Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
Look ,All I meant, it was ALL part of the argument against the pipeline.
I totally agree about the amount of carbon non neutrality of piping that crap.
edit;Man ,I have been called a lot of things here on ST,but Carp....
|
|
Ottawa Doug
Social climber
Ottawa, Canada
|
|
I rode my bike to work today a minus 2 F, but when I get on the plane to go the valley this fall my actions will eff up the environment.
Cheers,
Doug
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
The Denver Post, liberal bastion they are, endorsed building
it today. . .
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
There's BASE104, and in response, there's "Let them eat cake." I say that because only BASE104 seems to understand that each option we have available costs something. Without an analysis of relative cost, we have no rational basis for saying that stopping the pipeline is smart or dumb. For that reason, I strongly disagree with the assertion that his facts are OT. They're some of the few facts that actually matter in determining proper policy.
Of course, the need for counting cost seems to be lost on the pipeline's opponents because, I think, they don't perceive the associated cost will alter their lifestyles in materially harmful ways.
As someone who lived through the Carter administration as an adult, not only was the nefarious "double nickel" part of reducing energy consumption (that was actually a Nixon-era measure, along with year-round Daylight Savings Time), but the price of petroleum products doubled in constant dollars, and there was still a need for rationing on top of that.
I wish some of the geniuses who gave us the policies of the Carter Administration and the 95th and 96th Congress bore the real costs of their road-to-hell-paving policies. Sad to say, it was the most vulnerable -- those who lost jobs during the stagflation those policies produces -- that paid most dearly. I've lived through the sorts of policies I'm reading against the pipeline on this thread before, and I'm here to tell you the peasants have no bread.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
less than a 3rd of US electricity, not most, is produced by burning coal - and that continues to plummet - over a 20% drop in less than 20 years. The EPAs new CSAP regulations, as well as state level regulations, have prevented the commissioning of new plants and accelerated the decommissioning of old ones.
While that seems likely to me, The Energy Information Administration data showed that as of 2011 we produce 42% of our electricity from coal. Other sources suggests we produce about 30% from coal and 30% from natural gas at the moment. I do note, however, that coal plants have traditionally provided base electrical production, rather than peaking production, suggesting that the coal plants still have a marginal cost advantage.
John
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Yeah, nobody cares about how you "survived" the Carter years. I "lived through it as an adult", too. It wasn't exactly the Great Depression.
Money isn't everything, but let's look at the world as if it was. What's the cost of a destroying the climate we evolved in? The cost of a mass extinction (we're already in one!) Ocean acidification and biological collapse? Losing the last remaining topsoil from the great plains around the world? Sea level rise?
By ignoring the emissions issue - and this pipeline would be a poster child for exactly that behavior - we're simply externalizing those costs, and maximizing them, for our progeny.
But f*#k our progeny, really. I don't have any - so let's party! We're not being good stewards of this incredibly rare paradise we're lucky enough to find ourselves clinging to.
So, economically, your argument is that of a short term asset stripper - a thief in good suit. "Sorry about the mess - gotta go!" It's the very same argument used by the land denuding tobacco farmers who founded this country, as well as today's coal strip miners and pet coke peddlers that still run it. "But stuff will cost (a little) more!" Every industry that seeks short term gain at the expense of the land and those who will come after crows that line so it can go about its dirty business.
But money really isn't everything. When viewed from the standpoint of being a good steward - leaving the place as good or better than you found it (my Eagle Scout is rearing its head) - saying no to Keystone is a no brainer.
|
|
karen roseme
Mountain climber
san diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 5, 2014 - 10:26am PT
|
Some great points were made here especially by Tvash and BASE104
Thank you for educating me on a lot of things I didn't know.
Still what are we left with? What can we do about our carbon producing country and world?
Try to spread awareness about conservation.
Try to stop the worst things like the pipeline.
Don't eat meat or eat less meat
Supplying meat not only devours resources but also creates waste. That same pound of hamburger requires more than 4,000 Btus of fossil-fuel energy to get to the dinner table; something has to power the tractors, feedlots, slaughterhouses, and trucks. That process, along with the methane the cows belch throughout their lives, contributes as much as 51 percent of all greenhouse gas produced in the world.
51 PERCENT!!!
Oh Yeah, and stop breeding!
No couple should have more than one child unless they want to adopt one who is already here!
The Keystone XL pipeline would have transported toxic tar sands from under Canada’s Boreal forest 2,000 miles to the Gulf of Mexico to be refined and exported. Approving the pipeline would bring increased production of one of the dirtiest, most polluting forms of oil over the coming decades.
Tar sands oil is not only difficult, costly and energy-intensive to produce but also dirtier and more corrosive than conventional oil. Leaks and spills threaten rivers, aquifers and communities all along the route.
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/keystone-pipeline/?gclid=CKaS79HW-7wCFTFk7Aodz3EAXQ
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Just to clear some things up:
Oil sand, a mixture of bitumen (tar) and dirt (mostly sand), is refined into crude oil at refineries in the oil sands province. It is not transported anywhere.
It's that crude oil that would flow through the Keystone pipeline to refineries near the Gulf, where it would be further refined into usable products - primarily gasoline.
To my knowledge, finished products (gasoline, etc) are no different than those refined from other oil sources. They are not more corrosive, whatever.
The major environment concern with oil sands petroleum products versus petroleum products from oil that is pumped from the ground by conventional means is the energy intensive process required to turn tar sand into crude oil. That extra refining step means that, from in-the-ground to in-your-car, a gallon of oil sands produced gasoline will put 80% more GHG into the air than gasoline refined from conventional sources.
We're talking about total GHG emissions over the entire life cycle of that gallon of gas, from when it was still tar in the ground to burning it in your engine. There is no chemical difference between a gallon of gasoline produced from tar sands oil and one produced from any other source.
To have the most impact on stopping Keystone, I'd join the Sierra Club, follow their recommendations and participate in their actions (legislative action network, etc), volunteer for time for this campaign, and give them money. I'm not familiar with 350.org - check it out and perhaps do the same. It doesn't have the longevity or track record of the Sierra Club, however.
Individual action and lifestyle is great in general - but it won't stop Keystone specifically.
|
|
karen roseme
Mountain climber
san diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 5, 2014 - 10:46am PT
|
love this
Money isn't everything, but let's look at the world as if it was. What's the cost of a destroying the climate we evolved in? The cost of a mass extinction (we're already in one!) Ocean acidification and biological collapse? Losing the last remaining topsoil from the great plains around the world? Sea level rise?
By ignoring the emissions issue - and this pipeline would be a poster child for exactly that behavior - we're simply externalizing those costs, and maximizing them, for our progeny.
But f*#k our progeny, really. I don't have any - so let's party! We're not being good stewards of this incredibly rare paradise we're lucky enough to find ourselves clinging to.
Methane Hydrates carpet the worlds oceans.
Methane hydrates are hair -trigger sensitive to changes to temperature: one extra degree is enough to melt them.
When they release they burp vast clouds of methane into the atmosphere- a green house gas ten times more potent than carbon dioxide.
The Us Geological Survey conservatively estimates that these methane ice balls contain twice the carbon found in all known fossil fuels on earth!
It may already be to late for us but don't you want to try to stop it....
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Actually, she's spot on there.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
Careful,you may be called a carp ,tvash.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
Oil sand, a mixture of bitumen (tar) and dirt (mostly sand), is refined into crude oil at refineries in the oil sands province. It is not transported anywhere.
My impression is that a very small portion is refined into crude here, the rest is diluted enough to flow in pipes elsewhere and then refined into synthetic crude.
Its one of the reasons the pipe spills are so much worse than conventional crude.
At least thats how I understand it
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
I prefer to think of myself as a barracuda.
Although some observers might go with pufferfish.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
Yeah ,I do not think of myself,but I am building a HFH house in 10f temps this week.(a Jimmy Carter program)
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
I stand corrected - Keystone will carry crude oil, but also dilbit (diluted bitumen). Dilbit is basically tar diluted with naphtha. I don't know the % of each. Perhaps someone could dig that up. GET IT?
Dilbit, indeed, far more difficult to clean up in the event of a spill. Unlike crude oil, its sinks. You can do the math when something like that finds its way into an aquifer.
So yeah, a large spill in the wrong place could prove to be a huge environmental disaster.
Thanks for the heads up.
Regarding methane hydrates - it's like sea level rise - it depends on your time horizon. Go forward a century or more and it becomes an enormous, planet changing threat.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Jared Diamond to distance one's self from docudrama?
Really?
Don't get me wrong, reading Diamond is good, clean fun and all, but...
If your'e already aware of methane hydrates and all the rest, you hardly need to read Jared's doomsday stories.
Stay focused. Stop Keystone. The destruction of the planet is happening incrementally.
Keystone is one of the increments.
Then leverage that victory to stop the next Bad Idea.
That's how it works.
Base, by his own posts, is for the pipeline because he'd rather we buy oil from Canada than Venezuela. That's a perfectly legitimate argument - just not an environmental one. Geopolitics comes and goes. Short term stuff.
The climate is for keeps.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
In fact, methane outgassing from fracking are a greater source of methane, and threat to the atmosphere as fracking operations ramp up around the world, for what that's worth.
This is not true. Absolutely physically untrue.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
^^
It is a pretty hot topic, especially since they are trying to attach a tax to it, for now its a free for all regarding this.
Japan is already extracting gas from their methane hydrate reserves.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Base, its good you are pulling your own hair out in combating the misinformation presented on this thread, much preferable to being scalped by the herd. please keep up the flow of realism.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!