1. pipelines have spills all the time ... a simple google search will give you all you need to know 2. tar sands oil is dirty ... 3x the amount of resources to extract ... meaning all that dirty coal being used in alberta is used to extract more dirty fuel ... plus, it uses way more water consumption 3. don't buy into the oil company propaganda ... this is an industry that pumps millions of dollars into misleading the public about global warming ... this is the same industry that would rather pay the fines of an environmental disaster (if they have to pay them at all) vs. ensure that tankers don't run aground and cause leaks. Oil companies are probably tied with weapons manufacturers and Bio-Foods as being the most evil in the world. 4. just because oil companies create high paying jobs doesn't make it good for the economy or the people 5. educate yourself on alternative energy ... whoever wrote that alternative energy is the same as oil is completely misguided ...
I have no particular use for alternative energy ... like solar or wind, all that has done here in Ontario is cause soaring hydro bills. Of course thats from negative personal experience with an extremely corrupt government at the helm ... who knows maybe if done properly the energy cost wouldn't have went out of control.
And I know all the damage done to the environment fossil fuel cause's, but you see energy prices aren't income based like taxes, they are consumption based, many people in Ontario have fallen into difficult times with a manufacturing sector that has lost a lot of jobs ... people went from making 25-30 an hour to 12-13, people not getting raises ... etc...
As far as I'm concerned the alternative energy folks are no different than the oil folks ... they are all in it for the $$$ ... with 1 exception the oil companies cause us less pain in our wallet.
Conservation of energy is more important than any combination of continuing to burn oil and development of alternatives. The U.S., for example, consumes twice the energy it produces*. And even a moderate reduction of energy uses will not stave off the inevitable consequences of human impact on resources and environment. This is why it is imperative to look at reducing population as in key factor.
By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....
Real scientists are only biased for fact related science. Paid off scientists are hardly rooting for science, they are only interested in getting paid.
the second group are not scientists at all. They are *consultants* who work for the industries. They are biased and what is truly naive is to think that they do real science. 1thoughtknown...perhaps a brush up on the scientific method is in order for you? It is a self regulating system that effectively eliminates bias on the large scale.
By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....
Real scientists are only biased for fact related science. Paid off scientists are hardly rooting for science, they are only interested in getting paid.
By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....
Real scientists are only biased for fact related science. Paid off scientists are hardly rooting for science, they are only interested in getting paid.
If you didn't want opinions why would you open up the discussion in a forum? By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....
Your words:
"This will undoubtedly be an unpopular post considering the slant of this topic"
and:
"It's typical first world "not in my backyard" mentality. "
and
"If you want to subdue yourselves"
left me of the opinion that you weren't really interested in having a civil discussion.
Every point I made was from a civil point of view. You are entitled to your opinions, I value living in a democratic society where I can voice my own opinion and educate people in a public forum for what I have seen WITH MY OWN EYES. Those are my experiences and are based on my own thoughts based on factual evidence. I am no longer associated with the oil sands or the pipeline industry. I may be in the future.
On your specific quotes... Life is not a popularity contest, so I prefaced my comments here because I was the first person to have an opposing view. It is "not in my backyard" mentality because if you new how solar cells or LED lighting or any "environmentally friendly" things were made, you would applaud the oil sands on their environmental conscience. Subdue yourselves = slow down and look at the big picture.
Not everyone will agree with me, I have no problem with that, but I have lived in the area. The pollution problem in the US is far greater than the oil sands believe me.
If you don't want our oil, it's fine. The European Union and China will buy it all. Before long the US dollar will no longer be used to buy and sell oil sending your country into hyperinflation as your dollar spirals into worthlessness. It's happening between Russia and China already.... Be careful what you wish for
By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....
Real scientists are only biased for fact related science. Paid off scientists are hardly rooting for science, they are only interested in getting paid.
Those are the two types of scientists out there.
Thank you for making my point
I'm fairly certain backseatLover is talking about the difference between scientists who are true to the nature of pure science which is the work of seeking "a basic knowledge for the discovery of unknown laws based on well controlled experiments and deductions from demonstrated facts or truths"...
as opposed to "paid off scientists" who are not interested in pure science but only in making a lot of money. I'm guessing you understand the difference between the two.
What might come into question is- which type of scientist is doing what? It seems very safe to say that scientists who work for the oil industry are of the latter type and scientists who do work to find ways to conserve and protect the environment are the former.
So as to biased scientists- yes, most- maybe in a way all- are biased. The question is, do you trust the scientist who is biased toward making money rather than revealing what is known through pure science or do you trust the scientist who is motivated more by finding truths through pure science and using that gained knowledge to work to lessen anthropogenic damage to our environment with the goal of living on a safer, cleaner planet?
As I went to post this, I read your last post. I always and totally support your right to voice your opinion. I'm totally on board with life not being a popularity contest. I am mine and I hope you are yours. I am aware that all production of things that are not made by hand are polluting. This is why I support the production of durable goods rather than crap and especially why I promote conservation. As for "your" oil- that was never intended for the U.S. market. As for subduing myself, rest assured: I am in full control and all systems are go! :-)
“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 has been a lot of hype over the negative impacts of Keystone for years. This is not unexpected; regardless of whether the media networks covering the news are biased to a liberal leaning or not the fact remains that controversy sells; and where there is an opportunity to create and even perpetuate controversy....well that is just good business. The arguments against Keystone are all very easily refutable. Pipeline integrity and safety is far higher than other means of transportation such as tanker or rail car. If you don't believe me I encourage you to stop and think about the relative basic engineering, construction, operation and maintenance requirements of a pipeline vs. other means of transportation or to consider the fact that the vast majority of you are currently supplied with your basic home heating via natural gas that is distributed through your communities through an extremely comprehensive network of pipes every single day. Interesting that THAT doesn't seem to concern folks as much as a large transportation corridor that is far less complex in many respects.
With respect to the impact to the native land or farmers' land that the pipe will travers.....this has FAR FAR more to do with a keen desire from those people sitting on the land that the pipeline would traverse to ensure that they are 'fairly compensated financially' for this opportunity than anything else. I have seen first hand how this 'royalty greed' has worked throughout the Western Canadian sedimentary basin. And I'm not really blaming these folks....but let's be real......there is no real ongoing impact to the land once the pipe is laid and the site is restored. In fact pipe like that can be used almost in perpetuity as long as there is a need and there is no 'leakage' into the ground of product being transported so I fail to see what the hardship is to these folks would be on a long-term basis.
On the subject of moving to alternative fuels......well sure that is a terrific suggestion; however not very attainable any time soon. One day maybe we will have advanced as a society to the point where we don't require as much oil as we currently use. But that is a long way off...and the fact of the matter is that the more the U.S. doesn't access its oil needs from North American sources the more dependent upon other regions of the world like the Middle East it will be. I don't think it takes much of a leap to understand that it is this link between the U.S. and the Middle East that is causing a tremendous amount of the problems between America and the Middle East.....because the Middle East is fighting against the U.S.'s history of controlling world oil prices. That game is almost played out my fellow American's, because whether you like it or not China and India and the like are becoming increasingly important in the world scene.....and the U.S. will likely not be able to 'keep a lid' on the price it pays for global oil as it has historically been able to do....and the result will either be astronomically high prices for oil-based products for all Americans and/or more tensions/unrest/US interventions/wars/terrorist activities involving the U.S. and the Middle East. I suppose the tree-huggers can continue to hope for a greener energy source to replace oil but they'd better do it fast because this demand for oil-based products in the U.S. is still on the increase.......
I would also like to take issue with anyone who believes that it is Canada who is benefitting the most from Keystone and that this is just a nice thing to do for Canada. Please. I work in an advisory capacity to many many companies who have invested in the Canadian oil sands or support the industry. There is far more international investment in the oil sands than there is local Canadian investment. Just as we have done with the mining industry in Canada we have pretty much sold all of our own natural resources to the rest of the world. As it stands right now more and more countries such as Japan, Korea, India and China are investing in our oil sands....and if the oil cannot get transported to American hubs for refining then it will get transported one way or another out of our country to other markets in the East. The fact of the matter is that the longer the US holds out on Keystone the only country that will really be negatively affected will be America. Canada has a resource that the World needs....not just America. We have had a great and friendly relation with our neighbours to the South but if the U.S. doesn't step up here we will be forced to work with other countries that will do business with us. I for one think that is more in Canada's best interest than to be as closely economically tied to the U.S., a country that has been economically weakening in the global arena for some time now.
Anyway those are just a few of my thoughts...as unpopular as they will no doubt be received. I get tired of people being so 'Polyanna-esque' in their views on things......coming down on issues on one side or the other without realizing that there is far more to the story than meets the eye. I also have issue with the hypocrisy I think is rampant on this subject. Those of you who are against Keystone....I urge you to look around your own worlds to see the amount of oil that contributes to your daily comfort every day. Maybe look in your own back yard before you begin worrying about everyone else's.
Brian I am sure you are intelligent enough to know all scientist require funding, therefore creating a buzz in whatever field they are researching will generate more grant money. If they are privately funded of course they will slant towards industry, if they are funded by George Clooney and agree peace they are going to slant towards the environmental impact. Your choice of subject will bias your research no matter which way you flip the coin.
Now do I trust either scientist? Of course, because there are truths in either slant. Who I do not trust are the media which reports these findings because this is where the real slant begins. You stated "even FOX reported...." Yards yards yards. Despite FOX's right wing slant, they must try to maintain some semblance of objectivity. I did not read your link, just stating the media is there to sell advertising, not inform us. The real news is not on the big 4 US networks or their "news" channels. News is entertainment (yes that includes you CNN perhaps the worst news channel ever).
Back to Keystone, here is a link which refutes one of your (and Obama's) stance on Keystone.
For the record, Obama will be a forgotten president with a lacklustre career when all is said and done. He has really accomplished very little and US public opinion shows this. I have a hunch Obama is using this hill to stand on as a way to promote his "legacy". Wrong hill to die on in my opinion.
For the record, I admire Obama's attempt at universal health care (as we have here in Canada and his attempts to withdraw troops from Afgahnistan and Iraq. I am not anti-Obama, he is typical of the Democrats and their ineffective (or lack of) good foreign policy. This is a foreigners view of course.
I also want to apologize for my spell check... I am going to have to do some editing here on my IPad. I am impressed anyone can make sense of this nonsense haha
It's interesting to me that in some circles, partisan politics and references to "liberal" and "conservative" come into to play when discussing oil, energy alternatives and climate. Those who give serious study to environmental issues such as energy and climate, particularly scientists in those fields, generally avoid using those labels and find little use in discussing partisan politics, but rather keep their focus on science itself. Yet when you look at discussions which favor our continued dependence on oil and continue to argue against the notion of anthrogenically influenced global warming, you frequently see those labels and partisan politics come into play. That seems very interesting to me- something that might well be considered.
Again, I would suggest that anyone interested in the subject would do well to not listen to me or to famous actors and musicians or to politicians or to people who work for the oil industry or people who make non-essential solar powered gadgets but rather, listen to those scientists who work in a non-partisan setting and study the subject as serious and important work and show a concern for how human activity affects the world in which we live.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I would suggest anyone interested in the subject properly educate themselves on the Canadian oil sands and the pipeline industry. Also ensure that you realize the global economic impact of oil and how it used every day.
Another thing you should educate yourself on is the history of the Middle East post WWII and how the U.S. Has gotten itself into this predicament in the first place. Having a North American resource as large as the oil sands from your friends to the north is an advantage. ISIS, for example, has oil reserves and is cashing these in to buy weapons. As a matter of fact they are currently closing in on oil fields which earn as much as a $100 million per day. Do you want to buy your oil from terrorists?
Here is a map of the existing pipelines showing how we are already interconnected, and therefore the argument seems moot.
The oil will get there, the safest way is pipelines. New pipeline technology is impressive. Railways are too risky and we know what an oil tanker disaster can do.
By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....
Real scientists are only biased for fact related science. Paid off scientists are hardly rooting for science, they are only interested in getting paid.
Those are the two types of scientists out there.
Thank you for making my point
I'm fairly certain backseatLover is talking about the difference between scientists who are true to the nature of pure science which is the work of seeking "a basic knowledge for the discovery of unknown laws based on well controlled experiments and deductions from demonstrated facts or truths"...
as opposed to "paid off scientists" who are not interested in pure science but only in making a lot of money. I'm guessing you understand the difference between the two.
What might come into question is- which type of scientist is doing what? It seems very safe to say that scientists who work for the oil industry are of the latter type and scientists who do work to find ways to conserve and protect the environment are the former.
It's interesting to me that in some circles, partisan politics and references to "liberal" and "conservative" come into to play when discussing oil, energy alternatives and climate. Those who give serious study to environmental issues such as energy and climate, particularly scientists in those fields, generally avoid using those labels and find little use in discussing partisan politics, but rather keep their focus on science itself. Yet when you look at discussions which favor our continued dependence on oil and continue to argue against the notion of anthrogenically influenced global warming, you frequently see those labels and partisan politics come into play. That seems very interesting to me- something that might well be considered.
Again, I would suggest that anyone interested in the subject would do well to not listen to me or to famous actors and musicians or to politicians or to people who work for the oil industry or people who make non-essential solar powered gadgets but rather, listen to those scientists who work in a non-partisan setting and study the subject as serious and important work and show a concern for how human activity affects the world in which we live.
Brian is absolutely correct here. If you can't escape insisting that environmental issues are politically related, you've been had by the special interest group lobbyists paying big bucks to politicians that do nothing but dumb the American public down by suggesting that a SCIENCE has anything at all to do at all with politics. It didn't have anything to do with politics until George W. Bush made it political. Bush fired scientists for not publishing slanted material that made Big Oil look good. He censored scientists and threatened to fire them if they didn't comply. Some quit and blew the whistle. A few stayed on and censored themselves in order to make the bucks.
When are people going to wake up and realize that their political leanings DO NOT DEFINE us as human beings? We are people first. And politics does not define who we are. Unless we allow it, and that never ends up well.
For the solar and wind industries in the United States, it has been a long-held dream: to produce energy at a cost equal to conventional sources like coal and natural gas.That day appears to be dawning.
The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar power plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas.
Utility executives say the trend has accelerated this year, with several companies signing contracts, known as power purchase agreements, for solar or wind at prices below that of natural gas, especially in the Great Plains and Southwest, where wind and sunlight are abundant.
Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.
In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.
And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.
“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.
“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.
According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
“It is really quite notable, when compared to where we were just five years ago, to see the decline in the cost of these technologies,” said Jonathan Mir, a managing director at Lazard, which has been comparing the economics of power generation technologies since 2008.
For the solar and wind industries in the United States, it has been a long-held dream: to produce energy at a cost equal to conventional sources like coal and natural gas.That day appears to be dawning.
The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar power plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas.
Utility executives say the trend has accelerated this year, with several companies signing contracts, known as power purchase agreements, for solar or wind at prices below that of natural gas, especially in the Great Plains and Southwest, where wind and sunlight are abundant.
Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.
In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.
And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.
“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.
“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.
According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
“It is really quite notable, when compared to where we were just five years ago, to see the decline in the cost of these technologies,” said Jonathan Mir, a managing director at Lazard, which has been comparing the economics of power generation technologies since 2008.
Great article, bsL12- thank you! What Cardwell says here makes good sense.
Of course, conservation and reduction of energy usage is our best move, but because we do live in the type of civilization that exists today, it makes sense both economically and environmentally to promote alternatives like solar and wind. Wind generated power has major drawbacks- especially bird death- both those problems are solvable.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)
The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g
Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"
I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not. Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.
For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)
The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g
Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"
I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not. Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.
Absolutely agree. Only oil can do that.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)
The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g
Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"
I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not. Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)
The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g
Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"
I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not. Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.
We will be very very sorry when we burn all the oil for power and transportation and theres none left for industrial/technological manufacturing. There is no replacement for oil in the industrial world, and we are wasting it on the wrong uses!
For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)
The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g
Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"
I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not. Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.
Absolutely agree. Only oil can do that.
.......So far.
I hope I'm wrong and I hope you're right, Mickeyrat! Meanwhile, I'm all in favor of looking for cleaner alternatives and conserving energy.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
How come none's talking about this alternative ... wind and solar and electric cars are nice too talk about. Take it from solar and wind are costly and are driving up energy prices here in Ontario and making Ontario less competitive. Electric cars the average middle class person can not afford one.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)
The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g
Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"
I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not. Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.
We will be very very sorry when we burn all the oil for power and transportation and theres none left for industrial/technological manufacturing. There is no replacement for oil in the industrial world, and we are wasting it on the wrong uses!
How come none's talking about this alternative ... wind and solar and electric cars are nice too talk about. Take it from solar and wind are costly and are driving up energy prices here in Ontario and making Ontario less competitive. Electric cars the average middle class person can not afford one.
Yeah, funny how that idea keeps getting pushed under the carpet.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)
The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g
Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"
I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not. Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.
We will be very very sorry when we burn all the oil for power and transportation and theres none left for industrial/technological manufacturing. There is no replacement for oil in the industrial world, and we are wasting it on the wrong uses!
Out of curiosity, what are the right uses?
The ones for which there is no petroleum alternative! Although I suppose technology will always find an alternative, there are so many vital products which oil is crucial for production it is difficult to think of the world without it.
Prez may veto... but I don't hink his Illuminati brethren would like it.
Title isn't changes, but it should be becuase the Senate PASSED Keystone..and oil is up 20% th last 6 days.
Comments
2. tar sands oil is dirty ... 3x the amount of resources to extract ... meaning all that dirty coal being used in alberta is used to extract more dirty fuel ... plus, it uses way more water consumption
3. don't buy into the oil company propaganda ... this is an industry that pumps millions of dollars into misleading the public about global warming ... this is the same industry that would rather pay the fines of an environmental disaster (if they have to pay them at all) vs. ensure that tankers don't run aground and cause leaks. Oil companies are probably tied with weapons manufacturers and Bio-Foods as being the most evil in the world.
4. just because oil companies create high paying jobs doesn't make it good for the economy or the people
5. educate yourself on alternative energy ... whoever wrote that alternative energy is the same as oil is completely misguided ...
Where do people draw the line ...
The alternative energy folk are the same as the oil folk in it for the $$$ ...
It's nice to be all green and everything but here in Ontario it was poorly thought out and is causing massive pain to a lot of people.
Really not so sure why we need to go that route, we could have our hydro off Quebec, built natural gas plants and closed all our coal fired plants.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Paid off scientists are hardly rooting for science, they are only interested in getting paid.
Those are the two types of scientists out there.
1thoughtknown...perhaps a brush up on the scientific method is in order for you? It is a self regulating system that effectively eliminates bias on the large scale.
Those are my experiences and are based on my own thoughts based on factual evidence. I am no longer associated with the oil sands or the pipeline industry. I may be in the future.
On your specific quotes... Life is not a popularity contest, so I prefaced my comments here because I was the first person to have an opposing view. It is "not in my backyard" mentality because if you new how solar cells or LED lighting or any "environmentally friendly" things were made, you would applaud the oil sands on their environmental conscience.
Subdue yourselves = slow down and look at the big picture.
Not everyone will agree with me, I have no problem with that, but I have lived in the area. The pollution problem in the US is far greater than the oil sands believe me.
If you don't want our oil, it's fine. The European Union and China will buy it all. Before long the US dollar will no longer be used to buy and sell oil sending your country into hyperinflation as your dollar spirals into worthlessness.
It's happening between Russia and China already.... Be careful what you wish for
as opposed to "paid off scientists" who are not interested in pure science but only in making a lot of money. I'm guessing you understand the difference between the two.
What might come into question is- which type of scientist is doing what? It seems very safe to say that scientists who work for the oil industry are of the latter type and scientists who do work to find ways to conserve and protect the environment are the former.
So as to biased scientists- yes, most- maybe in a way all- are biased. The question is, do you trust the scientist who is biased toward making money rather than revealing what is known through pure science or do you trust the scientist who is motivated more by finding truths through pure science and using that gained knowledge to work to lessen anthropogenic damage to our environment with the goal of living on a safer, cleaner planet?
As I went to post this, I read your last post. I always and totally support your right to voice your opinion. I'm totally on board with life not being a popularity contest. I am mine and I hope you are yours. I am aware that all production of things that are not made by hand are polluting. This is why I support the production of durable goods rather than crap and especially why I promote conservation. As for "your" oil- that was never intended for the U.S. market. As for subduing myself, rest assured: I am in full control and all systems are go! :-)
With respect to the impact to the native land or farmers' land that the pipe will travers.....this has FAR FAR more to do with a keen desire from those people sitting on the land that the pipeline would traverse to ensure that they are 'fairly compensated financially' for this opportunity than anything else. I have seen first hand how this 'royalty greed' has worked throughout the Western Canadian sedimentary basin. And I'm not really blaming these folks....but let's be real......there is no real ongoing impact to the land once the pipe is laid and the site is restored. In fact pipe like that can be used almost in perpetuity as long as there is a need and there is no 'leakage' into the ground of product being transported so I fail to see what the hardship is to these folks would be on a long-term basis.
On the subject of moving to alternative fuels......well sure that is a terrific suggestion; however not very attainable any time soon. One day maybe we will have advanced as a society to the point where we don't require as much oil as we currently use. But that is a long way off...and the fact of the matter is that the more the U.S. doesn't access its oil needs from North American sources the more dependent upon other regions of the world like the Middle East it will be. I don't think it takes much of a leap to understand that it is this link between the U.S. and the Middle East that is causing a tremendous amount of the problems between America and the Middle East.....because the Middle East is fighting against the U.S.'s history of controlling world oil prices. That game is almost played out my fellow American's, because whether you like it or not China and India and the like are becoming increasingly important in the world scene.....and the U.S. will likely not be able to 'keep a lid' on the price it pays for global oil as it has historically been able to do....and the result will either be astronomically high prices for oil-based products for all Americans and/or more tensions/unrest/US interventions/wars/terrorist activities involving the U.S. and the Middle East. I suppose the tree-huggers can continue to hope for a greener energy source to replace oil but they'd better do it fast because this demand for oil-based products in the U.S. is still on the increase.......
I would also like to take issue with anyone who believes that it is Canada who is benefitting the most from Keystone and that this is just a nice thing to do for Canada. Please. I work in an advisory capacity to many many companies who have invested in the Canadian oil sands or support the industry. There is far more international investment in the oil sands than there is local Canadian investment. Just as we have done with the mining industry in Canada we have pretty much sold all of our own natural resources to the rest of the world. As it stands right now more and more countries such as Japan, Korea, India and China are investing in our oil sands....and if the oil cannot get transported to American hubs for refining then it will get transported one way or another out of our country to other markets in the East. The fact of the matter is that the longer the US holds out on Keystone the only country that will really be negatively affected will be America. Canada has a resource that the World needs....not just America. We have had a great and friendly relation with our neighbours to the South but if the U.S. doesn't step up here we will be forced to work with other countries that will do business with us. I for one think that is more in Canada's best interest than to be as closely economically tied to the U.S., a country that has been economically weakening in the global arena for some time now.
Anyway those are just a few of my thoughts...as unpopular as they will no doubt be received. I get tired of people being so 'Polyanna-esque' in their views on things......coming down on issues on one side or the other without realizing that there is far more to the story than meets the eye. I also have issue with the hypocrisy I think is rampant on this subject. Those of you who are against Keystone....I urge you to look around your own worlds to see the amount of oil that contributes to your daily comfort every day. Maybe look in your own back yard before you begin worrying about everyone else's.
Now do I trust either scientist? Of course, because there are truths in either slant. Who I do not trust are the media which reports these findings because this is where the real slant begins. You stated "even FOX reported...." Yards yards yards. Despite FOX's right wing slant, they must try to maintain some semblance of objectivity. I did not read your link, just stating the media is there to sell advertising, not inform us. The real news is not on the big 4 US networks or their "news" channels. News is entertainment (yes that includes you CNN perhaps the worst news channel ever).
Back to Keystone, here is a link which refutes one of your (and Obama's) stance on Keystone.
For the record, Obama will be a forgotten president with a lacklustre career when all is said and done. He has really accomplished very little and US public opinion shows this. I have a hunch Obama is using this hill to stand on as a way to promote his "legacy". Wrong hill to die on in my opinion.
For the record, I admire Obama's attempt at universal health care (as we have here in Canada and his attempts to withdraw troops from Afgahnistan and Iraq. I am not anti-Obama, he is typical of the Democrats and their ineffective (or lack of) good foreign policy. This is a foreigners view of course.
Cheers
Forgot the link.... Haha
Again, I would suggest that anyone interested in the subject would do well to not listen to me or to famous actors and musicians or to politicians or to people who work for the oil industry or people who make non-essential solar powered gadgets but rather, listen to those scientists who work in a non-partisan setting and study the subject as serious and important work and show a concern for how human activity affects the world in which we live.
Another thing you should educate yourself on is the history of the Middle East post WWII and how the U.S. Has gotten itself into this predicament in the first place. Having a North American resource as large as the oil sands from your friends to the north is an advantage. ISIS, for example, has oil reserves and is cashing these in to buy weapons. As a matter of fact they are currently closing in on oil fields which earn as much as a $100 million per day. Do you want to buy your oil from terrorists?
Here is a map of the existing pipelines showing how we are already interconnected, and therefore the argument seems moot.
http://www.capp.ca/canadaIndustry/oil/Pages/PipelineMap.aspx
The oil will get there, the safest way is pipelines. New pipeline technology is impressive. Railways are too risky and we know what an oil tanker disaster can do.
Cheers
When are people going to wake up and realize that their political leanings DO NOT DEFINE us as human beings? We are people first. And politics does not define who we are. Unless we allow it, and that never ends up well.
For the solar and wind industries in the United States, it has been a long-held dream: to produce energy at a cost equal to conventional sources like coal and natural gas.That day appears to be dawning.
The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar power plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas.
Utility executives say the trend has accelerated this year, with several companies signing contracts, known as power purchase agreements, for solar or wind at prices below that of natural gas, especially in the Great Plains and Southwest, where wind and sunlight are abundant.
Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.
In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.
And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.
“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.
“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.
According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
“It is really quite notable, when compared to where we were just five years ago, to see the decline in the cost of these technologies,” said Jonathan Mir, a managing director at Lazard, which has been comparing the economics of power generation technologies since 2008.
Of course, conservation and reduction of energy usage is our best move, but because we do live in the type of civilization that exists today, it makes sense both economically and environmentally to promote alternatives like solar and wind. Wind generated power has major drawbacks- especially bird death- both those problems are solvable.
http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full
The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650
Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"
I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not.
Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
How come none's talking about this alternative ... wind and solar and electric cars are nice too talk about. Take it from solar and wind are costly and are driving up energy prices here in Ontario and making Ontario less competitive. Electric cars the average middle class person can not afford one.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
As Cheech would say.. "thats false advertising mang!"
Who changed the title of this thread? Is Brian around? Whoever did it, change it back.
Never mind, this thread was dug up and not the one we have been updating...
Title isn't changes, but it should be becuase the Senate PASSED Keystone..and oil is up 20% th last 6 days.