Keystone XL Pipeline

[chikenwing]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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!

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!

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?

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?

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]

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!

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

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.]

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.