Latest Keystone XL news.

1234579

Comments

  • Posts: 44,408
    brianlux wrote: »
    show previous quotes

    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?


    perhaps before we add more miles of pipeline, how about we take a comprehensive overhaul of the existing pipes for a start.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    lukin2006 wrote: »
    Most Canadians feel energy infrastructure needs trump environment: poll

    Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/most-canadians-feel-energy-infrastructure-needs-trump-environment-poll-1.2196190#ixzz3PZIdGYR1
    Ah, polling. You can get almost any result you want, you just need to structure the poll questions correctly. There is art as well as science involved in phrasing questions. I wish they had printed the entire list of questions, rather than just a couple. I'll look further and see if I can find the whole poll.

    It's also important to keep in mind that the margin of error was close to 2% (1.8%). So that means 46% (actually, somewhere between 44 and 48%) "said they considered building energy infrastructure to be important to the economy, even if there was environmental impact", while 41% (actually, somewhere between 39% and 43%) felt the opposite, which means that the difference could be as small as 43% to 44% (or as large as 39% to 48%). In either case, no clear winner.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Posts: 2,312
    A new internal government poll suggests a majority of Canadians believe the economic benefit of expanding the country's energy infrastructure trumps the potential environmental impact of such expansion.

    Let me ask (because I love asking questions). "Internal government poll", exactly what is this? And who are they polling exactly? How many people? From what background?

    That's the thing about polls. The media likes to use them to back up agendas and viewpoints of said media outlet because the reader tends to think that polls are more credible. Be wary whenever reading that "the polls" specify or choose anything. Because it's nothing but manipulation. Especially watch out for how often the media likes to use polls coming into the next presidential election. It's constant.
  • Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    Here is an excellent article that clearly points how how the Keystone XL pipeline will not supply the US with oil, the fact that it is being pushed by TransCanada for their own profit, not America's interest and that, of course, this is a bad move for the environment. Some key points made here:

    The reality is TransCanada needs to build this pipeline -- and a bunch of other pipelines to boot -- because only then will they be economically able to fully develop the tar sands. For TransCanada, the problem is simple: their product can't compete with the world oil market unless America gives them a way to move their product through our country.

    TransCanada trumpeted the now commonly debunked promise that Keystone XL would create thousands of jobs for Americans. However, TransCanada's own consultant admitted this $8 billion dollar pipeline would only provide 35 permanent jobs. That's right -- 35 jobs in exchange for bearing all of the risk that a pipeline snaking across our communities would create.

    It has been made abundantly clear by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that building the Keystone XL pipeline would significantly worsen carbon pollution -- failing the President's climate test.

    Now is not the time for tired talking points and further misinformation. TransCanada can continue to make its empty promises and false arguments, but the facts remain the same: Keystone XL is a bad deal for America.

    Instead of catering to their fossil fuel donors, our elected leaders in Congress should be focusing on the job-creating, clean energy policies that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, strengthen our economy, and address climate change once and for all.

    The next generation is counting on us to make the right decisions. Keystone XL is not one of them.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-steyer/transcanada-cant-change-facts-about-keystone-xl_b_6626340.html
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Posts: 2,312
    For Brian: http://soulspottv.com/blog/if-earth-treated-us-the-way-we-treat-earth-comedy/
  • Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    backseatLover12 wrote: »
    For Brian: http://soulspottv.com/blog/if-earth-treated-us-the-way-we-treat-earth-comedy/

    Hahaha! Excellent!! :smiley:

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    Just got this from a good friend here. No visits here... so far. Yikes!

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/09/3620703/tar-sands-fbi-visits/

    Tar sands activists in several states have been getting visits from the FBI, and no one knows yet exactly why.

    Federal agents have been contacting activists who have participated in anti-Keystone XL and anti-tar sands protests, according to the Canadian Press. The visits have been happening to activists in Oregon, Washington state, and Idaho, and a lawyer working with the activists told the Canadian Press that he has advised them not to talk to the agents.

    “It’s always the same line: ‘We’re not doing criminal investigations, you’re not accused of any crime. But we’re trying to learn more about the movement,'” he said.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Posts: 6,155
    US is a police state.... Run by the Illuminati.
    Bankers want the pipeline. The Shadow Government....OR

    It was a Newfie in Fort Mac, John Parsons, who sicked the FBI on them. Only he was confused when he thought it was the "fucking big Indians".
    "Lord tunderin jeezuz bye!" He said, "I wuz just tryin to scare dem a lil tis all!"
    Asked for why he would do such a thing he responded....
    "Who da fuck bye! Dis is our livelihood! We workin up here in FortMac and dem sons a bitches are talkin all that shit about us!"



  • Posts: 44,408
    not about keystone but its related to the overall conversation. At this very moment there is a rail car fire in Charleston West Virginia. Crude has spilled in the Kanawha River and several cars are on fire out of 109.

    http://news.yahoo.com/csx-oil-train-derails-west-virginia-14-cars-202837645--finance.html
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • Posts: 13,576
    WV always gets the raw deal.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Posts: 44,408
    this is one I want to follow. the how and why it happened. Seems to me that limiting the speeds of the trains can help. OR limit the number of cars. But I cant really say what idf anything needs to happen without knowing details.

    With trucks and liquid carrying trailers there is a surge effect when slowing rapidly, or curves taken too fast. I expect it can be worse with 100+ tank rail cars unless the individual tanks are baffled inside with several bulkheads to limit the amount of motion inside.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    What's mostly sad about this is that it happened at all. But what's also sad about this is that XL pipeline backers will probably start screaming about how much safer pipelines are than rail. The irony here is that,besides walking, bicycles and pack animals, railroads are the most efficient method of transporting people and good. And add to the the fact that we have allowed our rail system to fall into ruin. It's also true that the tank cars that contain oil are themselves unsafe and/or poorly constructed. Back in 1991 federal rail officials stated that two-thirds of the tank cars used to carry crude oil were considered a "substantial danger to life, property, and the environment".*

    For several reasons, we would be very, very wise to upgrade and restore our rail system. But beyond that we would be even more wise to end this outdated, dangerous and foolish addiction to oil.

    *http://cleanharbor.blogspot.com/2014/12/oil-trains-unsafe-unnecessary-and.html
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Posts: 6,155
    The Lac-Mégantic rail disaster occurred in the town of Lac-Mégantic, located in the Eastern Townships of the Canadian province of Quebec, at approximately 01:15 EDT on July 6, 2013, when an unattended 74-car freight train carrying Bakken formation crude oil ran away and derailed, resulting in the fire and explosion of multiple tank cars. Forty-two people were confirmed dead, with five more missing and presumed dead. More than 30 buildings in the town's centre, roughly half of the downtown area, were destroyed and all but three of the thirty-nine remaining downtown buildings are to be demolished due to petroleum contamination of the townsite.[9] Initial newspaper reports described a 1-kilometre blast radius.

    Has a pipeline explosion of crude oil ever killed 47 people?
  • Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    1ThoughtKnown said:

    The Lac-Mégantic rail disaster occurred in the town of Lac-Mégantic, located in the Eastern Townships of the Canadian province of Quebec, at approximately 01:15 EDT on July 6, 2013, when an unattended 74-car freight train carrying Bakken formation crude oil ran away and derailed, resulting in the fire and explosion of multiple tank cars. Forty-two people were confirmed dead, with five more missing and presumed dead. More than 30 buildings in the town's centre, roughly half of the downtown area, were destroyed and all but three of the thirty-nine remaining downtown buildings are to be demolished due to petroleum contamination of the townsite.[9] Initial newspaper reports described a 1-kilometre blast radius.

    Has a pipeline explosion of crude oil ever killed 47 people?

    No. But that does not change a thing about what I said above.

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Posts: 6,155
    If you understood some of the fallout, the PTSD some of the survivors are living through, you would be a realist and admit, oil is not going away. The safest way to transport it is through pipeline because nothing, nothing is more sacred and important than human life.
    Someday Brian, oil will be obsolete, until then we must move this commodity in the safest way possible.
    Please read about Lac Megantic. The railways are a disaster here as well. Once the government privatized our railways and they became property of (mostly) American investors, the number of derailments is on average one per day in Canada.
    Research Lac Megantic, see how human error and the rail companies saving a few dollars changed the lives of everyone in a small town in an instant.
    I am pretty sure you would rethink your rather abrupt and callous response. Does it change what you said? Maybe not. Perhaps it should make you stop and think if that happened to your town, or your family, would you be so quick to be anti-pipeline?

    Food for thought.
  • Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    1ThoughtKnown said:

    If you understood some of the fallout, the PTSD some of the survivors are living through, you would be a realist and admit, oil is not going away. The safest way to transport it is through pipeline because nothing, nothing is more sacred and important than human life.
    Someday Brian, oil will be obsolete, until then we must move this commodity in the safest way possible.
    Please read about Lac Megantic. The railways are a disaster here as well. Once the government privatized our railways and they became property of (mostly) American investors, the number of derailments is on average one per day in Canada.
    Research Lac Megantic, see how human error and the rail companies saving a few dollars changed the lives of everyone in a small town in an instant.
    I am pretty sure you would rethink your rather abrupt and callous response. Does it change what you said? Maybe not. Perhaps it should make you stop and think if that happened to your town, or your family, would you be so quick to be anti-pipeline?

    Food for thought.

    I'm sorry for coming across as abrupt and callous, 1ThoughtKnown. I admit I don't have much patience with this issue. I'm certainly not callous or uncaring about the loss of life.

    It's true we all use oil but arguing about how to transport seems futile to me. We need to lessen out dependence on oil- not "someday". We need to do it now. We need to ask questions like, How many no-drive days do you take? How often do you car pool? Do you use public transit? Have you reduced your consumption and do you strive to buy the most durable goods you can when you do consume? Do you share goods? Are you driving an SUV when an economy car meets your needs just as well? Do you minimize your use of plastic? Do you take cloth bags to the grocery store? Do you rinse and reuse plastic bags over and over as often as possible? etc., etc. We consume-- and thus transport-- way more oil than we need to. And there are alternatives that are much safer (see the "Welcome to the New Hemp Era" thread).

    Neither pipelines not train transport of oil is the answer. Building further infrastructure to keep us in the oil loop will only lead to more problems. If we remain addicted to oil much longer the deaths you mentioned from that explosion will seem trivial and relatively insignificant compared to the massive loss of human and other species life that is and will continue as a result of our consumption of oil. That's the issue as far as I see it and my feeling on this are anything but un-compassionate. Why should I care? I'll be dead before this shit hits the fan. But my kids and yours will not be so let's get busy and fix this mess.

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Posts: 6,155
    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
  • Posts: 2,312
    Again, climate change is its own political agenda because we let it be one. Let's be civil here. I am 100% against a pipeline and don't enjoy seeing anyone berate anyone else for being against it as well. So knock it off, 1thought. Keep in mind that the right wing, the Conservatives, were all about conserving the environment, until GW Bush got into office. It's what republicans were about until they made global warming political because they were in bed with the fossil fuel industry. And you can argue it forever, but that's what this is all about. Appeasing lobbyists.
  • Posts: 13,576
    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

    A billion dollar industry lol. That isn't much of an industry. Payday lending is a billion dollar industry. Adult diapers is a billion dollar industry.
    It's obvious who stands to profit billions from protecting fossil fuels, please enlighten us who stands to profit billions from "perpetuating this story"?
    I have seen this claim again and again, and yet, I have never seen the money trail that would make it a legitimate claim.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Posts: 2,312
    edited February 2015
    1ThoughtKnown said:


    Has a pipeline explosion of crude oil ever killed 47 people?

    Since you asked for it… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents

    Since there is so much info of fatalities and injuries on this page, I can't copy and paste because it's over the word limit. 47 people is laughable, compared to the real numbers...

    1 event in Nigeria: 1998: At Jesse in the Niger Delta in Nigeria, a petroleum pipeline exploded killing about 1200 villagers, some of whom were scavenging gasoline. The worst of several similar incidents in this country.[15] (October 17, 1998)
    Post edited by backseatLover12 on

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories