Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 12:56am PT
|
Just remember for every smoggy day you SEE. There is at least 100 times more CO2 pollution you can't see.
I guess we will have to disagree.
CO2, or carbon and oxygen, are the basis of all terrestrial life! We are carbon-based life on Earth. The whole Global Warming thing is a farce. A scam!
The key question in this KXL debate is, "Would you rather buy Saudi oil, or give them the finger for good and produce our own energy here, with Canada?".
That is the essence of the debate to me. F*#k the CO2 crap, go talk to China, Mexico, and India about 'pollutants' and 'smog'.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 03:49am PT
|
CO2, or carbon and oxygen, are the basis of all terrestrial life! We are carbon-based life on Earth. The whole Global Warming thing is a farce. A scam!
I will admit that is an attractive thought at first glance. Yet it does not bear up to much scrutiny.
It's akin to saying water is basic to life thus more water is always ok. However in reality a flood is terribly damaging.
-----
All of this aside I support the KXL pipeline. No sense throwing the baby out with the bathwater when trying to address problems..Especially if your proposal is just throwing the baby out and the bathwater remains.
In this case the baby is the the people who live lives and need jobs ie the economy. The bathwater is the co2 polution. I don't see that stopping the pipeline will do much for pollution. The pollution from this source is just a tiny drop compared to what is out there.. and stopping the pipeline won't stop the production.
I'm for Nuclear I think it's the only energy source currently available capable of replacing hydrocarbons for civilizations energy needs. CO2 producing methods must be replaced.. and pretending to ourselves that solar or wind can do the whole job (with current or soon to be realized tech) or that efficiency will outstrip growth in demand is foolishness.
We will need every bit of economic power we can get to solve our problems. I'm not for crippling the engine needed to solve the CO2 issue.
|
|
julton
climber
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 02:29pm PT
|
Thus LNG can be a slightly better CO2 polluter than gasoline. It is not a huge difference however .. say max aprox 15% Not enough to "save the world" in anycase.
It's closer to 30% (you forgot to count carbons). It would have been trivial to just look the numbers up.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 03:08pm PT
|
The numbers regarding use in comparably efficient intenal cumbustion engines do not seem readily available. I spent over an hour looking for just some very basic info. Trying to compare apples to apples. I would be glad for any references you have found.
Anycase I clearly said I was wrong about some stuff I had posted previously. I am genuinely interested in learning more onn this.
Sadly 15% or 30% I still suggest that NG is not a viable long term solution to CO2 pollution issues.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 03:22pm PT
|
It's a near term solution that reduces harm.
Harm reduction - it's not your Daddy's zero tolerance.
|
|
julton
climber
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 03:28pm PT
|
climbski, google carbon dioxide per unit of fuel. It's basic chemisty unless for some reason you think an engine using methane will be a lot less efficient. To be rigorous you'd have to look at the whole supply chain and life cycle. It's not a long term solution. I think the word people use is bridge although a bridge to what exactly isn't clear.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 03:50pm PT
|
TGT,
This whole thread is about dictating what people must do, rather than considering individual preferences. The references to population density, and the contempt to which Americans' preferences for less dense housing was held above, show ample evidence of that.
While I happen to find the scientific and statistical literature on the effects of anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gasses overwhelming, that literature cannot answer "what should we do?" without taking peoples' preferences into account. That's the last thing a true believer in the evils of our current lifestyles wants to do.
John
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 03:58pm PT
|
Here we go....
This thread has officially attracted the ideological flies whose science is dictated to them by right wing spin think tanks.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 04:01pm PT
|
" and pretending to ourselves that solar or wind can do the whole job (with current or soon to be realized tech)"
Solar and Wind are the future,and they both make more jobs than ANY fossil fuel extraction or distribution.
Japan is switching to renewables right now and it will not be long and China will be ahead of us in both industries.
Edit:Base ,Gee you think?
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 05:25pm PT
|
I don't think that China will do anything that is not economically competitive with fossil fuels.
It really does come down to money in the end. It is a shame that there are few altruists when you get down to the nitty gritty.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 05:27pm PT
|
although a bridge to what exactly isn't clear
Yeah, I dunno either, but I truly wish that there was something.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 11:32pm PT
|
Ha HA! You dinosaur. You think this 1823? Take your gun and your mail-order bride and light out for the frontier?
Of course you do....because that's what The New Republic, American Spectator, and the WSJ tell the walnut-sized brain in your as s. There 350 MILLION Americans today! In case you hadn't noticed. This so-called freedom to choose to live in your bacterial suburb has been brought to you by the cancerous ideology of the quaterly profit statement....where we can't imagine a world in which our economy doesn't depend on the growth of idiotic consumption of resources.
You speak like a 'progressive'. I have no idea if you are or not.
Listen to yourself though. You are implying the principles of the Constitution are irrelevant. I have no free-will to use fossil-fuels? The gov't will mandate what I should use and which energy I should use, despite the fact that I choose the one that has proven to be abundant and cleaner than before? I should change because you wanna be 'green'?
Ask yourself a simple question, "what was the original charter of the Dept. of Energy?". Has it achieved it's goals, or lead us away from them?
I can help you out if you can't answer that....
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 11:44pm PT
|
If it isn't obvious enough... most Americans would prefer to cram fast food into their diabetic faces and drive an SUV to their own mailbox. We SHOULD breed that moronic mentality out of our society, as well as the idea that it is somehow ethical to profit from or exploit such behavior
Well, here is an idiotic example of conflating 2 issues to suit a silly conclusion;
Americans are stupid and fat, and therefore drive "SUV's" because they don't care as much about the environment as much as such sensitive, and wise, people as yourselves.
This is the epitome of progressive arrogance. YOU know what's best (like Obama), and the stupid average American (middle class) needs YOU to tell them what to drive and what light-bulb to use.
And yeah, we SHOULD breed these idiots out of of society, right? These stupid Truck-driving right-wingers like me, right?
Let's just hope that people who disagree with us just die, right? Nice!
Thanks for illustrating what I've been dying for a stupid progressive to say out loud.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2014 - 12:18am PT
|
That'd be pretty sweet (so to to speak), Jimmy! Can they be frosted CO2 flakes?
EDIT: Jimmy, you know I dig some Canadians, mostly people like you and their armed forces (Ghost is cool too), but what gets my goad is when people sh#t-talk the US.
I saw this in light of the recent missing plane. Who is the most capable force to solve this?
I'll digress...
In light of recent Crimea events, and the lack of foresight on our US gov't, wouldn't it make total f*#king sense to finally approve this pipeline?
It is not only a handshake between Canada and the US, it is a fuxking partnership!!! An energy alliance. Why would you (or Obama, et al...) disapprove of this?
There is no logical reason. And THAT raises suspicions in my book.
Canada, US, and Mexico could utterly destroy energy markets to our advantage. Ask yourself why we haven't played such a logical move.
I have hope, but I worry about our "leadership".
|
|
karen roseme
Mountain climber
san diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 21, 2014 - 10:42am PT
|
|
|
cuvvy
Sport climber
arkansas
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2014 - 10:48am PT
|
People with money in the family and not much need to work, seem to be the ones who always bring up these issues. Lower and middle class folks can make money on projects like this. Because you silver spooners were fortunate enough to not have to deal with money issues shouldn't negate others' possibilities to actually better themselves.
Projects like these change lives for the better for a lot of people.
Not everyone went to prep schools and had major decision trauma over which summer camps to go to.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2014 - 01:52pm PT
|
Cuvvy,
Cut that out! Such opinions prove too unsettling to the let-them-eat-cake leftists generally, and to the KXL Pipeline opponents in particular. They become apoplectic that we have the temerity to suggest that the ideological/religious opponents of the Pipeline have no monopoly on values or, worse, on intelligence.
You should have read the grief I took for pointing out that climbers who use implements fashioned from mined metals and extracted hydrocarbons are hypocritical when we call the miners and extractors rapists and pillagers.
Save yourself the abuse. But welcome aboard.
John
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2014 - 02:52pm PT
|
Jobs are important, but some industries do too much long term damage for those jobs to be worth it. Fully exploiting the tar sands may provide jobs today - but at the expense of jobs in the future as an altered climate erodes humankind's ability to flourish on a planet harsher than the one we evolved on.
The destruction of the climate we evolved in due to carbon emissions is incremental. Nearly every human is a participant. Oil sands development, with Keystone acting as an enabler to that, is one of those increments. Since it is a matter of public policy at this point, it's an increment we can choose to allow or not.
If we do allow it, we've taken the next step. Oil sands-level climate destruction becomes the norm - then we'll take it to a level beyond that.
It's like becoming a drunk. It happens incrementally. "I'll never drink in the morning." "I'll never drink at work." "I'll never..."
At some point you have to stop upping the ante. Keystone is one such decision point. It will greatly affect what happens afterwards with regards to climate destruction - one way or the other.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2014 - 03:02pm PT
|
"People with money in the family and not much need to work, seem to be the ones who always bring up these issues."
Yet another generalization that is utterly incorrect, imminently provable as wrong, divisive, and overly simplistic.
Was that your point? If so, victory!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!