Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama can and must take serious action on climate change with and without Congress (160 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Make the damn tar sands irrelevant (17+ / 0-)

    Keystone XL represents only about a quarter of potential Tar Sands production over 70 years.

    The best way to kill the tar sands is to have renewables price tar sands out of the market. That guarantees the bitumen stays in the ground because no one will want it.

    FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 04:25:01 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  This is saying a lot ... (11+ / 0-)

      Tar Sands producers get to dump a huge portion of their costs on others. This is a huge advantage -- they don't have to pay a trashman to take away their gabage.

      So, how do we have renewables lower cost (without counting externalities) than fossil fuels?  We're awhile, from everything that I see, from seeing enough renewables at a low enough cost such that even tar sands is priced out of the market.

      Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

      by A Siegel on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 05:27:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Long term is a solid bet (4+ / 0-)

        Tar Sands is an 85 year project.......

        We need to be in on it for the long haul.

        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 08:26:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Long term and it is game over for our (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          A Siegel

          grandkids.

          I say we send emails and faxes every dadgum day to reps, sens and the wh telling them fixing global warming is a priority (along with missives on our OTHER priorities!)

          American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

          by glitterscale on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:59:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yet ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          714day, Roger Fox

          just like nuclear power, a large (al beit not 85%) of the Tar Sands cost is in the infrastructure.  Consider the costs of the 'factories', the trucks, etc ...

          Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

          by A Siegel on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:00:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not to mention the incalculable costs of illness, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            A Siegel, Roger Fox

            destruction of the ecosystem, etc., etc. The "hidden" costs are not only a stunning pound on the collective pocketbook, they are deadly. The numbers are impossible to tot up.

            •  The public needs to hear more about this! (0+ / 0-)

              The hidden costs of tar sands development are not yet big news.  So they have no deterrent effect.

              One thing that became clear to me in the campaign is that the twittersphere really can move stories into the MSM, at least sometimes.  So we need clear, well-documented articles and blog posts on the health effects of tar sands development, the environmental effects, and the costs to the taxpayers.  Then we need the tweeters among us to get them trending.  

              Ditto, fracking.

              --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

              by Fiona West on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 03:03:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Natural Gas Driving Prices (7+ / 0-)

      Renewable will not price tar sands out of the market in the immediate future.  The low prices of natural gas is what is driving the energy market right now and renewables have to compete with those low prices as does Keystone XL and the tar sands.

      Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at solarray.

      by gmoke on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 05:28:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Long term (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bigjacbigjacbigjac

        The Tar Sands is expected to produce for 85 years at 3.5mbd.

        60tcf of conventional natgas in Alaska plus the 70tcf of nat gas conventional reserves in western Canada, all of that nat gas would be just enough (?)  to power the Tar Sands for 85 years.

        Nat gas pipeline proposals from Prudhoe Bay and Mackenzie River Delta areas to Alberta, IIRC 4-5 different proposals.

        Plus 3-4 oil pipelines from Alberta to Pacific coast, plus proposed super tanker loading facilities in Houston and British Columbia.

        They knew the first Keystone route would be rejected, this is SOP in natgas pipeline thinking. Did the same in Connecticut recently, they pick route that requires most eminent domain thru wealthy areas. Then they show true colors, they route that gets built is never the first to be proposed.

        Tar Sands Partners are savvy.

        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 08:37:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site