The Senate advanced its big Keystone XL pipeline bill Monday night in a 63-32 vote (10 Democrats and one Independent were in favor), opening it up for debate and for additional amendments — which Senators on both sides of the aisle are invited to propose. And boy, are they taking advantage of that.
President Obama has already threatened to veto the bill when it all but inevitably lands on his desk. But in the meantime, Democrats who oppose the pipeline are taking advantage of the open-amendment process — which the bill’s sponsors say could help it overcome the veto — to introduce some changes that, strategically, will make it harder for Republicans to endorse it, but that also come off as some pretty clever trolling.
Bernie Sanders emerges as master of the latter: according to the Hill, the Independent Senator plans to offer a non-binding resolution on the scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity. The Washington Postgot its hands on a copy of the resolution, in which Senators will be asked to indicate whether or not they agree with the following:
It is the sense of Congress that Congress is in agreement with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community and a growing number of top national security experts, economists, and others that –
(1) climate change is real;
(2) climate change is caused by human activities;
(3) climate change has already caused devastating problems in the United States and around the world; and
(4) it is imperative that the United States transform its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
A far cry, in other words, from the standard “I’m not a scientist” non-answer — they’d instead be going on the record as flat-out climate deniers. “It’s not going to be forgotten by history,” Sanders told the Times. “They’re going to be asking: Did you not hear what the scientific community all over the world is saying — that climate change is the most serious environmental crisis facing this planet?”
TransCanada is not a "foreign" oil company. It is a pipeline operational company which is public ally traded on the stock exchange. It is owned by people like you and me the world over.
The oil is produced by the oil companies, TransCanada safely transports it to refineries to produce the finished products we all use. They receive a "commission" on each barrel of oil delivered.
There are some scientists who are climate change deniers, however, specifically I am willing to bet this independent senator drives a car, flies in a plane and uses heating oil and uses all sorts of plastic devices in his home. The carbon emission of oilsands plant accounts for less that 1% of Canada's overall output which accounts for less that 1.5% of the world's carbon emissions.
Alternative energy sources are a great idea, but we will still need oil, for reasons other than our cars. How can we provide enough electricity without coal burning generating plants? Once again I point to a hydroelectric dam in BC being held up for "environmental" reasons. There is already a dam on the river and they want to prevent this one.
Everyone "lobbies" the government to get what they want, this is how your political system is set up. This should be of no surprise to anyone.
I had to point out that this Elizabeth Warren character, whoever she is, makes inflammatory and reactionary statements.
The senator, if he uses a car, flies in a plane, uses coal generated electricity, owns anything plastic, on an on is a climate change denier himself and therefore a hypocrite. People that tall the talk had better walk the walk.
That hypocrite talk amounts to nothing but an inflammatory and reactionary remark. Does it make a person a hypocrite to be concerned about how livestock is treated if they eat meat? I could come up with more examples to illustrate my point but it's a waste of time. It is precisely because we rely on oil that we need to be concerned with how we harvest, transport, and use it. It is being pragmatic, not hypocritical.
The senator, if he uses a car, flies in a plane, uses coal generated electricity, owns anything plastic, on an on is a climate change denier himself and therefore a hypocrite. People that tall the talk had better walk the walk.
No one is saying we are or should all stop using oil today. Oil is a very useful natural product (that also happens to have been produced under unusual circumstances which will likely occur again.) What some of us are saying is that in order to try to lessen our negative anthropogenic impact on the climate, we would do well to lessen our usage of oil and seek to develop cleaner, renewable energy sources. And unless we stop breathing (because doing so creates carbon dioxide) we are all going to have to live with the fact that we impact the environment.
Speaking of impact, I'm reading an excellent book called Impact man by Collin Beavans. Beavans originally set out to write a book about how humans are destroying the environment but changed course early on when he came to the conclusion that:
I made the mistake of thinking that condemning other people's misdeeds somehow made me virtuous.
and that:
What began to worry me was that I and the political system I participated in ... never exerted much energy toward anything but winning the argument. Too rarely taking any real action.
As a result, he and his small family made and attempt to live for one year without making an impact on the environment. It will be interesting to see how he does.
The point I'm trying to make here is that I'm reminded that it is the doing that is important, not winning the argument. When people like Elizabeth Warren (who is more than just some "character", 1T and you might want to do a little research as to what, as a key figure in our Senate, is doing all about) works hard to create legislation to stop the XL pipeline, she is taking action. When any of us have a "no-drive" day or find ways to lessen our consumption of resources or give back to the environment by planting a tree, we are taking action. I'm always thankful to be reminded to try a little harder to lessen my impact. That's why I oppose the Keystone XL- not because I think I'm a spotless, no-impact man, but because I want to try to do my little part in lessening my human impact.
And I suppose I could have said all this more succinctly as rgambs did above, LOL!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
That hypocrite talk amounts to nothing but an inflammatory and reactionary remark.
Does it make a person a hypocrite to be concerned about how livestock is treated if they eat meat?
I could come up with more examples to illustrate my point but it's a waste of time. It is precisely because we rely on oil that we need to be concerned with how we harvest, transport, and use it. It is being pragmatic, not hypocritical.
I have made this point repeatedly in previous posts. Oilsands is not the carbon monster the over zealous environmental fear monger would have you believe. Pipeline is the safest way to transport oil. Vehicles and airplanes are becoming more energy efficient.
This senator is taking one minuscule area of the oil industry to task for unfounded claims.
Brian I understand the point, but Once again I point to the above post, the oilsands is quite frankly getting tired of being throttled in the media for what is perceived as environmental transgressions.
Neil Young, James Cameron, Leonardo Di Caprio, and others have made the trek to Fort McMurray (and Di Caprio even went north to Fort Chipyewan). Then they decide to condemn the industry as a whole.
The oilsands have been operating in one capacity or another since 1967. It is not the Be early Hillbillies, it isn't bubbling crude out of the ground.
There are,two ways to extract the oil, one is Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage(SAGD) where hot water and steam is injected into the earth and the oil is gathered at the other end of the process. Recovery of available reserves is about 30%. The oil is too deep to be economically feasible to use the mining system.
In mining, which is effective the farther north the operations are because the oilsand is closer to the surface meaning less overburden to remove, the oil is dug out of the ground by truck and shovel. It is put through an extraction process which uses hot water and steam to separate the oil from the sand. There was a time caustic acid was also used in the process but I believe that has changed. This results in 80-90% recovery. Once a pit is dug out it is filled in and reclaimed. Syncrude itself is home to a sizeable bison population on reclaimed land.
Now I give you all this background info because the oilsands are so polarizing. They have been called "dirty oil". Unfortunately it looks bad from a Greenpeace helicopter, but in reality the land will all be returned to a pristine state. The region is a vast wasteland, hardly inhabited due to the harsh winters.
I applaud anyone for taking action and doing what they can to help the environment, but the oil from Alberta's oilsands is becoming somewhat of a scapegoat in all of this. As you have encouraged me to research some topics, I would encourage you to learn about the oilsands and all the advancements made in the past 10 years. They have technology now to produce the oil without water.
Oil sands obliterates the area they are mining. Strip mining. Yes land is replanted and oil companies put great effort to restore but imagine the plants and animals that are sacrificed. Is it worth it?
Oil sands obliterates the area they are mining. Strip mining. Yes land is replanted and oil companies put great effort to restore but imagine the plants and animals that are sacrificed. Is it worth it?
It's not just about the oilsands and pipeline anyways. It's about standing up to big oil. Th ey ram ahead with plans knowing they will bully the government and for once the government is pushing back. Honestly, I would much rather see this fight taking place over MTR projects. They are devastating to a much lusher ecosystem, they are nasty dirty, and they are homegrown within the heart of our country. Alas, XL Pipeline instead... I support any effort to stand up to big energy companies, even the misguided ones.
Fair point gambs.
Economically the oil companies need the heavy oil from the oilsands because the fracking oil from Dakota is a light crude. The refineries need to blend it to get a product they want.
But strip mining isn't all bad. Look up "Cardinal Lake" near Hinton, Alberta. Just look at the photos.
That is a man made lake from an old open pit coal mine.
I've gone fishing there, it is beautiful. The animals love it, they love it
Is it worth it? Sure there is some environmental impact, but so is the town or city you are living in. At one time animals and flowers and plants grew where your paved street and house sits. This is really a moot point on whether Mining is ethical or not. Animals adapt, plants grow.
MTR sites are pretty bad. The water that flows off of them is laden with heavy metals and nasty stuff. There are no trees, only scrubby grass grows. Beautiful mountaintops turned to flat empty moonscapes. So sad. Damn those butterflies lol we need to lay off the oil and hydro done right needs to be done.
1T, I appreciate that you seem to have an interest in nature and that much of what you say is sincere in you belief that a strong economy relies on oil production.
That said, I keep going back to Beavan's words lately,
What began to worry me was that I and the political system I participated in ... never exerted much energy toward anything but winning the argument. Too rarely taking any real action.
so if I don't continue the argument, it's not meant to be out of disrespect. I get it that we all use oil and that their is some hypocrisy in that for me. I just more greatly feel the need to avoid my own hypocrisy by spending less time in a circular argument and more time doing something about what I see as a serious problem.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
You bet man, and I appreciate that. Instead of pointing the finger you are looking at yourself and saying what can I do? That is the most important thing because if we are all busy pointing fingers, no one is looking at themselves as part of the problem!
If you put something in a public forum, there is always the possibility someone may have a slightly different opinion, or can shed additional light on the subject. Quite frankly, it is rather surprising this is getting so much airplay, but pipelines are the soup du jour for the environmentalist movement at this time.
And with that, I am going to drive to the airport tomorrow morning, and get in a jet a fly to Puerto Vallarta and kike into the San Madres and explore the coastline and fishing villages all around that area.
I am not sure if this trip is carbon neutral, and it probably isn't, but considering Canada contributes 1.48% of the world's carbon and Mexico 1.32%, I believe I am entitled to this trip as the US contributes 16.16% of the world's carbon emissions.
Consider my trip a carbon trade.. And I will keep taking them until we are even
David Suzuki would be so proud of me, the world's #1 environmental hypocrite haha
You bet man, and I appreciate that. Instead of pointing the finger you are looking at yourself and saying what can I do? That is the most important thing because if we are all busy pointing fingers, no one is looking at themselves as part of the problem!
If you put something in a public forum, there is always the possibility someone may have a slightly different opinion, or can shed additional light on the subject. Quite frankly, it is rather surprising this is getting so much airplay, but pipelines are the soup du jour for the environmentalist movement at this time.
And with that, I am going to drive to the airport tomorrow morning, and get in a jet a fly to Puerto Vallarta and kike into the San Madres and explore the coastline and fishing villages all around that area.
I am not sure if this trip is carbon neutral, and it probably isn't, but considering Canada contributes 1.48% of the world's carbon and Mexico 1.32%, I believe I am entitled to this trip as the US contributes 16.16% of the world's carbon emissions.
Consider my trip a carbon trade.. And I will keep taking them until we are even
David Suzuki would be so proud of me, the world's #1 environmental hypocrite haha
Hey man, I disagree about Suzuki but safe travels, enjoy the warmth down their and for cryin' out loud, have a good time! :-D
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
It's truly encouraging to see that, for the most part, people are recognizing the reality of global warming and accepting that we humans are primarily responsible for that climate change. The question is, will we act, will we act quickly enough and will be act strongly enough?
I guess that's three questions, haha!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Doesn't make sense that god would create us to eventually cause global warming. But hey, he is god and the pope is representative of him. I'm confused, are we supposed to warm the globe or not?
Oh man, really bummed to hear about this knowing how badly this kind of thing can harm an ecosystem.
These articles are excellent illustrations as to why it is important to cut our oil consumption (number one priority) and, as well, to work hard to create safer, cleaner sources of energy. And wherever and whenever possible, keep that energy localized. Any good, basic study of renewable energy will talk about the importance of localizing energy sources. Moving this toxic shit hundred and thousands of miles through a pipe is just not a wise move.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Oh man, really bummed to hear about this knowing how badly this kind of thing can harm an ecosystem.
These articles are excellent illustrations as to why it is important to cut our oil consumption (number one priority) and, as well, to work hard to create safer, cleaner sources of energy. And wherever and whenever possible, keep that energy localized. Any good, basic study of renewable energy will talk about the importance of localizing energy sources. Moving this toxic shit hundred and thousands of miles through a pipe is just not a wise move.
Oh man, really bummed to hear about this knowing how badly this kind of thing can harm an ecosystem.
These articles are excellent illustrations as to why it is important to cut our oil consumption (number one priority) and, as well, to work hard to create safer, cleaner sources of energy. And wherever and whenever possible, keep that energy localized. Any good, basic study of renewable energy will talk about the importance of localizing energy sources. Moving this toxic shit hundred and thousands of miles through a pipe is just not a wise move.
So what would be your best solution?
Several, PJFan:
Conserve. I wish I could say I were like Colin Beavan in his book No Impact Man. Beavan and his small family spent a year while living in NYC attempting to have as close to zero affect on the environment. This included having no trash, using no motorized vehicles (including elevators- his record for one day that year wash climbing 127 floors worth of stairs in order to go about his business), washable diapers for his baby, sustainable eating, etc. His point isn't that we should or can all do this, but he teaches us a lot about what we CAN do without. I work at this on a daily basis and make daily decisions with this question in mind: how can I get by on less? This covers a huge amount of the "what can we do to make a difference" question.
Eat locally: Non-local foods require far more energy than local fair.
Drive less/Ride share/ use public transportation. Walk or ride a horse, a bike or a Xootr Scooter.
Other ideas?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Senate Votes 98-1 That Climate Change 'Is Not A Hoax'
thankfully, is not very surprising anymore and this:
But a majority of the Senate, including 15 Republicans, are also on record stating that human activity contributes to climate change.
does seem a bit surprising.
It's a little ray of hope but we shall see. Even the dems are split on the pipeline issue. It seems to be easier for our elected official to admit there is a problem and quite another thing for them to actually do something about it. I hope they surprise us on that too.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
There are risks to all transportation of oil. Currently oil sands oil is transported by pipe then by ship. So would think pipeline is safest and definitely most cost affective.
Pipeline - safe?
Let's look at what happened in Montana recently.
Last weekend, a burst pipeline in Montana sent more than 50,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River. This week, high levels of benzene – an agent that can cause cancer – were found in a nearby public water system. The CDC said that drinking the water just a few times probably wouldn’t hurt anyone, but long-term consumption would be a problem. Not comforting, especially since it apparently smells like diesel. Yum. About 6,000 people have been told not to drink their tap water.
Comments
If GOPers want their pipeline bill, they'll have to go on the record as climate deniers
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/13/dems_epic_keystone_troll_proposed_amendment_asks_senators_to_acknowledge_climate_change/
Wise woman! I would love to see her run for president!
The oil is produced by the oil companies, TransCanada safely transports it to refineries to produce the finished products we all use. They receive a "commission" on each barrel of oil delivered.
There are some scientists who are climate change deniers, however, specifically I am willing to bet this independent senator drives a car, flies in a plane and uses heating oil and uses all sorts of plastic devices in his home. The carbon emission of oilsands plant accounts for less that 1% of Canada's overall output which accounts for less that 1.5% of the world's carbon emissions.
Alternative energy sources are a great idea, but we will still need oil, for reasons other than our cars. How can we provide enough electricity without coal burning generating plants? Once again I point to a hydroelectric dam in BC being held up for "environmental" reasons. There is already a dam on the river and they want to prevent this one.
Everyone "lobbies" the government to get what they want, this is how your political system is set up. This should be of no surprise to anyone.
I had to point out that this Elizabeth Warren character, whoever she is, makes inflammatory and reactionary statements.
The senator, if he uses a car, flies in a plane, uses coal generated electricity, owns anything plastic, on an on is a climate change denier himself and therefore a hypocrite. People that tall the talk had better walk the walk.
Does it make a person a hypocrite to be concerned about how livestock is treated if they eat meat?
I could come up with more examples to illustrate my point but it's a waste of time. It is precisely because we rely on oil that we need to be concerned with how we harvest, transport, and use it. It is being pragmatic, not hypocritical.
The senator, if he uses a car, flies in a plane, uses coal generated electricity, owns anything plastic, on an on is a climate change denier himself and therefore a hypocrite. People that tall the talk had better walk the walk.
No one is saying we are or should all stop using oil today. Oil is a very useful natural product (that also happens to have been produced under unusual circumstances which will likely occur again.) What some of us are saying is that in order to try to lessen our negative anthropogenic impact on the climate, we would do well to lessen our usage of oil and seek to develop cleaner, renewable energy sources. And unless we stop breathing (because doing so creates carbon dioxide) we are all going to have to live with the fact that we impact the environment.
Speaking of impact, I'm reading an excellent book called Impact man by Collin Beavans. Beavans originally set out to write a book about how humans are destroying the environment but changed course early on when he came to the conclusion that:
I made the mistake of thinking that condemning other people's misdeeds somehow made me virtuous.
and that:
What began to worry me was that I and the political system I participated in ... never exerted much energy toward anything but winning the argument. Too rarely taking any real action.
As a result, he and his small family made and attempt to live for one year without making an impact on the environment. It will be interesting to see how he does.
The point I'm trying to make here is that I'm reminded that it is the doing that is important, not winning the argument. When people like Elizabeth Warren (who is more than just some "character", 1T and you might want to do a little research as to what, as a key figure in our Senate, is doing all about) works hard to create legislation to stop the XL pipeline, she is taking action. When any of us have a "no-drive" day or find ways to lessen our consumption of resources or give back to the environment by planting a tree, we are taking action. I'm always thankful to be reminded to try a little harder to lessen my impact. That's why I oppose the Keystone XL- not because I think I'm a spotless, no-impact man, but because I want to try to do my little part in lessening my human impact.
And I suppose I could have said all this more succinctly as rgambs did above, LOL!
I have made this point repeatedly in previous posts. Oilsands is not the carbon monster the over zealous environmental fear monger would have you believe. Pipeline is the safest way to transport oil. Vehicles and airplanes are becoming more energy efficient.
This senator is taking one minuscule area of the oil industry to task for unfounded claims.
Neil Young, James Cameron, Leonardo Di Caprio, and others have made the trek to Fort McMurray (and Di Caprio even went north to Fort Chipyewan). Then they decide to condemn the industry as a whole.
The oilsands have been operating in one capacity or another since 1967. It is not the Be early Hillbillies, it isn't bubbling crude out of the ground.
There are,two ways to extract the oil, one is Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage(SAGD) where hot water and steam is injected into the earth and the oil is gathered at the other end of the process. Recovery of available reserves is about 30%. The oil is too deep to be economically feasible to use the mining system.
In mining, which is effective the farther north the operations are because the oilsand is closer to the surface meaning less overburden to remove, the oil is dug out of the ground by truck and shovel. It is put through an extraction process which uses hot water and steam to separate the oil from the sand. There was a time caustic acid was also used in the process but I believe that has changed. This results in 80-90% recovery. Once a pit is dug out it is filled in and reclaimed. Syncrude itself is home to a sizeable bison population on reclaimed land.
Now I give you all this background info because the oilsands are so polarizing. They have been called "dirty oil". Unfortunately it looks bad from a Greenpeace helicopter, but in reality the land will all be returned to a pristine state. The region is a vast wasteland, hardly inhabited due to the harsh winters.
I applaud anyone for taking action and doing what they can to help the environment, but the oil from Alberta's oilsands is becoming somewhat of a scapegoat in all of this. As you have encouraged me to research some topics, I would encourage you to learn about the oilsands and all the advancements made in the past 10 years. They have technology now to produce the oil without water.
No.
Economically the oil companies need the heavy oil from the oilsands because the fracking oil from Dakota is a light crude. The refineries need to blend it to get a product they want.
But strip mining isn't all bad. Look up "Cardinal Lake" near Hinton, Alberta. Just look at the photos.
That is a man made lake from an old open pit coal mine.
I've gone fishing there, it is beautiful. The animals love it, they love it
Is it worth it? Sure there is some environmental impact, but so is the town or city you are living in. At one time animals and flowers and plants grew where your paved street and house sits. This is really a moot point on whether Mining is ethical or not. Animals adapt, plants grow.
That said, I keep going back to Beavan's words lately,
What began to worry me was that I and the political system I participated in ... never exerted much energy toward anything but winning the argument. Too rarely taking any real action.
so if I don't continue the argument, it's not meant to be out of disrespect. I get it that we all use oil and that their is some hypocrisy in that for me. I just more greatly feel the need to avoid my own hypocrisy by spending less time in a circular argument and more time doing something about what I see as a serious problem.
If you put something in a public forum, there is always the possibility someone may have a slightly different opinion, or can shed additional light on the subject. Quite frankly, it is rather surprising this is getting so much airplay, but pipelines are the soup du jour for the environmentalist movement at this time.
And with that, I am going to drive to the airport tomorrow morning, and get in a jet a fly to Puerto Vallarta and kike into the San Madres and explore the coastline and fishing villages all around that area.
I am not sure if this trip is carbon neutral, and it probably isn't, but considering Canada contributes 1.48% of the world's carbon and Mexico 1.32%, I believe I am entitled to this trip as the US contributes 16.16% of the world's carbon emissions.
Consider my trip a carbon trade.. And I will keep taking them until we are even
David Suzuki would be so proud of me, the world's #1 environmental hypocrite haha
Hey man, I disagree about Suzuki but safe travels, enjoy the warmth down their and for cryin' out loud, have a good time! :-D
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/16/man_has_slapped_nature_in_the
It's truly encouraging to see that, for the most part, people are recognizing the reality of global warming and accepting that we humans are primarily responsible for that climate change. The question is, will we act, will we act quickly enough and will be act strongly enough?
I guess that's three questions, haha!
Doesn't make sense that god would create us to eventually cause global warming. But hey, he is god and the pope is representative of him. I'm confused, are we supposed to warm the globe or not?
Suzuki.. The hypocrite.
cnn.com/2015/01/20/us/yellowstone-river-spill/
And this time, not just 50,400 gallons of oil, benzene as a bonus
billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_c39e74b3-08ec-5fce-8d18-4085c5c03ed2.html
Oh man, really bummed to hear about this knowing how badly this kind of thing can harm an ecosystem.
These articles are excellent illustrations as to why it is important to cut our oil consumption (number one priority) and, as well, to work hard to create safer, cleaner sources of energy. And wherever and whenever possible, keep that energy localized. Any good, basic study of renewable energy will talk about the importance of localizing energy sources. Moving this toxic shit hundred and thousands of miles through a pipe is just not a wise move.
So what would be your best solution?
Several, PJFan:
Conserve. I wish I could say I were like Colin Beavan in his book No Impact Man. Beavan and his small family spent a year while living in NYC attempting to have as close to zero affect on the environment. This included having no trash, using no motorized vehicles (including elevators- his record for one day that year wash climbing 127 floors worth of stairs in order to go about his business), washable diapers for his baby, sustainable eating, etc. His point isn't that we should or can all do this, but he teaches us a lot about what we CAN do without. I work at this on a daily basis and make daily decisions with this question in mind: how can I get by on less? This covers a huge amount of the "what can we do to make a difference" question.
Eat locally: Non-local foods require far more energy than local fair.
Drive less/Ride share/ use public transportation. Walk or ride a horse, a bike or a Xootr Scooter.
Other ideas?
This:
Senate Votes 98-1 That Climate Change 'Is Not A Hoax'
thankfully, is not very surprising anymore and this:
But a majority of the Senate, including 15 Republicans, are also on record stating that human activity contributes to climate change.
does seem a bit surprising.
It's a little ray of hope but we shall see. Even the dems are split on the pipeline issue. It seems to be easier for our elected official to admit there is a problem and quite another thing for them to actually do something about it. I hope they surprise us on that too.
Let's look at what happened in Montana recently.
Last weekend, a burst pipeline in Montana sent more than 50,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River. This week, high levels of benzene – an agent that can cause cancer – were found in a nearby public water system. The CDC said that drinking the water just a few times probably wouldn’t hurt anyone, but long-term consumption would be a problem. Not comforting, especially since it apparently smells like diesel. Yum. About 6,000 people have been told not to drink their tap water.
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/most-canadians-feel-energy-infrastructure-needs-trump-environment-poll-1.2196190#ixzz3PZIdGYR1
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon