards expanding nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, to transition from fossil fuels gradually to less and less fossil fuels, naturally there will be no viable alternatives. No duh. So long as you think the public has no business funding research and development on better alternative enegies and methods, then naturally there will be no viable development come from these areas. The bottom line gravitates towards exploitation for profit and it's easier to make a profit off own oil reserves and extracting and selling them then it is to "exploit" the sun, water etc.

Please do not be crass and assume I mean a single source of power is the answer right now. I am asking for a transition from only fossil fuels to using alternative energies so that eventually fossil fuel consumption will go down, not up AND then continue to decrease as we continue to fund alternative energies and subsidizing them. If we ignore this option of transition, it will be forced upon us in a century and panic and austerity will be the result.


----------



## Toro (Feb 28, 2014)

Obama will eventually approve the project, probably after the mid-terms.

The reason is simple.  Not building the pipeline will do nothing for greenhouse gases.  A pipeline, or pipelines, will be built across Canada and the crude sold abroad.


----------



## chikenwing (Mar 3, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Typical, first you ridicule (which is your whole argument), then you ask a question which you have no interest in hearing the answer to. Such potent intellectual defense of your positions terrifies me into realizing there are no viable alternatives.
> 
> Without efforts put towards expanding nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, to transition from fossil fuels gradually to less and less fossil fuels, naturally there will be no viable alternatives. No duh. So long as you think the public has no business funding research and development on better alternative enegies and methods, then naturally there will be no viable development come from these areas. The bottom line gravitates towards exploitation for profit and it's easier to make a profit off own oil reserves and extracting and selling them then it is to "exploit" the sun, water etc.
> 
> Please do not be crass and assume I mean a single source of power is the answer right now. I am asking for a transition from only fossil fuels to using alternative energies so that eventually fossil fuel consumption will go down, not up AND then continue to decrease as we continue to fund alternative energies and subsidizing them. If we ignore this option of transition, it will be forced upon us in a century and panic and austerity will be the result.



so in other words don't be like me right??

Everyday another wind turbine is brought on line,we are working on alternatives,NOW,but you try and make it sound like we are not.

So hysteria dose not hold much water.


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 3, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > Typical, first you ridicule (which is your whole argument), then you ask a question which you have no interest in hearing the answer to. Such potent intellectual defense of your positions terrifies me into realizing there are no viable alternatives.
> ...



Well, then, I am glad you are not vehemently opposed to alternative energies for some core belief in fossil fuels. I don't know where you get hysteria from " I am asking for a transition from only fossil fuels to using alternative energies so that eventually fossil fuel consumption will go down." Unless of course you think all people who propose alternative energies as essential for our future is hysteria. It's not but from your viewpoint I guess words are less important than the fact you get to ridicule the basic ideas of progress.

The US has cut back on research and development 25% in the last decade while all developed nations are increasing R&D. But you assert wind turbines are going up each day but I'd like to ask where you got that info.

I don't deny we are haphazardly creating alternative energies, but the fossil fuel industry is also building Constitutional Pipeline and dozens of others carrying methane that will exacerbate climate change. Approaching alternative energies without making it a national priority gives us little reason to expect to combat climate change when fossil fuels are ever increasing. It increases about 3% a year. Each second the world burns through 300,000 gallons of oil, the equivalent of an Olympic pool filled and then is burned up in one second, on and on.


----------



## longknife (Mar 3, 2014)

Is this about what energy sources we're going to deal with or JOBS and INCOME?

The pipeline will provide jobs, not only in its construction, but at the terminal where people are going to be needed to help transfer the product to ships taking it to foreign countries.

Everything else is political posturing of one side trying to be superior to the other.


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 3, 2014)

I don't deny we need more jobs in America. But here is the State Dept.'s analysis on jobs:


> annual jobs across the United States over a 1- to 2- year construction period (of which, approximately 3,900 would be directly employed in construction activities)....
> Generally, the largest economic impacts of pipelines occur during construction rather than operations. *Once in place*, the labor requirements for pipeline *operations are relatively minor*. Operation of the proposed Project would generate *35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs*, primarily for routine inspections, maintenance, and repairs. Based on this estimate,routine operation of the proposed Pipeline would have negligible socioeconomic impacts.



See here for more on the State Dept.'s analysis: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205719.pdf#page=16
For more an analysis on this document and views you express, read Keystone PipeLIES Exposed: The Facts on Phantom Jobs, Phony Gas Prices and Missing Revenue

You are right that a _political analysis_ leads to believing sides are posturing. But is this the only analysis we should consider? Political insight focuses on who is winning and immediate _political_ impacts. What about actual logical analysis or perspectives on the future? What about the scientific analysis?

I don't deny many people are resisting to simply resist (on all sides). I only hope your post is sincere. Experience says most posters on USMB don't give a fuck. So surprise me or else don't bother by not wasting our time, please.

Beyond narrow understanding that political analysis provides, science definitively indicates climate disruption is due to industry, largely. Why are we using tar sands, the least efficient and a risker method of extraction? Tar sands extraction is costing millions of gallons in fuel to power the largest Uke Trucks ever made. Moreover, the community, Fort Chipewyan, downstream from tar sands extraction site has a cancer rate incidence 30% above the average. Should we consider this or should we neglect human health and poor fuel ratios for political analysis?

If we continue to align ourselves with ancient fossil fuels by building more infrastructure (not just Keystone), we will simply not make adequate progress towards a sustainable economy. We will wait until nature foists it upon us. Then our options of gradual reduction are not possible. Permanent declines in food production, clean water etc will be a shock given the sheer abundance to which we are accustom.

So do we want to guarantee greater fossil fuel dependence when we could just as easily invest billions (not the current ~200M/yr) in creating a cleaner, abundant future while generating 100s of thousands of temp. and perm. jobs? It depends on your perspective. If you think about yourself only or the present day only, Keystone is negligible and can offer a way to resist sustainable change for old fogeys. But this extremely narrow perspective is not the only one to consider.


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 3, 2014)

Here is an excellent clip on Keystone:
Hundreds of Keystone XL Protestors Arrested, Look to Influence Obama's Final Decision on Pipeline
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48RydI7vPMg#t=283[/ame]


----------



## chikenwing (Mar 4, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> I don't deny we need more jobs in America. But here is the State Dept.'s analysis on jobs:
> 
> 
> > annual jobs across the United States over a 1- to 2- year construction period (of which, approximately 3,900 would be directly employed in construction activities)....
> ...



So what are the alternatives that can run large truck,trains,and manufacturing,what is available right now and what will be ready in 5 years?

Construction projects are temp in nature,trying to say that it just doesn't have enough joibs is total BS .


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 4, 2014)

Your questions are very valid. But most people who ask those questions are the same people that fight to keep Big Oil and others in place. It's a huge contradiction that must cease IF we are to have viable alternatives.

If we are willing and open to new energy and development, we must also push for it because our gov't won't do it. Our gov't is beholden to corporations, oil lobby, and campaign spending to fund their victories. SO sitting idly by waiting for someone to do something is certainty that nothing will get done. I bet it sounds strange to you but there is no other way.

Either it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy where there are no alternatives and hence we face definitive issues in the future or citizens can join together to create demand for these alternatives. A whole lot is possible given our resources as a nation but if we don't apply them, well, what can we expect?


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 4, 2014)

> ...in the market system you have a choice: You can buy a Toyota or you can buy a Ford, but you can&#8217;t buy a subway because that&#8217;s not offered. Market systems don&#8217;t offer common goods; they offer private consumption. If you want a subway, you&#8217;re going to have to get together with other people and make a collective decision. Otherwise, it&#8217;s simply not an option within the market system, and as democracy is increasingly undermined, it&#8217;s less and less of an option within the public system.


Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet

My point in posting this is our current idea is markets will provide. They will not. We need mass transit (high speed rail) in America but instead of offering this, the market offers cars. Obama sent someone in 2009 to Spain to discuss paying Spain federal money to build high speed rails in America. How stupid is that? Why not pay our own citizens who need the jobs to do such a task? Similarly, markets externalize these sorts of things (the need for jobs) and so we are left private consumption: transportation via car, truck or 18 wheeler.


----------



## RGR (Mar 4, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Beyond narrow understanding that political analysis provides, science definitively indicates climate disruption is due to industry, largely.



Yes...absolutely...that is why New York no longer sits under mile deep ice....industry disrupted the climate.

Can you point out what particular "industry" was going so full bore 15,000 years ago that it did far more warming than anyone can imagine, has calculated to date, or expects in the near future because of all current activity?

Pesky industry...those PaleoIndians must have been making beads like crazy!



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Why are we using tar sands, the least efficient and a risker method of extraction?



They aren't the least efficient (oil shale would be) and they AREN'T risky (everyone knows exactly where they are). Do try and learn some basic resource economics before playing stooge to whatever your advocacy position is.

Margin barrel dictates price, efficiency is irrelevant to that fact. Only that people like YOU find it perfectly okay to continue demanding hydrocarbon based products, like the computer you type out your incompetent screed on.

More competence! Less hypocrisy!



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Moreover, the community, Fort Chipewyan, downstream from tar sands extraction site has a cancer rate incidence 30% above the average. Should we consider this or should we neglect human health and poor fuel ratios for political analysis?



We do consider this. All the time. Same as we consider this:







and it doesn't stop YOU from continuing to consume hydrocarbons, so what makes you think it will stop anyone else?



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> So do we want to guarantee greater fossil fuel dependence when we could just as easily invest billions (not the current ~200M/yr) in creating a cleaner, abundant future while generating 100s of thousands of temp. and perm. jobs?



I don't know. Why do YOU want such things to continue by using fossil fuels?



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> It depends on your perspective. If you think about yourself only or the present day only, Keystone is negligible and can offer a way to resist sustainable change for old fogeys. But this extremely narrow perspective is not the only one to consider.



Then why do you consider? When are YOU going to throw off the shackles of fossil fuel dependence and stop posting on a computer constructed from fossil fuel inputs? And how dare you tell us to do something you aren't willing to do FIRST?


----------



## RGR (Mar 4, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Your questions are very valid. But most people who ask those questions are the same people that fight to keep Big Oil and others in place. It's a huge contradiction that must cease IF we are to have viable alternatives.



We do have viable alternatives you half wit. Some of us use solar panels to handle out transportation needs already. More are coming. Soon, there will be more of us proactive types than the whiners!








			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> If we are willing and open to new energy and development, we must also push for it because our gov't won't do it.



Hogwash. I recommend a drive along I70 west of Salinas Kansas if you think someone is not doing something. Where do you get this nonsense? You have a computer...look it up!

Smoky Hills Wind Farm - I-70 in Kansas



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Either it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy where there are no alternatives and hence we face definitive issues in the future or citizens can join together to create demand for these alternatives. A whole lot is possible given our resources as a nation but if we don't apply them, well, what can we expect?



To have more hypocrites that use fossil fuel constructed computers complaining about fossil fuels using fossil fueled power? And don't know about the wind farms sprouting up all over the place, the new approval of nukes, the advent of pretty darn cheap and clean natural gas powering more electrical generation so said hypocrites can continue to post about how everyone else should stop using fossil fuels even if said hypocrites can't? or WON'T?


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 4, 2014)

Sure, climate change has happened in the past. No one is arguing that.

But what you are arguing is fallacious. In other words, you have an error in your logic. Here's what the fallacy is called and why you are committing it: Fallacy: Ignoring a Common Cause

Just because natural events have always caused climate change in the past does not mean only natural events cause climate change. In fact, we have a virtually certain new explanation: human caused climate disruption. CO2 levels have steadily increased alongside the industrial revolution and no body denies that. Moreover, the IPCC states their conclusion in the AR5 that came out recently. Their final assessment is 95% certainty that humans are causing climate change.

Any sane person would pick scientific expertise over your fallacious argument (IPCC consists of thousands of expert scientists in climate science from all over the globe).


----------



## RGR (Mar 5, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Sure, climate change has happened in the past. No one is arguing that.



But what they do argue about is the natural variability, because they say that now, apparently, such variability is caused by other stuff.

When natural variability encompasses warmer temperatures, wouldn't it be nice for folks to acknowledge such things more often than trumpeting their analysis from only the temperature rise from the end of the LIA?







			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Just because natural events have always caused climate change in the past does not mean only natural events cause climate change. In fact, we have a virtually certain new explanation: human caused climate disruption. CO2 levels have steadily increased alongside the industrial revolution and no body denies that. Moreover, the IPCC states their conclusion in the AR5 that came out recently.



The IPCC are the same folks who made the history of paleoclimate disappear one afternoon because it was inconvenient. So people have added CO2? Sure...and we did it during a natural rebound out of the little ice age. So?

Are you aware of the concept "modeling noise"? Are you aware of what a "spurious relationship" is within statistics?

A-temperatures are going up.
B-co2 is going up.
C-mankind is increasing CO2

Therefore mankind increasing co2 is causing temperatures to go up.

But if temperatures were going up within the same variability band as they before, in this case even LESS, you don't get to claim that A is dependent on C without quite a bit more information.

Might I recommend Kobashi et al, 2011, for your review? Maybe within the century we'll be outside the normal bounds of variability....maybe. But we ain't there yet.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Any sane person would pick scientific expertise over your fallacious argument (IPCC consists of thousands of expert scientists in climate science from all over the globe).



Any sane person would understand that an organization that can dismiss 50 years of paleoclimate science work, to make sure folks aren't talking about the past 10,000 years of temperature isn't doing the science work you claim they are. That isn't how science works.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Mar 8, 2014)

LOL... so it's all a conspiracy? Do tell. ... Unfalsifiable theory has always been a favorite tactic of your ilk. But what's in it for all those "junk scientists" at the IPCC, anyway?  Can't wait. 

Keep fighting the good fight, climate/peak oil denier. You're in the industry, after all. Your motives are clear, regardless of how many different discussion forums you troll (probably while you're supposed to be working) to maintain your horrid narrative.

Your arguments in this thread are almost as chalk full of tortured logic as they are overt dishonesty. I especially enjoy the "Hypocrite! Shame on you for using fossil fuels to type this message" ploy. That never worked before, and it still isn't. Ah well, you entered the forum labeling yourself an "arrogant dick." Why would anyone be surprised that you'd deflect from a question of ethics to one of blame-shame. Dick.

I know I put you to bed last summer, leaving you flailing, conjuring up straw man arguments, and generally re-writing forum history in an effort to save face. But I've got some time on my hands, and I think I'll stick around for a while. Your toxic nonsense throughout this sub-forum screams for a new round of accountability.

Before I begin, let me just ask you something: Do you believe oil production is based on a demand-constrained model, or a supply-constrained one? In any event, I can not WAIT for you to spin the latest data coming out of the oil majors. But then, you were never very good at the economics part of the equation, so I'll go slowly with you.


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 8, 2014)

RGR is definitely indebted to sourcing information that is slanted towards his side of the argument. When only people agree with you it makes it easy to run that tiny loop over and over and claim it has the truth. Sadly incapable of learning about how people can deceive you who have power and money, so well that you would fight for their lies to the death. It is a really tragedy people will take these lies to the grave with them no matter what the world comes to know in objective science and human intellectual advancement.

Nice graphy. If only it wasn't to doctored it could have a shred of credibility.


----------



## Mr. H. (Mar 8, 2014)

5 Things to Know About Canada?s Grain Backlog - Five Things - WSJ

_The Canadian government took the unusual step Friday of introducing stiff new railway regulations aimed at easing grain-shipment woes that have driven the price of oats to historic highs in the U.S._

So now we are seeing that the lack of this pipeline is driving up food prices in the U.S. 

_But some farmers say the growing transport of crude oil by rail is a factor._


----------



## 1ArizonaMan (Mar 19, 2014)

The Keystone XL pipeline project should have been approved by this Admin a long time ago. Unfortunatley the infestation of CAGW hysteria peddling enviros has been taking its toll. The EPA under this Admin could not be more partisan and corrupt if they tried.


----------



## RGR (Mar 24, 2014)

JiggsCasey said:


> LOL... so it's all a conspiracy? Do tell. ... Unfalsifiable theory has always been a favorite tactic of your ilk. But what's in it for all those "junk scientists" at the IPCC, anyway?  Can't wait.



Please tell us you haven't joined yet another religious cult and are going to start parroting their dogma as poorly as you have spouted the peak oil dogma?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Keep fighting the good fight, climate/peak oil denier.



What are you talking about parrot? The fear meme is there to be taken advantage of. You might like putting liquid fuels in your car at the local extortion stores, I do not.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> You're in the industry, after all.



Not during the past 17 years. Do try and keep up, your information is terribly dated.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Your motives are clear, regardless of how many different discussion forums you troll (probably while you're supposed to be working) to maintain your horrid narrative.



My motives ARE clear. American fuel in American cars! Go team! Fear not the parrots of doom!









			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Before I begin, let me just ask you something: Do you believe oil production is based on a demand-constrained model, or a supply-constrained one? In any event, I can not WAIT for you to spin the latest data coming out of the oil majors. But then, you were never very good at the economics part of the equation, so I'll go slowly with you.



Are you now parroting the same questions you parroted a few weeks ago? And that have already been answered? And you...now look as though...you've forgotten you've even asked them?

Wait a second... are you a bot?

Or our beloved Jiggsy?


----------



## RGR (Mar 24, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> RGR is definitely indebted to sourcing information that is slanted towards his side of the argument.



And why in the world would I attempt to make someone else's argument for them? Understanding both sides of an issue is required to make a reasonably informed opinion on the topic, most form opinion first, and then reinforce only the now pre-conceived notion.  

Someone defending their position poorly is just begging for a learning opportunity...the question is, when it presents itself, do they take it that way, or just stick with what they are comfortable with, most people really wanting to just believe, and not take the hard steps required to LEARN.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> It is a really tragedy people will take these lies to the grave with them no matter what the world comes to know in objective science and human intellectual advancement.



Do tell. End of worlders, gold bugs, peak oilers, warmers, coolers, truthers, traveling preachers, human-hating anti-development fascists, all ready to sell anyone who will listen a bill of goods. They don't even get to the objective science part, hell, they don't get to the "how history has disproven the idea before" part.


----------

