Latest Keystone XL news.

brianlux

1ThoughtKnown said:

I was taught growing up that things are never as bad as they seem, nor are they ever as good.

The former co-founder of Greenpeace himself removed himself from the enviro looney bin because it became a business, no better than oil.
You maybe eating up the left wing propaganda about the environment but I am not. There is no way I can trust anything with a political agenda. And yes this is al, political.
Climate change is its own industry. Perpetuating this story is a billion dollar indistry

1T, interesting that you bring up Greenpeace and the co-founder who left that organization because it became a business. Are you referring to Greenpeace co-founder Paul Watson? If so, allow me to clarify: Watson did not leave Greenpeace because that organization became "a business, no better than oil". He left Greenpeace because it became a bureaucracy . You can read about that in his book, Sea Shepherd, My Fight for Whales & Seals. While you're at it, you might want to check out his other excellent book, Earthforce! An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy, 2nd Edition in which Captain Watson explains very clearly how we work to save ecosystems and biodiversity. Call that political if you like. I call it activism.


By the way, I followed Captain Watson away from Greenpeace myself this year by terminating my Greenpeace membership and opting instead to focus on being an earth warrior, forsaking bureaucracy for action. THAT is what I'm eating up.

But I don't know if any of this means a hill of beans to you 1T. I get the sense you come here to argue rather than discuss. If the that's the case, have the last word and then let's just say, "adios amigo!"

1ThoughtKnown

I wrote a whole big thing and deleted it. All of your closed mindedness is starting to bore me anyways. So you are all "better" than me. LOL. None of you really know me, but in a free society I am entitled to my own view. If you don't want push back, dont put it in a public forum.
I've been through this before, if you aren't left you aren't right. If you aren't an environmentalist you are a denier. If you don't believe in climate change you are ignorant.
I am a realist, part of my work is the environment. It is realy amazing to me that instead of just enjoying how GREAT your life is with all of the luxuries afforded us in modern society, you can lay blame at the oil companies for everything WRONG with the world.
I wish the developing nations could have what we have, that is my dream. Yours is an oil free world, so be it

BTW Keystone Phases I, II, III are already complete. Phase IV is simply a bigger pipe on a shorter distance from Hardisty AB to Steele City. Oil is already going there, this is all about efficiency and the need for heavy crude in the refineries of the Gulf Coast. I leave you with this, as I will not disturb your little party anymore:

As the UN-sponsored climate change conference in Lima, Peru drew to a close in mid-December, a poll by the United Nations and associated organizations showed millions of respondents around the world had little interest in action to address climate change.

Of the 16 priorities from which respondents could choose, “Action Taken on Climate Change” finished dead last.

The poll was conducted by My World, a United Nation global survey unit. “Working with partners,” My World’s website explained, “we aim to capture people’s voices, priorities and views, so world leaders can be informed as they begin the process of defining the next set of global goals to end poverty.” In addition to UN funding, My World is supported by the Overseas Development Institute and Ipsos MORI, a leading market research company in the UK.

Priority Rankings

As of Dec. 25, the survey had received opinions of more than 7 million respondents from 195 countries. The respondents’ top priority was “a good education,”

The rankings in terms of highest priority to lowest were: A Good Education (4,695,890); Better Healthcare (3,955,748); Better Job Opportunities (3,806,014); An Honest and Responsive Government (3,219,620); Affordable and Nutritious Food (2,846,323); Protection Against Crime and Violence (2,735,432); Access to Clean Water and Sanitation (2,608,928); Support for People Who Can’t Work (2,339,940); Better Transport and Roads (2,246,193); Equality Between Men and Women (2,229,670); Reliable Energy at Home (2,124,244); Freedom from Discrimination and Persecution (1,975,007); Political Freedom (1,962,912); Protecting Forests, Rivers, and Oceans (1,779,040); Phone and Internet Access (1,730,721); and, in last place, Action Taken on Climate Change (1,416,167)

Action Taken on Climate Change received more than 300,000 fewer votes than Access to Telephone and Internet. Because most of the 195 countries represented in the survey are economically underdeveloped, it is arguably unsurprising that priorities such as better job opportunities and access to clean water and reliable energy at home were seen as more important than dealing with climate change.

Commenting on the rankings, Paul Driessen, a senior policy advisor with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow in Washington, DC, said, “It’s last on the list because people know climate-change programs will undermine all the other imperatives. They would keep people trapped in poverty, misery, disease, and early death because the only way out requires hydrocarbons for reliable, affordable electricity and motor fuels. Decent education, healthcare, jobs, food, clean water, and sanitation would be out of reach if people are forced to rely on wind, solar, and biofuels. Even environmental quality would suffer, because bans on fossil fuels would force people to turn more wildlife habitats into fuel.

“In a nutshell,” Driessen said, “'climate action’ would give UN and rich-country bureaucrats the power to tell the world’s poor, ‘Sorry, you can’t have the living standards we enjoy, because that would hurt the climate.’


THAT IS A CRIME.

rgambs

1ThoughtKnown said:

I wrote a whole big thing and deleted it. All of your closed mindedness is starting to bore me anyways. So you are all "better" than me. LOL. None of you really know me, but in a free society I am entitled to my own view. If you don't want push back, dont put it in a public forum.
I've been through this before, if you aren't left you aren't right. If you aren't an environmentalist you are a denier. If you don't believe in climate change you are ignorant.
I am a realist, part of my work is the environment. It is realy amazing to me that instead of just enjoying how GREAT your life is with all of the luxuries afforded us in modern society, you can lay blame at the oil companies for everything WRONG with the world.
I wish the developing nations could have what we have, that is my dream. Yours is an oil free world, so be it

BTW Keystone Phases I, II, III are already complete. Phase IV is simply a bigger pipe on a shorter distance from Hardisty AB to Steele City. Oil is already going there, this is all about efficiency and the need for heavy crude in the refineries of the Gulf Coast. I leave you with this, as I will not disturb your little party anymore:

As the UN-sponsored climate change conference in Lima, Peru drew to a close in mid-December, a poll by the United Nations and associated organizations showed millions of respondents around the world had little interest in action to address climate change.

Of the 16 priorities from which respondents could choose, “Action Taken on Climate Change” finished dead last.

The poll was conducted by My World, a United Nation global survey unit. “Working with partners,” My World’s website explained, “we aim to capture people’s voices, priorities and views, so world leaders can be informed as they begin the process of defining the next set of global goals to end poverty.” In addition to UN funding, My World is supported by the Overseas Development Institute and Ipsos MORI, a leading market research company in the UK.

Priority Rankings

As of Dec. 25, the survey had received opinions of more than 7 million respondents from 195 countries. The respondents’ top priority was “a good education,”

The rankings in terms of highest priority to lowest were: A Good Education (4,695,890); Better Healthcare (3,955,748); Better Job Opportunities (3,806,014); An Honest and Responsive Government (3,219,620); Affordable and Nutritious Food (2,846,323); Protection Against Crime and Violence (2,735,432); Access to Clean Water and Sanitation (2,608,928); Support for People Who Can’t Work (2,339,940); Better Transport and Roads (2,246,193); Equality Between Men and Women (2,229,670); Reliable Energy at Home (2,124,244); Freedom from Discrimination and Persecution (1,975,007); Political Freedom (1,962,912); Protecting Forests, Rivers, and Oceans (1,779,040); Phone and Internet Access (1,730,721); and, in last place, Action Taken on Climate Change (1,416,167)

Action Taken on Climate Change received more than 300,000 fewer votes than Access to Telephone and Internet. Because most of the 195 countries represented in the survey are economically underdeveloped, it is arguably unsurprising that priorities such as better job opportunities and access to clean water and reliable energy at home were seen as more important than dealing with climate change.

Commenting on the rankings, Paul Driessen, a senior policy advisor with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow in Washington, DC, said, “It’s last on the list because people know climate-change programs will undermine all the other imperatives. They would keep people trapped in poverty, misery, disease, and early death because the only way out requires hydrocarbons for reliable, affordable electricity and motor fuels. Decent education, healthcare, jobs, food, clean water, and sanitation would be out of reach if people are forced to rely on wind, solar, and biofuels. Even environmental quality would suffer, because bans on fossil fuels would force people to turn more wildlife habitats into fuel.

“In a nutshell,” Driessen said, “'climate action’ would give UN and rich-country bureaucrats the power to tell the world’s poor, ‘Sorry, you can’t have the living standards we enjoy, because that would hurt the climate.’


THAT IS A CRIME.

Humanity as we know it is on a short timer!

"I wish the developing nations could have what we have, that is my dream."
That is so impossible it's almost funny. It is us having such excess that keeps them from having the basic necessities.

brianlux

rgambs said:

Humanity as we know it is on a short timer!

"I wish the developing nations could have what we have, that is my dream."
That is so impossible it's almost funny. It is us having such excess that keeps them from having the basic necessities.

I think... no, I know you're absolutely right, Mr. Gambs. There's no way 7 plus billion people can live the way we do in the developed countries. That being the case, I'm thinking the near future choices really come down to a) having a Soylant Green scenario where a few people of the 7 plus billion live in great wealth and every body else lives a short life in super-poverty or b) all 7 plus billion of us live a very simple near-poverty line life or c) the population is reduced quickly enough such that a few to several million people live like the average American does now or d) we all die.

We'll either choose or lose.

1T-- Sorry to bore you. Adios Amigo!

backseatLover12

"I wish the developing nations could have what we have, that is my dream."

I wish those in developing nations had clean water to drink and aid for those in poverty as well as decent medical treatment. That's my dream.

brianlux

backseatLover12 said:

"I wish the developing nations could have what we have, that is my dream."

I wish those in developing nations had clean water to drink and aid for those in poverty as well as decent medical treatment. That's my dream.

That's an excellent dream, bsL.

Looking back at the four scenarios I sketched out a couple of posts above, I wish someone would counter that with a solution that would allow 7 or 8 billion people to live comfortably and be happy. I really am not a prophet of doom. Imagine 7 or 8 happy, well fed, clothed and sheltered humans! The possibilities for new friendships and new music and great sharing would be almost endless! I would love that. Wouldn't we all? But the Keystone XL pipeline is completely the wrong ass-backwards way to get there.

josevolution

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/24/keystone-xl-bill-a-k-a-veto-bait-heads-to-presidents-desk/

mickeyrat

Done deal. Vetoed.

brianlux

Right on! Thank you, President Obama!

PJfanwillneverleave1

From reading the American news I gather that because a lame duck can do what it wants it will.
The Republican majority congress expected this veto as part of the gears to grind.

brianlux

The veto went through because a great number of people who care put a lot of effort into letting their voices be heard and their concerns be known. It is well worth understanding, knowing and making note of this. In any case, he did the right thing.

Jason P

Guess we will have to wait for President Paul to pass this legislation in a few years.

brianlux

Temporary break from the holiday in my mind:

This just in from 350.org
Friends,

This is it. After years of pushing, President Obama could make his final
decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline literally any day now.

Last week a group of movement leaders, artists and musicians put together
a [1]Unity Letter to the President with a simple, powerful message: we
will stand together against any attempt to approve the pipeline. Signers
included Naomi Klein, Willie Nelson, Neil Young, Julianne Moore, Robert
Reich and so many more.

This is the time for unity. The letter is below -- can you add your name
to show the President that this movement will not waver in our demand that
he do the right thing and reject the pipeline? [2]Click here to co-sign
the No Keystone XL Unity Letter.

Thanks for all you've done. We're closer than ever.

Duncan

Here's the letter:

Dear Mr. President,

The long and worthy fight over the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is at an
end, and the time for a decision draws near. We appreciate your pending
veto of the congressional bill, and we fully support an outright rejection
of the permit. We have followed the question of Keystone XL's impact for
many years, and those years have clarified a few key points.

First, most of those who care about this project oppose it, and with an
intensity matched by few issues in recent time. Beginning with Tribal
Nations and with farmers and ranchers, the opposition spread over time to
climate scientists, college students, moms, financial experts, many trade
unionists, renewable energy proponents, nurses, artists and an
ever-growing swath of the general population. A historic number of them
were arrested for this cause; millions wrote public comments, or emailed
their elected officials; everyone engaged in public dialogue in precisely
the fashion you have asked. Everyday people have stood up to the money on
the other side, and done so with civility, firmness, creativity and
passion.

Second, it's now clearer than ever that the tar sands pose an incredible
risk to the health and safety of our families and a livable planet. As a
major study in Nature last month confirmed, a serious effort to control
global warming must keep the `dirtiest oil in the world' safely
underground. Keystone XL must be evaluated not just as a pipeline but as
part of the tar sands industry's plans for rapid and reckless expansion.
As you have stated, the climate impacts of major infrastructure projects
are a matter of national -- and international -- interest. Rejecting
Keystone XL is the kind of the principled choice leaders need to make.
There is no way to reconcile this pipeline with a serious climate policy.

Third, the arguments for this pipeline--never strong--have disappeared on
closer examination. It is not a potent job-creating tool, nor a route to
American energy independence; tar sands expansion is not inevitable; and
the sheer number of leaks and spills means a tar sands pipeline would pose
a clear danger to public health. It is, instead, a classic boondoggle,
whose only beneficiaries will be a handful of rich oil companies while our
families take on all the risk.

Many of the choices that define a presidency come by accident or chance --
some storm or crisis that demands a quick response. But this one is firmly
in your control. Climate change will be a defining issue of this century.
Rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline will powerfully demonstrate your
commitment to stopping the rising of the oceans, set the stage for further
climate action and build a legacy worth sharing.

In unity,

Willie Nelson, Musician
Mark Ruffalo, Actor
Neil Young, Musician
U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Julianne Moore, Actress
Naomi Klein, Author
Alec Baldwin, Actor
U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva
Robert Redford, Actor
Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor
Rev. Jim Wallis, Preacher
Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network
Bill McKibben, 350.org
Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska
Thom Yorke, Radiohead
Michael Brune, Sierra Club
Melina Laboucan-Massimo, Lubicon Cree First Nation
James Hansen, Climate Scientist
Randy Thompson, Nebraska Rancher
and many more

Bennyorr4

I fail to see the correlation between a pipeline and increased GHG emissions. Please enlighten me. Maybe the focus should be on REAL GHG emitters like coal. China spews 4.34 Billion tonnes of C02 into our atmosphere, the U.S. is responsible for 1.9 Billion tonnes as well from the coal industry alone while the oilsands contribute only 3.3 million tonnes of C02 which is only 0.15% of all GHG emissions world wide. Stopping KXL only forces Canada to ship the product elsewhere which isn't very good for North America as a whole.

Also, to follow musicians and actors is historically flawed. I tend to listen to people who actually know the truth not follow blindly because it is the trendy thing to do.

13 oil fields in California alone have higher GHG emissions than the oilsands. Why don't we protest those producers? I'll tell you why. It's because Canada is an easy target. It's too hard to protest the coal industry in the U.S. and China.

I wonder how many of the people who are against the oil sands realise just how small an impact the oilsands have on the overall GHG emissions world wide. Just look on Google Earth to see how small the area is compared to the rest of Alberta and Canada.

Canada is the ONLY top 5 oil supplier to the U.S. that has GHG emissions regulations in place and Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to pass climate change legislation. Since 2007 it has also provided funding for 51 innovative clean energy technology projects. So why all the hate? Because the likes of Alec Baldwin, Mark Ruffalo and Neil Young say so? SMH

brianlux

Bennyorr4 said:

I fail to see the correlation between a pipeline and increased GHG emissions. Please enlighten me. Maybe the focus should be on REAL GHG emitters like coal. China spews 4.34 Billion tonnes of C02 into our atmosphere, the U.S. is responsible for 1.9 Billion tonnes as well from the coal industry alone while the oilsands contribute only 3.3 million tonnes of C02 which is only 0.15% of all GHG emissions world wide. Stopping KXL only forces Canada to ship the product elsewhere which isn't very good for North America as a whole.

Also, to follow musicians and actors is historically flawed. I tend to listen to people who actually know the truth not follow blindly because it is the trendy thing to do.

13 oil fields in California alone have higher GHG emissions than the oilsands. Why don't we protest those producers? I'll tell you why. It's because Canada is an easy target. It's too hard to protest the coal industry in the U.S. and China.

I wonder how many of the people who are against the oil sands realise just how small an impact the oilsands have on the overall GHG emissions world wide. Just look on Google Earth to see how small the area is compared to the rest of Alberta and Canada.

Canada is the ONLY top 5 oil supplier to the U.S. that has GHG emissions regulations in place and Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to pass climate change legislation. Since 2007 it has also provided funding for 51 innovative clean energy technology projects. So why all the hate? Because the likes of Alec Baldwin, Mark Ruffalo and Neil Young say so? SMH

No hate. Where did that come from?

mickeyrat

Until this country goes after those companies who pollute with seeming impunity in regards to leaks, breaks etc from the existing infrastructure, how about you fine folks build your own refineries and pipe that shit and pollute your own country. Deal?

gimmesometruth27

seems nobody remembers the BP spill in the gulf. imagine if that had happened on land.

brianlux

gimmesometruth27 said:

seems nobody remembers the BP spill in the gulf. imagine if that had happened on land.

Exactly!

BS44325

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

seems nobody remembers the BP spill in the gulf. imagine if that had happened on land.

Exactly!

It happens on land everytime a train carrying oil crashes. Put it in a pipe instead. It is an absolute no brainer. The BP oil spill was a problem because it was under water.

BS44325

This was today

http://m.thonline.com/mobile_new/news/breaking/article_fb191072-c373-11e4-9c86-9bc87b7364e4.html