Latest Keystone XL news.
Comments
-
Now with all that shit being talked I think that both countries as neighbours can find a way to consider that if we can have unilateral resources flowing through our two countries without resistance we have such an enormous realm. We are your friend.0
-
PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »Now with all that shit being talked I think that both countries as neighbours can find a way to consider that if we can have unilateral resources flowing through our two countries without resistance we have such an enormous realm. We are your friend.
Way too much point form here, PJF.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »Now with all that shit being talked I think that both countries as neighbours can find a way to consider that if we can have unilateral resources flowing through our two countries without resistance we have such an enormous realm. We are your friend.
Way too much point form here, PJF.
For who?0 -
PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »Now with all that shit being talked I think that both countries as neighbours can find a way to consider that if we can have unilateral resources flowing through our two countries without resistance we have such an enormous realm. We are your friend.
Way too much point form here, PJF.
For who?
"Whom", my friend, "whom".
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »Now with all that shit being talked I think that both countries as neighbours can find a way to consider that if we can have unilateral resources flowing through our two countries without resistance we have such an enormous realm. We are your friend.
Way too much point form here, PJF.
For who?
"Whom", my friend, "whom".
As far as I know one means who0 -
PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »Now with all that shit being talked I think that both countries as neighbours can find a way to consider that if we can have unilateral resources flowing through our two countries without resistance we have such an enormous realm. We are your friend.
Way too much point form here, PJF.
Agreed PJF! And Brian you made me laugh too0 -
LOL you guys!
Now off to see what petroleum bases vinyl records to spin on my politically correct squirrel driven turn table."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
My head hurts.
Back to the game!0 -
-
Always am myself. Who else would I be?PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »
Was talking about the OSU-Oregon game.
Now THAT is a good one ;-)
0 -
Dems’ epic Keystone troll: Proposed amendment asks Senators to acknowledge climate change
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/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?”Post edited by backseatLover12 on0 -
0 -
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
-
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.0 -
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.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
1T, you said,
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!"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Well said 1Thought....Well said.0
-
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?10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help