Keystone Pipeline...

[Ben]

Daryl Hannah Arrested For Protesting Keystone Pipeline - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhhbPRWZ_gU&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Eleanor Fairchild Reacts to TransCanada Destroying Her Land:

http://tarsandsblockade.org/eleanor/

[GoddessAthena85]

I try not to let it get to me, but the face is that I live in a country and most of us live in places that when we "act up" say interfere with something involved in building this pipe line, monkey wrench something, etc there are laws in place that call it vandalism. Then there's the flip when we destroy something as sacred as the planet itself our leaders and many of the inhabitants on this earth call it progress. I'm glad to see Celebs standing up. This pipe line is a terrible thing in my eyes. Along with the tar sands.

[Ben]

I try not to let it get to me, but the face is that I live in a country and most of us live in places that when we "act up" say interfere with something involved in building this pipe line, monkey wrench something, etc there are laws in place that call it vandalism. Then there's the flip when we destroy something as sacred as the planet itself our leaders and many of the inhabitants on this earth call it progress. I'm glad to see Celebs standing up. This pipe line is a terrible thing in my eyes. Along with the tar sands.

And, too, so much for actual property rights. (And, too, Daryl Hannah points out that the oil will be exported.)
I've always thought that conservation/environmentalism would be a right/conservative issue.
Ya know, preserving/conserving the natural world for future generations.
It's a very moral response. To protect the natural world for future generations. Ya know, a conservative would think: let's protect the wonderful natural world for future generations.
Well, forget about the politicians. They simply serve big business, big oil, big mining, big construction. Not small or even medium-sized businesses. But big.
You'd think Romney, if he were a true conservative, would raise a fuss about protecting the property rights of ordinary Americans. Nah! That ain't Romney. Nor is it Obama.
It's good that celebs use their bullshit celebrity for some good. And Daryl Hannah is merely acting on her moral and decent -- and conservative -- impulses. I mean, I view protecting the biosphere and the natural world, again, as a very conservative mindset.
I want human beings -- and other animals -- to be around 1 million years from now. Well, even 1,000 years from now. But if we keep tearing, clawing and polluting the planet (antithetical to true conservatism) we won't be around, say, even 500 years from now.

Daryl Hannah on the TransCanada pipeline - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jtk9AYGeXI&feature=plcp)

Daryl Hannah & 78yr old Great-Grandmother Arrested In Texas Protesting Keystone Tar Sands Pipeline - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZbjtTosS44)

[Ben]

Why I'm standing up to TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline in east Texas

Don't buy the tale that this tar sands oil will make the US energy-independent. It's export for profit, even as spills poison our water.

by Daryl Hannah...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/17/daryl-hannah-transcanada-keystonexl-pipeline

[trish]

It always baffles me why people think it's wise to deplete our own oil and gas resources before we drain the available external resources. Yes we should have a sizable national reserve in case of emergency,but it only makes sense to me to exploit outside resources first. Oil independence really means, "open up all Federal land for free or cheap exploitation by the big oil corporations." It has nothing to do with benefitting Americans or national security. The oil from the XL will be refined in the gulf and exported for a pretty tax sheltered profit.

[onmyknees]

Why I'm standing up to TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline in east Texas

Don't buy the tale that this tar sands oil will make the US energy-independent. It's export for profit, even as spills poison our water.

by Daryl Hannah...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/17/daryl-hannah-transcanada-keystonexl-pipeline


Hey Ben....If you were a welder, steamfitter, operating engineer, equipment operator, or pipe supplier and were dealing with 25% unemployment in your trades, you might not give a rats ass what some B actress was peddling. While I admire her passion, and don't think she's an evil person, I'll bet she's well fed and able to pay her mortgage and doesn't have to worry about putting food on the table. Step out of your pampered left wing tree hugging bubble and talk to some tradesmen who haven't worked in 2 years.

[Willie Escalade]

If its coming from Canada, it's foreign oil, right?

[trish]

Also ask that steam fitter, that welder( my Dad's a welder), that pipe supplier whether she can afford to pay daily for the bottled water her family needs once the aquifer is poisoned by leaking sand-crude.

[Prospero]

Funny how it is only left-wing tree huggers who are concerned about the environmental wreck we are making of the planet. A news report on british TV last night included an interview with the Prime minister of greenland and offered proof of the impact of manmade climate change. A short term economic boom in prospect for his nation, but alarming evidence of the thawing of the ice in the Arctic. So a longer term loss for us all. No one should be complacent about these issues - and Darryl Hannah, actress that she is (so that makes her views irrelevent? Right?) should be applauded for lending the publicity that accompanies fame to an important environmental issue.

The Right around the world displays an alarming short-termist response to the challenges of environmental blight. The deniers of the GOP will make things much worse if they win the election.

[Stavros]

There seems to be some confusion here. The pipeline itself is not the problem. There are pipelines all over the US which do not pose a threat to humans or the environment. The biggest threat, for example, to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline are those occasinal idiots who think its cool to blow a hole in it with their gun (which has happened, and on one occasion the man concerned insisted God told him to do it).

The issue that has to be resolved is the extraction of shale oil/gas using the method known as hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking'.

The oil companes argue that the methodology is proven and safe; the detractors argue that the depth of burial of shale and its proximity to water resources brings the two into a perilous relationship -even if 90% of the time an aquifier is not threatened by the collapse of a gas field or subsidence, or leakage-it only needs to happen once, and the water is unusable.

Fracking as its name indicates is about destruction: the only way to get at shale oil or gas is to shatter the rock in which it has collected -the mush is then sucked up and separated. It has become a hot issue because the price of oil per barrel has far exceeded the cost of extracting oil from shale, so it is now commercially viable, ditto gas.

In conventional oil and gas fields, where fluids are trapped in sandstone surrounded by non-porous rock, the sandstone remains when the fluids are flushed out. What I am not sure about is the impact of the shattering of the rock in shale deposits -is it the cause of land subsidence on the surface? Does a sudden subduction of rock not threaten an aquifer? If it doesn't then its ok, but if does, how precious is that water supply?

I am not opposed to the Keystone Pipeline, nor am I opposed to hydraulic fracturing in principle, but I have yet to be convinced that in all cases it is safe.

[danthepoetman]

I suggest we call these guys, the Keystone Cops…

[Ben]

The Question No One is Asking about Keystone XL:

The Question No One is Asking about Keystone XL - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5GC528gwj8)

[fivekatz]

One of the key concerns with the Keystone is what happens to the Ogallala Aquifer if there was a pipeline failure. The Ogallala Aquifer is the major source of water for much of the Great Plains and if it's water was to polluted enough to compromise it as potable or worse yet as an aggregation resource the consequences for the Great Plains would make the Dust Bowl look like a minor event.

The problem with trying to mitigate risk to the environment is the environment never seems to win the argument over profit until the environment is lost.

[Stavros]

I think its the drilling that is potentially the cause of the problem, as the technology used in crushing the rock interferes with the geology. The pipeline itself is not technologically a problem, pipelines need maintenance, and are mostly safe when kept in proper working order.

[fivekatz]

Well if it is fracking than from what little I have been able to learn of it, that is a far greater danger. Just one look at the underlying indemnification that KBR (Haliburton) extracted from the government to protect itself from the known or perceived hazards is enough to give most folks caution. While documentaries are edited to express a point of view, if anyone has watched Gasland even after balancing the tendency to create alarm from the message of that movie find they are not concerned about fracking is a frigging optimist or a Haliburton shareholder.

This kind of stuff is real. For those who have never seen the movie Erin Brokovich, Hinkley was a real place, were real died, real children were born with birth defects and a real company PG&E knew it was happening as early as 1968 and chose not to stop for far of calling attention to the damage to human life.

But my understanding was most of the fracking was north of the pipeline and the fear is spills which given the fragile nature of the plains and its dependence Ogallala Aquifer was the Obama administrations concern.

Considering the administrations rather loose oversight of EPA concerns, people should seriously stand back and try to understand why an administration that has been so willing to grant off shore drilling rights, looking the other way on 100's of claims of fracking pollution is putting this pipeline on hold. Be it fracking or risk to the water table, it has to be substantive to get this administration with a piss poor environmental record to put a project on hold.

[Stavros]

Well if it is fracking than from what little I have been able to learn of it, that is a far greater danger. Just one look at the underlying indemnification that KBR (Haliburton) extracted from the government to protect itself from the known or perceived hazards is enough to give most folks caution. While documentaries are edited to express a point of view, if anyone has watched Gasland even after balancing the tendency to create alarm from the message of that movie find they are not concerned about fracking is a frigging optimist or a Haliburton shareholder.

This kind of stuff is real. For those who have never seen the movie Erin Brokovich, Hinkley was a real place, were real died, real children were born with birth defects and a real company PG&E knew it was happening as early as 1968 and chose not to stop for far of calling attention to the damage to human life.

But my understanding was most of the fracking was north of the pipeline and the fear is spills which given the fragile nature of the plains and its dependence Ogallala Aquifer was the Obama administrations concern.

Considering the administrations rather loose oversight of EPA concerns, people should seriously stand back and try to understand why an administration that has been so willing to grant off shore drilling rights, looking the other way on 100's of claims of fracking pollution is putting this pipeline on hold. Be it fracking or risk to the water table, it has to be substantive to get this administration with a piss poor environmental record to put a project on hold.

Again, the key point is that the process of extracting shale oil and gas is hydraulic fracturing; pipeline technology is different and has been around for thousands of years, and in its contemporary form ought not to pose a problem as long as the pipeline is properly maintained and some idiot doesn't decide to blow a hole in it if it is running overground -as has happened with the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Apparently when it happened, the man claims it was God who told him to shoot a hole in the pipeline. Many pipelines run underground, but this too ought not to pose an environmental hazard under optimal conditions. It is up to the operators to make sure the pipeline is always in proper condition. The fracking, however, is the sensitive issue which divides opinion.

[Ben]

Canadian Government Fights US Opposition to Tar Sands Pipeline - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UfXGYoNoKc)

[fivekatz]

We continue ignore the possible or that if you spit enough on the planet it will bring you to your knees. The lessons learned from the Dust Bowl? Zero.

Instead we want to build a pipeline across that very region, crossing our fingers and hoping that a bad oil spill won't happen and ignoring the environmental impact of fracking and the entire issue of fossil fuels impact on the very health of the planet all so a few folks can make a lot of money on the hope and a prayer that a crumb may trickle down to us.

Screw with nature enough and it will screw you back and ask folks in New Orleans and New York-New Jersey who wins that battle.

[Ben]

We continue ignore the possible or that if you spit enough on the planet it will bring you to your knees. The lessons learned from the Dust Bowl? Zero.

Instead we want to build a pipeline across that very region, crossing our fingers and hoping that a bad oil spill won't happen and ignoring the environmental impact of fracking and the entire issue of fossil fuels impact on the very health of the planet all so a few folks can make a lot of money on the hope and a prayer that a crumb may trickle down to us.

Screw with nature enough and it will screw you back and ask folks in New Orleans and New York-New Jersey who wins that battle.

Concentrated private capital of course leads to political power. Oil companies have power thus have enormous sway over our elected officials. And, too, with these trusts -- or big companies -- you get the antithesis of a free -- and competitive -- market.
I mean, how many people want, say, alternative sources of energy? It simply isn't on the table because it harms the interests of oil companies.

Keystone XL: More Pipeline, More Problems| Interview with Josh Saks - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXzohShcXKU)

[Stavros]

Ben, if you do some research on the proposals to build the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the early 1970s, you will the same arguments used again and again. There are thousands of miles of pipelines in the US that you cannot see and which pose no problem to people, snail darters or tulips. Your govt has decided that hydrocarbons are going to remain the foundation of your energy needs, if you disagree with that then by all means campaign against the oil companies, but until alternative fuels are cheap, efficient, storable and have the industrial versatility of hydrocarbons, you are not going to get far. As I said before, by all means have an intelligent debate on fracking, as this is the key technology about which the scientific consensus is still in flux, not the pipelines.

[Ben]

Ben, if you do some research on the proposals to build the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the early 1970s, you will the same arguments used again and again. There are thousands of miles of pipelines in the US that you cannot see and which pose no problem to people, snail darters or tulips. Your govt has decided that hydrocarbons are going to remain the foundation of your energy needs, if you disagree with that then by all means campaign against the oil companies, but until alternative fuels are cheap, efficient, storable and have the industrial versatility of hydrocarbons, you are not going to get far. As I said before, by all means have an intelligent debate on fracking, as this is the key technology about which the scientific consensus is still in flux, not the pipelines.

Well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBuNpczosNU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOKmeV-sBEU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNBMDfWYCHY

[Ben]

Ben, if you do some research on the proposals to build the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the early 1970s, you will the same arguments used again and again. There are thousands of miles of pipelines in the US that you cannot see and which pose no problem to people, snail darters or tulips. Your govt has decided that hydrocarbons are going to remain the foundation of your energy needs, if you disagree with that then by all means campaign against the oil companies, but until alternative fuels are cheap, efficient, storable and have the industrial versatility of hydrocarbons, you are not going to get far. As I said before, by all means have an intelligent debate on fracking, as this is the key technology about which the scientific consensus is still in flux, not the pipelines.

Plus we shouldn't care about global climate change or air, water and soil pollution. I mean, who cares. I mean that's a rational approach. That you shouldn't care about anyone else.
In a culture, a society, a system that rewards greediness and selfishness, well, it's completely understandable that people will become greedy and selfish and not really care about anyone else. That's the system, the culture we live in. The core of our society, corporations, are specifically set up that way.
Plus in a so-called market system there are people that are not consenting to any of this. They are not consenting to global climate change, they are not consenting to water pollution or soil pollution or air pollution or deforestation or the general destruction of the environment.
These people who aren't giving their consent to our destruction of the natural world are the unborn. Namely: future generations.
Plus it's interesting that the economy comes first and the natural world, 30 million species [and we are but 1 of 30 million species on this planet] and future generations, well, play second fiddle.
I just can't see how we can continue on and on and on with the general despoliation of the natural world.
Maybe the American author Derrick Jensen is right. As he pointed out: We're fucked; we are so fucked.
I mean, we can continue to plow ahead and ignore the overall impact on the natural world. We're living a pretty sordid planet for future generations.
And all this is being lead by concentrated private capital. I mean, given the way corporations function the key element of the decision-makers is to maximize short-term profits and power and that leads directly to the destruction of the environment.

[Ben]

Shell Pipeline Oil Spill In Niger Delta Valley TWICE The Size Of BP Gulf Spill:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtYNYhwOnE4

[Stavros]

You missed the point Ben, caring about the environment does not mean not building pipelines, it means applying science properly to the extraction from underground of those things that make our lives comfortable, possible, extendable. There is a government in Nigeria, it isn't the fault of Shell if it doesn't distribute the national wealth in an equitable manner, preventing people from sabotaging pipelines and in the process causing damage to their own environmnent. Shell's record may not be 100% perfect, but the central government, the local people, gangsters, and political activists are not blame free either.

[trish]

As everyone who opens this thread will already know, the Pegasus Pipeline carrying crude from the Bakken shale and tar sands sprung a leak last week in Mayflower, Arkansas. The clean up will take years and some neighborhoods of Mayflower will never be the same. The Pegasus is 65 years old and overdue for maintenance. Pundits supporting the oil industry have been quick to point out the XL-pipeline will be brand new and worry free.

The U.S. is crisscrossed with oil pipelines. As long as we depend on fossil fuel for energy we will continue to live with the network and flow beneath our feet. To minimize the risks we of course need to be careful not to lay pipe uphill of aquifers. In the future fresh water will be even more important than energy. We can lay pipe but we have to do it smartly.

But here’s the problem. In 65 years the XL-pipeline will be just as old as the Pegasus is now. The industry has shown us that the lust for quick profits will always takes precedence over maintaining infrastructure and adhering to safety standards. If I could be certain that politicians will allow government to create safe standards, regulate and police them; and if I could be certain that industry will readily comply, then I might be able with a clear conscious say, “Yeah, let’s go ahead with the XL.” (Of course I’m momentarily ignoring the implications for global climate change).

Here’s the irony. It’s anti-government politicians and tea-baggers that seem to want this pipeline the most. They think oil companies should be able lay pipe where they please without government interference. But without government regulators with the power to force companies to maintain their pipelines, how can a reasonable person feel safe about his home and water supply? Government is an important part of the mix here. With it, I’d be more inclined to say yes to a given pipeline proposal. Without it, no way.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130403/federal-rules-dont-control-pipeline-reversals-exxons-burst-pegasus

[fivekatz]

You missed the point Ben, caring about the environment does not mean not building pipelines, it means applying science properly to the extraction from underground of those things that make our lives comfortable, possible, extendable. There is a government in Nigeria, it isn't the fault of Shell if it doesn't distribute the national wealth in an equitable manner, preventing people from sabotaging pipelines and in the process causing damage to their own environmnent. Shell's record may not be 100% perfect, but the central government, the local people, gangsters, and political activists are not blame free either.While the pipeline mishap in Nigeria may not be the most perfect example of the dangers of transporting crude oil but the greater imperative is just when is the US and China going to make any hard choices about fossil fuels.

Cap and Trade was considered a viable and bi-partsain solution to closing the gap between cost effectiveness of renewables versus fossil fuel. And as late as 2008 there was tremendous momentum in the US to not just recognize climate change but begin to take action.

And then those that will profit from ignoring the science found the boogie man in the form of the US's first African-American President and some how attached freedom to right of the Koch Brothers to profit at all costs to future generations and perhaps some already born generations.

The answer is not to find dirty and dirtier fuel sources while heating the planet and destroying the water tables (fracking and tar oil) but creating a bridge plan. Cap and trade IMHO did this by creating economic incentives to move to alternatives. Not exactly total free market policy but it seems free market purity has never bothered a corporation receiving a bailout, a bloated no bid contract or exemption from prosecution.

While the Keystone Pipeline may or may not be the place to end the madness at some point humans are going to have to stop putting the immediate economic gratification of the few above the lives of the many, born and unborn.

FDR said this well when he said..."The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little."

[Stavros]

This debate seems to be going round in circles. Yes, pipelines when they get old develop ageing problems that pose risks to people and the environment; most of the leaks in Alaska are caused by it -it is a common economic dilemma that as the production and profits from a reservoir decline the costs of maintenance increase and a choice is made to patch up rather than replace old plant. But given the profits being made and the potential for tax-breaks on overhauling it the Trans-Alaska Pipeline ought to be as good now as it was on day one. Prudhoe Bay alone has added 3 billion barrels of production in the last 10 years, which is equivalent to three Thunder Horses in the Gulf of Mexico at less cost per barrel than that offshore facility; the money is there.

I think that is a fair case for all the pipelines -as far as I know you don't fly from LA to New York on an aeroplane that was built in 1970-75. It may also be the case that the costs of cleaning up a spill, combined with any genuine compensation costs incurred, may actually leave the companies worse off than if they had invested in upgrades on their installations.

The longer term issue of hydrocarbons, as already stated is that as long as they are cheaper to access and process into usable commodities than alternative sources, and as long as the technological obstacles to mass-energy production and storage for renewables are not solved, hydrocarbons will dominate -a finite source that will have to be replaced and in some countries is already being eclipsed by renewables for a wide range of things such as transport and domestic energy use.

Nevertheless, depending on which source you choose, the USA has a good record in the use of renewables, whereas another source claims that in Iceland and parts of Africa almost 100% of the energy use is from renewables, although it is stretching it a bit to compare the USA with Iceland and Lesotho. The differences are those of scale, and profit: and as long as hydrocarbons generate such vast profits, the gap will not be breached, and conventional sources of energy with all the problems that suggests, will remain.

http://www.care2.com/causes/5-top-countries-leading-the-world-in-renewable-energy.html

http://makewealthhistory.org/2012/07/09/countries-with-100-renewable-energy/

[fivekatz]

This debate seems to be going round in circles. Yes, pipelines when they get old develop ageing problems that pose risks to people and the environment; most of the leaks in Alaska are caused by it -it is a common economic dilemma that as the production and profits from a reservoir decline the costs of maintenance increase and a choice is made to patch up rather than replace old plant. But given the profits being made and the potential for tax-breaks on overhauling it the Trans-Alaska Pipeline ought to be as good now as it was on day one. Prudhoe Bay alone has added 3 billion barrels of production in the last 10 years, which is equivalent to three Thunder Horses in the Gulf of Mexico at less cost per barrel than that offshore facility; the money is there.

I think that is a fair case for all the pipelines -as far as I know you don't fly from LA to New York on an aeroplane that was built in 1970-75. It may also be the case that the costs of cleaning up a spill, combined with any genuine compensation costs incurred, may actually leave the companies worse off than if they had invested in upgrades on their installations.

The longer term issue of hydrocarbons, as already stated is that as long as they are cheaper to access and process into usable commodities than alternative sources, and as long as the technological obstacles to mass-energy production and storage for renewables are not solved, hydrocarbons will dominate -a finite source that will have to be replaced and in some countries is already being eclipsed by renewables for a wide range of things such as transport and domestic energy use.

Nevertheless, depending on which source you choose, the USA has a good record in the use of renewables, whereas another source claims that in Iceland and parts of Africa almost 100% of the energy use is from renewables, although it is stretching it a bit to compare the USA with Iceland and Lesotho. The differences are those of scale, and profit: and as long as hydrocarbons generate such vast profits, the gap will not be breached, and conventional sources of energy with all the problems that suggests, will remain.

http://www.care2.com/causes/5-top-countries-leading-the-world-in-renewable-energy.html

http://makewealthhistory.org/2012/07/09/countries-with-100-renewable-energy/

Your argument seems largely based on the fact that the profit motive and immediate needs of humanity trump responsible management of the future of the planet.

For most of mankind's history the great quest was to make the world better for the next generation and at some point that changed and mankind forgot about its children and the unborn. It is probably why US is decline.

You maybe right about reality Stavros, but reality sucks and we could do better if we had the political courage and the willingness to see enemies that weren't humans with armies.

Just my take

[Stavros]

I don't understand how you can misunderstand my post, so I obviously need to re-do it

Pipelines have been part of our industrial landscape for over 100 years during which time the technology has improved -I don't think Trish would deny that and the fact that pipeline technology is safe. My point, in case you didn't get it, is that pipelines, like aeroplanes, like ocean-going tankers, need to be maintained and at some point replaced, and as the companies with responsibility for oil and gas pipelines have substantial profits to fall back on, have to prove to me otherwise -'the money is there' as I said, which means the money is there to upgrade pipeline networks; it is hardly my fault if the same companies prefer to do something else with the profits they make.

I also think re Fracking that some of the technical issues are sound, and some are not sound: it is driven by the geology which isn't the same across the USA or the world: and, as I think I said in a previous post somewhere, however alluring shale looks, the potential contamination of underground aquifers has not been eliminated; and it isn't clear how long wells last. And regardless of the accumulations in the USA or elsewhere, hydrocarbons are a finite resource and it is folly not to invest serious capital in the alternatives.

[fivekatz]

From what I can tell the greater issues are what the pipeline will transport than the pipeline itself...


Dirty tar sands oil
Pollution from tar sands oil greatly eclipses that of conventional oil. During tar sands oil production alone, levels of carbon dioxide emissions are three times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive extraction and refining processes. The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 900,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into the United States daily, doubling our country's reliance on it and resulting in climate-damaging emissions equal to adding more than six million new cars to U.S. roads.

Water waste
During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of water are needed to separate the extracted product, bitumen, from sand, silt, and clay. It takes three barrels of water to extract each single barrel of oil. At this rate, tar sands operations use roughly 400 million gallons of water a day. Ninety percent of this polluted water is dumped into large human-made pools, known as tailing ponds, after it’s used. These ponds are home to toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, which has worked its way into neighboring clean water supplies.

[Stavros]

The tar sands industry is only really profitable now because of the price of oil per barrel; conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons will continue to attract big money and because petroleum is a strategic resource be close to politics (rather than say, the biscuit industry). As I pointed out in an earlier post, the US does not actually have a bad record on alternatives, this article by Elisabeth Rosenthal in last month's NYT gives a different perspective on the energy mix in the USA; it's not all as bad as you might think -but there is still a long way to go, if there ever is an equilibrium on energy in the future...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/sunday-review/life-after-oil-and-gas.html?hpw&_r=0

[fivekatz]

The tar sands industry is only really profitable now because of the price of oil per barrel; conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons will continue to attract big money and because petroleum is a strategic resource be close to politics (rather than say, the biscuit industry). As I pointed out in an earlier post, the US does not actually have a bad record on alternatives, this article by Elisabeth Rosenthal in last month's NYT gives a different perspective on the energy mix in the USA; it's not all as bad as you might think -but there is still a long way to go, if there ever is an equilibrium on energy in the future...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/sunday-review/life-after-oil-and-gas.html?hpw&_r=0There is no argument left to the natural flow of market dynamics that the more exotic forms of fossil fuels being brought to market, be it deep open ocean drilling, tar sand and/or fracking use those awful and destructive chemicals from Halliburton will continue unchecked.

And cap and trade among other targeted behavior based tax policies could go along was to accelerate the adoption and development of alternatives. This is why IMHO special interests have spent so much money to advance candidates that won't peruse such policies and promoted junk science in an effort to debunk climate change warnings.

To me the ironic thing is even if the science behind climate change wasn't correct, fossil fuel is a dirty, non-renewable energy source and moving away from it is an eventually. Doing it sooner promises the dawn of the next great economic bubble, one that will have greater long term pinnings under it than sub-prime loans did, but rather would create a new, lasting economy and improved lives for citizens as did the Internet bubble and the mass production bubble post WWI.

The current situation would be like horse breeders killing the car, right down to fact here we metaphorically are sitting in a pile of horse shit.

[Ben]

For the Koch brothers: Possible $100 billion in tar sands profit if Keystone XL pipeline is approved (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/21/1249269/-For-the-Koch-brothers-possible-100-billion-in-tar-sands-profit-if-Keystone-XL-pipeline-is-approved)

[Ben]

Money (concentrated corporate capital) controls our political system...

[Ben]

The Keystone XL pipeline defeat is one goal in the game, and we're way behind:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/06/keystone-xl-pipeline-defeat-bill-mckibben-climate-change?CMP=soc_3156

[trish]

Lesser souls might say, "I told you so."
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/keystone-pipeline-leak-worse-than-thought

[hippifried]

But we know you got more soul, baby.

So, is this leak gonna adversely affect both the non-attorney jobs the pipeline's created?

[SoHot4Tgirls]

It's not the few American Citizens still left in the state of Texas that don't like it, it's the Mexicans that have taken over thru attrition & immigration that don't like it. They've long considered this their country despite what the impotent American people would say about it so what the hell now they've got Hollywood on their side! Besides, in a few more years it'll be handed back over to the Mexican government anyway when the already signed North American Security Treaty is fully enacted. I believe the date Vicente Fox put on it a few years back was 2021 or something like that.

[hippifried]

So build the wall in Oklahoma. Andele gringo. Usted no debe perderse.

[nitron]

I sometimes think that maybe those who really care about a healthy environment should secede from the rest , who don't care , and form, an underground if necessary, community . Based on the principles of sustainable existence. There are enough people around the world with such like minds , surely.