Skip to main content

View Diary: Pres. Obama's Big Oil host has history of war profiteering, discrimination (Updated/Action) (284 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The veritable 900 pound gorilla in the room (5+ / 0-)

    is that none of this really matters unless someone addresses demand.

    All of these supply issues are just meaningless sound and fury that signify nothing.

    I was told yesterday here at DailyKos that addressing demand is not possible - so, I suppose that explains a lot of the kabuki theater over pipelines, etc.

    •  Well, it has to be attacked on both sides. (20+ / 0-)

      If we don't have access to renewable energy, we are going to continue to burn non-renewable energy against our will because modern living is constructed upon everyone having the equivalent of 300 energy slaves. While we can each do things to minimize that, there are limits if we are going to continue to function in society.

      On the demand side, if you google "buildings" and "greenhouse gas emissions" you will find that somewhere between 40 and 50% of emissions are attributable to the construction and occupancy of buildings. Imagine that, half the problem could be tackled if we changed the way we built and used buildings.

      The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

      by Words In Action on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:34:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but there's lots of craziness involved (8+ / 0-)

        there as well.

        For example I recently recall reading how air conditioners come in SEER ratings of 10 to 21 or so.  With a higher number being more efficient (and more costly).

        Over time, regulations have come to require SEER ratings of 13 (IIRC), i.e., still far less than optimal - but almost all air conditioners are installed at this minimum, at least in new construction.

        The reason for that is that they're cheaper at the time, so that's what the contractor puts in.  Although, over time (only 5 or 6 years) a SEER 20 air conditioner would recoup the costs PLUS save energy in the process.  So, it's pure craziness that they're not used ubiquitously . . .

      •  Isn't it too bad (8+ / 0-)

        that we don't have a massive WPA-style program that makes homes energy-efficient?

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:31:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So many projects (10+ / 0-)

          good projects that would result in good jobs and good results... but we spend trillions on wars and terrorists... and in my opinion, doing the bidding of big corps who have international "interests".

          "Justice is a commodity"

          by joanneleon on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:36:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I know that there are terrorist (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Don midwest, SouthernLiberalinMD

            commited to harm the US.
            Why does no one ever ask why?
            The US commits coups and installs brutal puppet fictators who as long as they are friendly to US interests (corporations), they are given a pass.
            The Shaw, Saddam, baby Doc, Gaddaffi, ect.
            But when the dictators change the rules, they are taken out.
            By our military.
            Sorry if this sounds insensitive, but those who sign up because they love their Country are just cannon fodder for the corporations. Butler laid this out so many years ago.
            When they are hurt, it is very difficult for them to get treatment.
            Joann mentioned our troops in Africa.
            Funny how so many Countries convienently start having a terrorist problem right where the corporations are going after a Countrie's resources.
            Our Congress gives away OUR taxes to so many foriegn counties, but then say they do not have enough money to help our citizens.
            Why are we giving Israel $3,000,000,000/ year?  
            What does Israel do for us in return?  
            This is madness.
            What Obama has done since he took office is disgusting.
            Dropping bombs on innocent civilians who are no threat to us. How many countries are the CIA, JSOC in now?  
            Over 80.
            That isn't defending the US.
            Thst is terrorism. If another Nation did what we are doing, that is what we would call it.
            Not prosecuting war crimes makes sense, because he is doing the same things.
            Shame on him.
            I did not vote for him this time.
            He made so many promises in 08, but kept very few.
            Would Romney be worse?
            Probably, but thst does't let Obama off for his war crimes.
            This Nation has been at war since I was born.
            And it isn't really war. It is invading Nations for the coporations.
            We pay the bill, they keep the profits.
            Great diary.

            Gitmo is a Concentration Camp. Not a Detention Center. Torture happens at Concentration Camps. Torture happens at Gitmo. How much further will US values fall? Where is YOUR outrage at what the United States does in OUR names?

            by snoopydawg on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 12:05:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  So, start addressing it (12+ / 0-)

      We need to attack both sides and we have a damn good chance to win a victory on the supply side.

      •  It's being attacked, demand for gas is down in US (8+ / 0-)

        and Europe.

        To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:48:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The problem is that attacking demand is (4+ / 0-)

        100% meaningless.

        For example, when Japan's nukes shut down, demand for carbon based fuels increased by an amount equivalent to a fully developed Tar sands output.   That was met without hesitation by global sources.

         Moving forward, Greenpeace (ironically enough) documents 14 global "carbon bombs"

        The 14 projects’ annual emissions by 2020 (millions of tonnes of CO2)

        China – Coal mining – 1,400
        Australia – Coal exports – 760
        Arctic – Oil and gas drilling – 520
        Indonesia – Coal exports – 460
        USA – Coal exports – 420
        Canada – Tar sands – 420
        Iraq – Oil drilling – 420
        Brazil – Oil drilling – 330
        Gulf of Mexico – Oil drilling – 350
        Kazakhstan – Oil drilling – 290
        USA – Shale gas – 280
        Africa – gas drilling – 260
        Caspian Sea – Gas drilling – 240
        Venezuela – Tar sands – 190

        Total 6,340 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020


        anyone with any ability to do arithmetic at all can instantly see that even if the Tar Sands are completely blocked, there is  11 times more global supply ready to step in.

        IOW, trying to block things on the supply is absolutely and utterly futile.  

        •  So, we need to attack demand (6+ / 0-)

          But it's also meaningless to attack demand?

          Or was that suppose to be supply at the beginning?

          •  Yup, that's a big typo on my part!! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, joanneleon, divineorder


            •  I should have assumed :) (4+ / 0-)

              But on topic, we still have to attack supply. I'm doing what I can about demand, but there's only so much I can do.  There's no parallel action that we can take about demand because attacking demand means forcing people to be active while attacking supply means forcing people to be inactive.  And forcing people to be inactive, as in forcing the oil company in this case to not build the pipeline, is always easier.

              Obama seems on board with addressing demand, supply not so much.

              •  The problem with blocking pipelines (8+ / 0-)

                is that Big Oil will just move the crude oil via rail

                I'm weary of discussing that from yesterday, but some simple googling (or searching my posts from yesterday) will show that that has already started in a major way, and all that is holding it back at all is the threat of pipeline expansion.

                So, the nanosecond that Obama (or Kerry) nixes pipeline expansion, investment in moving crude oil by rail will explode.

                And tar sands exploitation will continue unabated.

                The only real way to avoid this is to implement a punitive carbon tax.  Everything else is more or less meaningless (although cap and trade can be a tad effective - as the consortium of Northeast states have shown - the problem is that they're only "a tad" effective when massive action is needed ASAP (if not yesterday)).

                •  If it doesn't matter then why are the companies (7+ / 0-)

                  even trying to build it?  It's going to raise the price of oil, or stop the price from falling at the very least.  More importantly, this isn't the only thing we need to block.  Winning this is the beginning of this movement, not the end.

                  The only real way to avoid this is to implement a punitive carbon tax.  Everything else is more or less meaningless (although cap and trade can be a tad effective - as the consortium of Northeast states have shown - the problem is that they're only "a tad" effective when massive action is needed ASAP (if not yesterday)).
                  Carbon rationing is a much better, and more fair, plan.  Of course, since a tax is less fair it will be the thing that eventually passes.
                  •  With or without pipelines, the price is not (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    billlaurelMD, Chi, FG


                    Heck, where I live the price of gas has risen $0.50 a gallon just since the holidays (e.g, in less than 8 weeks).

                    That's $22/bbl - or the cost differential of moving oil/gasoline ANYWHERES on the North American continent by rail vs. pipeline.  I'm not sure where those $$s are going, but by googling, they very well could be going for just that purpose.

                    For example, as I posted yesterday Southern Pacific is transporting Tar Sands oil to LA refineries by rail (and barge & truck, a bit).

                    there was a diary here just a few weeks ago about moving Bakken oil to Albany NY by rail (and if that can be done, so can Tar Sands oil be moved that way).

                    And just today, something new to me - sending this shit to Delaware by rail:

                    PBF Energy Inc has completed the second crude oil unloading facility at its subsidiary’s Delaware City Refinery. The construction of the 70,000 barrel per day (bpd) rail facility was announced in mid-2012 and was completed on schedule and on budget.  

                    Eighteen unit trains of Bakken crude oil were expected to arrive at the facility during its first two weeks in operation. With the completion of this project, the Delaware City rail facilities are now capable of discharging 110,000 bpd of crude oil directly at the refinery--40,000 bpd of heavy crude oil and 70,000 bpd of light crude oil.  


                    Seriously, just pay attention and you'll quickly see that the pipeline hysteria is completely irrelevant.  While no one was paying attention, it turns out that pipelines no longer matter.

                    •  Technically speaking (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      joanneleon, corvo

                      Those prices are rising without a pipeline.  And pointing out that they do move oil by train avoids the issue.  I know that happens.  There is a reason they want this pipeline and it isn't because it's more expensive than other methods.  Rising prices lowers demand, and the more extraction we prevent the higher the prices.

                      And I'll ask again: If this pipeline is so irrelevant then why do they want to build it?  Why is the president willing to push it through despite massive opposition from the base if it doesn't matter?

                      •  The question is whether you'd rather (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        James Kresnik

                        make $18 billion or $28 billion.

                        Clearly, you'd prefer $28 billion.

                        BUT, you're not going to shut down the entire operation and go home in a snit if you can "only" make $18 billion . .. .

                        •  err, those are annual profit projections (0+ / 0-)

                          based on moving tar sands oil by pipeline ($28 billion) vs. rail ($18 billion)

                          Of course with peak oil, if global supply issues dramatically increase the price of crude oil these numbers will shift to something like  $128 billion vs. $118 billion.  IOW, either way immense profits will be made and tarsands exploitation will continue unabated.

                          UNLESS - NEED I SAY THIS AGAIN - DEMAND CAN BE GUTTED!!!

                          •  I'm extremely skeptical (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            corvo, joanneleon, Pescadero Bill

                            about the claim that this simply won't affect prices but will affect profit.  Have companies managed to completely uncouple the two?  If not then it would have to have some effect.

                            More than that, after we defeat this pipeline, which we will do, then we can move on to other methods of transportation.

                            I'd only add that if you see other fights as more important then it would be great if you could focus on those and point them out instead of just generally saying that there are more important fight.  This is the fight we have right now.  We aren't getting anything through congress and the pres seems to be doing as much as he can on the demand side, so unless you have suggestions for other action then it doesn't help to just tell people not to take action at all.

                            Winning this is the first step.

                          •  It won't affect prices (0+ / 0-)

                            Tar sands output is 2 or 3% of global production.

                            the volume simply is immaterial to affect global prices (and only has an effect "locally" - e.g., in the upper midwest where the product is currently stranded).

                            That's what is leading to the efforts (and not only efforts, the reality) to transport crude oil by rail to Albany, NY, Delaware, and Louisiana as I have mentioned in other posts.

                            If a lack of pipeline capacity really could constrain production, the Bakken oil fields would never have been developed.  That ought to immediately put the lie an any claims that blocking pipeline construction will inhibit tarsands production.

                          •  You keep conflating constraining production (0+ / 0-)

                            with stopping construction, they're two different things.  Increasing the amount of oil that can be transported will increase oil output, it's as simple as that.  Why do you think that once the pipeline is built they won't be using trucks and rail as well?

                            And again, what action do we take?  You keep saying there are better places to take action but can't name any of them.

                          •  I've named them repeatedly (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            but no one gives a fuck, so why should I keep repeating myself?

                            The irony is that many, many frontpage diaries here at DailyKos ridicule the Republicans for not being reality based while celebrating a completely non-reality based idea that blocking Keystone will have an effect on TarSands production.

                            It'd almost be embarrassing if anyone around these parts cared to engage in any serious analyses of the issue.

                            But, clearly they don't.  Whatever,  as long as they enjoy entertaining themselves, all is well and good I suppose.

                          •  I haven't seen you name any of them (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            You could at least point to a comment where you've done so.  And I'd add that this doesn't have to be the only thing we focus on.  And there are in fact people focusing on more than just this.  KXL is the primary national issue right now, there are plenty of fights at the state level that are ongoing.

                          •  A problem is when this backfires (0+ / 0-)
                            KXL is the primary national issue right now,
                            perhaps gently, perhaps spectacularly, how often can one go to the well and rile up the base?  

                            you know, the "boy who cried wolf" story comes to mind . .

                            As does PETA's debacle wrt horse slaughterhouses.

                            In any event, the only thing that is guaranteed to reduce demand is a carbon tax with teeth  - my recommendation is an escalating (i.e., cumulative) $0.25 per gallon (or gallon equivalent for coal or NG) a year.

                            That would not immediately stymie the economy considering that larger fluctuations occur naturally - i.e., time would be built in to adjust/adopt new technologies.

                            but over time - e.g., $2.50  / gal in a decade or $5 /gal in 20 years - the continued use of carbon based fuels could simply not compete with cheaper alternatives and would be discontinued.

                          •  So your alternative is something (0+ / 0-)

                            That at very best won't happen until 2016. So what you're really advising is inaction at the national level. We can't tell people that the fight against climate change is the most important issue in our time, and it really is, and then tell them that they should just change their lightbulbs and hope that congress eventually get around to acting on it. That guarantees failure and failure is unacceptable on this issue. Even if you're right and KXL doesn't matter at all to carbon emissions it still matters as a victory to the movement and winning is vital for that reason alone. We need to win this for morale reasons if nothing else.

                          •  It's a Pyrrhic victory at best (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            or more likely, an absolute debacle.  Seriously, a decade from now when 4,000,000 bbls/day of crude oil is being moved about North America by rail with the huge increase in pollution, energy, spills, etc that that entails, environmentalists may very well be begging for pipelines  to ameliorate the situation, just like PETA is now in favor of reopening horse slaughterhouses that they lobbied to close.

                            The whole situation is also somewhat similar (but not nearly as significant) as when environmentalists shut down nuclear power construction a generation ago - which is the one thing that could have made a difference wrt global climate change.

                            But everyone puts on their blinders and narrowly decides what's best for them (for Keystone protesters, their own egos, it seems, based on what you just said).  That's just human nature I guess.

                          •  So (0+ / 0-)

                            You don't have any effective actions to suggest. Good to know. And if you think a symbolic victory is Pyrrhic then you don't understand how organizing works.

                          •  My "effective action" is to (0+ / 0-)

                            first of all - NOT MAKE THINGS WORSE

                            second, lobby for effective policies (e.g., a carbon tax) at the governmental level - or even smaller token efforts like tax credits for electric cars - that's not much but if you want a symbolic victory, it's * something * !

                            And finally, do what I can at the local level (e.g., not drive at SUV myself, look mournfully and shamefully at my neighbors when * they * drive by in their SUV, and that type of thing).

                          •  What action are you suggesting? (0+ / 0-)

                            Because I don't see any action suggestions, just stuff that politicians should do.  There needs to be action on this and telling people to wait for politicians on the national level to act will be the death of us.

                            And finally, do what I can at the local level (e.g., not drive at SUV myself, look mournfully and shamefully at my neighbors when * they * drive by in their SUV, and that type of thing).
                            I assume for now that everyone taking part in the conversation is doing something local as well, but we can't let localism lead to inaction at the national level.  If you're going to tell people to stop working on KXL, and again I think your claims about it being worse for it not to happen are nonsense, then you need something else for people to work on.  You keep failing to address that point and pretend like we can just tell people to hang out and "support" the movement by making mostly useless gestures.  There is a critical mass of people who are behind this and KXL is just the beginning.  There are going to be nay-sayers for every action, claiming it won't help or we won't be able to win.  This is just part of the fight.
                          •  This action is a precursor to that (0+ / 0-)

                            We need to have some public markers laid down that action is required.   Without showing of muscle, that tax never happens.  It would help if could take out earth burner politicians too

                            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                            by Mindful Nature on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 09:40:40 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Roadbed guy has emphasized (0+ / 0-)

                            Efforts at curbing demand as targets.  I don't think they're as good from a political campaign standpoint, but he has put them forward

                            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                            by Mindful Nature on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 09:05:42 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's not what I'm talking about (0+ / 0-)

                            I agree that we need to act on demand as well, what I'm saying is that we need, absolutely need to have actions that people can take as a movement and not just as individuals.  Attacking demand is either a personal activity or an activity that relies on politicians.  We need more than that.  We need a victory and KXL can give us that.

                          •  I'm in complete agreement (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            I just thought I'd help him out a little.  

                            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                            by Mindful Nature on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 10:50:22 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just because people disagree with your (0+ / 0-)

                            Analysis doesn't mean they haven't taken a serious look

                            First, pipeline transport is cheaper.  Second the oil will fetch higher prices once complete.  These two factors mean the oil sands will be more profitable.  This means that it will take a bigger price drop or cost increase to render them not profitable.  It also creates incentives to increase production.   This is not an all or nothing proposition.  It won't stop production, but it will slow it based on simple economics.   Also if the tar sands are harassed into increased production costs, then it will take a smaller carbon tax to kill it.  People have made this point repeatedly. I think it is a solid analysis

                            Also, the fight is a useful political marker since is successful it will place the President in the position of making dealing with climate change legally part of the national intrerest, not as mere words, but as actual action.   In fact the fact that the impact on oil companies might be minor makes it a great political target, since it would generate good political rhetoric without nece scarily a lot of cost, so it is a more likely battle to actually win.

                            So, there are a ton of serious reality based analyses that suggest this is a good target.  Just because it doesn't line up with your particular analysis doesn't make them unserious

                            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                            by Mindful Nature on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 09:04:36 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Even more aggressive development of renewables, (0+ / 0-)

                            but that doesn't fit nicely into that false dichotomy you got going there.

                            The whole decade needs an asterisk.

                            by James Kresnik on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:40:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I did not say anything about a false dichotomy (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            And if you want to point out how it's possibly to get more development for renewables past congress then be my guest, but it ain't gonna happen right now, which you'd note if you were paying attention.

                            And I've been saying again and again that I'm for reducing demand, the fact of the matter is that people who claim that's the only path forward refuse to call for any actions that would significantly reduce demand that are also possible to implement.

                            Quit pretending I said something I didn't.

                    •  the price in the midwest will rise (5+ / 0-)

                      if the pipeline goes through, i read an estimate of .15/gal.

                      the crude from canada is currently priced at about $33/bbl less than heavy crude from venezuela,  though once the pipeline goes through, it is not knowable what it will be priced.  the point of the pipeline however is to get the product to a point where it can be refined and then shipped to where the demand and higher prices exist - outside of the us.

                      i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                      by joe shikspack on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:23:29 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, and there was a recent anti-Keystone (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        diary here at DailyKos based on the idea that it was good to flood the upper midwest with tarsands oil to provide cheap energy in hopes that job creation would follow.

                        More likely is craziness like this:

                        shipping by rail can cost nearly four times as much as shipping by pipeline. For example, it will cost Southern Pacific Resource Corp, a small Alberta producer, $31 a barrel to move its Canadian oil sands-mined heavy crude by rail to the U.S. Gulf Coast, according to company estimates. The comparative pipeline cost would be around $8 a barrel.

                        but yet it is happening, already:

                        Southern Pacific Resources, which began trucking out initial production from its new McKay Thermal Project three weeks ago, will open a dedicated rail terminal in a few weeks just south of Fort McMurray and ship its product in leased tanker cars via CN Rail all the way to Natchez, Miss.

                        From there, it's just a short barge ride down the Mississippi River to one of the eight refineries in Louisiana, where the crude will fetch $20 to $30 a barrel more than it could at the congested terminal hub in Cushing, Okla.

                        Read more:

                        all without the evil, evil Keystone pipeline in place, I might add (rather needlessly, except a lot of DailyKossers don't seem to be able to grasp this point)
                      •  I might add, that an increase in energy (0+ / 0-)

                        costs in the US heartland would probably be a good thing insofar as it would spur development of alternative energies .. . . (wind, solar, and that type of thing).

                      •  You said: (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Roadbed Guy, AoT
                        the point of the pipeline however is to get the product to a point where it can be refined and then shipped to where the demand and higher prices exist - outside of the us.
                        Where does this idea come from that somehow what the Keystone XL Pipeline matter is "really" only about exporting refined petroleum products?

                        What this is only about is 830,000 barrels/day of synthetic tar sands crude direct to the south central U.S. refinery sector.  Export of tar sands crude isn't going to the primary disposition of that synthetic crude, and the Keystone XL Pipeline is not the initiation of a giant market in international refined petroleum products that you're claiming.  Finally, it isn't possible to separate out refined petroleum products produced from synthetic crude as opposed to those same products produced from conventional crude on a status-only basis.

                        If the Keystone XL pipeline is built, most of the synthetic crude oil transmitted with be refined in TX and LA petroleum refineries in the same manner as the market penetration by tar sands synthetic crude in the midwest refinery sector.

                        •  why do you suppose that it is... (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Words In Action, joanneleon, Agathena

                          that all of the pipelines that transcanada has been trying to build seem to wind up at an ocean port?

                          those refineries are not idle now.  currently they are processing heavy crude from somewhere else (venezuela is a key source of heavy crude).  demand in the us is dropping and will continue to drop.  where do you suppose that product is going to go as it just happens to be in a seaport in a country with dropping demand.  it seems pretty obvious that that additional supply is going to be going somewhere other than the us where demand is higher.

                          i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                          by joe shikspack on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 07:29:14 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  To simply things (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    here is the link to yesterday's discussion that I alluded to.

                    Plenty more nitty gritty links to support what I'm saying can be found over there.

          •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joanneleon, DawnN

            if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:33:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  One of the most effective methods of lowering a (0+ / 0-)

          A nation's carbon footprint is for that nation to be totally determined to put in alternate energy devices that are needed to cover the office and the residential needs for hot water. If that was a priority here in the USA, it would be a done deal. instead, we had a  ten year and two trillion dollar war based on George W's need to find WMD's!

          Right now, wind turbines are affordable to use for  that purpose  in areas like Chicago (or my foothill area here in Northern California.) Or solar or both. Knocks out fifteen percent of the need to use the non-renewable resources. The wind turbines are now small and easily attached to one's roof - and they don't look any different from the street than an attic fan does!

          My household undertakes using solar to replace one of the bigger motors in our household, from Mid-April through mid September. It cost us all of about $ 6 - three bucks for the clothesline, and three bucks for  clothes pins. Yet some misguided housing associations ban the sue of clothes lines.

          Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

          by Truedelphi on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 05:31:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You can't be serious if your plan depends on (0+ / 0-)

            electric resistance heating.

            •  I can't find the total citation (0+ / 0-)

              On which this is based. But I have seen this numerous times in news articles (usually in the weekend home repair and realestate pages)

              Remember, I am not talking about heating your home or office. I am talking about using alternavive methods for the WATER HEATER unit.

              here is a citation, and you ahve to extrapolate to get what I am talking about.


              Turn down your water heater thermostat. Thermostats are often set to 140 degrees F when 120 is usually fine. Each 10 degree reduction saves 600 pounds of CO2 per year for an electric water heater, or 440 pounds for a gas heater. If every household turned its water heater thermostat down 20 degrees, we could prevent more than 45 million tons of annual CO2 emissions - the same amount emitted by the entire nations of Kuwait or Libya.

              #### Now remember, if each ten degrees means 600 lbs of CO2 saved for the year, if each household turned the heat to renewables, you'd save 8,400 pounds of CO2 per household. Now in my old fashioned household, that would probably be at least 15% of our bill. We don't have energy- using large screen TV's, or a garage opener used ten times a day, etc. Just lights, fridge, and stove, two computers, a stereo, the water heater, furnace/Ac unit (The last is Extremely cheap to operate as it is brand new and VERY energy efficient.) Of course, occasionally we run a vacuum, and operate power tools for carpentry projects, but not all that often. (Our maids and butlers are on reduced schedules with times being tight, as I am sure you have found s good to do now that times are tight!)  

              Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

              by Truedelphi on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 01:31:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  i am glad you mentioned demand (16+ / 0-)

      It's not coming from the US. The Tar Sands conglomerate is not looking at the US or Europe as a market. They are aiming at the rest of the world that does not include the following:

      U.S. oil demand dipped to near 4-year low in July: API

      Europe Oil Demand: 20-Year Low and to Slide Further

      That's why the Tar Sands oil companies are desperate to get their landlocked diluted bitumen down to the Texas refineries. Americans get the risk of the pipelines and the pollution of the refineries, Big Oil gets the profits.

      The market rules the petropolis and demand is decreasing.

      To thine ownself be true

      by Agathena on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:47:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  However NONE of the energy material "liberated" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon, DawnN, Jaimas, TheMomCat

      Through the processes of the ALberta Tar Sands will be energy consumed here. None of it. We are talking about a pipeline that will be built to run through very sensitive areas, containing some pristine necessary aquifers,which are irreplaceable sources  of water.

      And yes, in return there will be several hundred jobs created. But far far too few jobs,none of them more than temporary ones, to justify throwing away our eco system. When the jobs are done and over, the kids wioll still need to drink clean water. The crops will still need to be irrigated with pristine water. The pipeline takes the Tar Sands gas to a port at the Gulf Of Mexico and from there probably on to China. it will help certain comanies financially, and probably some stock holders, but not the average person. In fact, since the 2005 Oil and Energy "Reform" Act legislated with Dick Cheney's help went through, none of the companies involved are liable for one penny of restoration or other liabilities!

      Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

      by Truedelphi on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 05:22:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suspect the Gulf coast refineries will keep (0+ / 0-)

        operating with or without tarsands oil.

        Without the oil, they'll simply import a shitload of foreign crude, refine it, and re-export the amount that they can't sell domestically.  That is more or less what is happening right now - the US is exporting quite a bit (about a million barrels a day) of refined petroleum product.

        If tarsands crude makes it down there, they wouldn't have to import foreign crude.  But again, either way, those refineries are likely to keep operating because on a global scale, they are well run and efficient.

        •  That's the problem, the Koch brothers (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheMomCat, semiot, joanneleon

          do not want to get the crude from Venezuela.

          And I wanted to know why we’re taking oil from Canada across the entire United States to Texas. And, again, it’s because the Kochs want it. Now, why do they want it? The answer is, right now they’re getting their oil—the only place they can get lots of heavy crude oil—if you want heavy crude, you’ve got to get it from a heavy dude named Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela.
          Worse, the dilbit will be refined in Texas using petcoke a byproduct of tar sands mining that is dirtier than coal. So add the pollution to the deal for the Americans.

          To thine ownself be true

          by Agathena on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 07:29:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Only about 1/4 to 1/2 of (0+ / 0-)

            the tarsands oil will be refined in TX even if the Keystone pipeline is built.

            Right now, it's starting to be sent by rail to NY, DE, and LA.  Economically, the only thing holding this back is the fears of the railroads that pipelines will be built, thus rendering their investments superfluous.   If you think about it, killing keystone will put this fear to rest and they'll go whole hog into transporting crude oil (as they've shown they can do on a large scale wrt the Bakken oil - where a lack of pipeline capacity HAS NOT deterred development).  

            And, as the Alaskan crude dwindles, and convential oil from Alberta runs out, an increasing amount of tarsands oil will be sent via the existing Kinder Morgan Pipeline to Seattle area refineries.

            Finally, the Canadians are also interested in converting NG pipelines that go to their eastern regions (but are no longer needed because of massive fracking in PA, etc) to transport tarsands oil east.

            Having said all of that - should the Keystone pipeline be built - no, absolutely not, it's complete lunacy.

            However, we should stop deluding ourselves that that action will have any impact on global climate change - it won't.

            •  Blocking the Keystone pipeline, slows down (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Tar Sands extraction. The process is too expensive to continue on a massive scale without having a port for their landlocked dilbit.

              Do not take my word, look up oil as an investment and see where they list pipeline blockades and environmentalists as an investment risk.

              Slowing down the extraction of the worst industrial site in the world has an impact on climate change. Bill McKibben and Jim Hansen stand by this and I stand with them.

              END OF STORY

              To thine ownself be true

              by Agathena on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 11:22:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You need to read more broadly (0+ / 0-)

                I frankly don't know what to say other than that.

                I realize it's nice to have heroes that you wish to believe unconditionally, but when the evidence contradicts what they are telling you, maybe it's time to reconsider?

                •  I personally have no trust at all in Bill McKibben (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Roadbed Guy

                  He is all part of a scheme to have cap and trade or some type of carbon tax, and those costs will be arranged so the 99% pay them, not those at the top.

                  And people like him are paid to make the poorest of the poor feel they are saving the earth by turning off their lights an hour early each day. Meanwhile, the military is frittering away our resources, with its modernization, and its endless wars. Then there are those "non-existent" chem trailers up in our skies, 24/7, who are helping Monsanto see to it that the conventional crops are dying, while the Monsanto GM stuff will withstand (perhaps) the constant chemtrail mix of barium, strontium, and excess jet fuel dispersing down over the land. (Cost for each single county in the USA for the chemtrail planes that don't exist is ten billion per county per year!)

                  Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

                  by Truedelphi on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 01:40:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Reconsider and listen to you protecting BIG OIL? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  end of story

                  •  I challenge you to find any post (0+ / 0-)

                    where I have protected Big Oil.

                    Because there are none.

                    Quite the contary, I have a long and consistent record of being totally agains fossil fuels of all kind.  In fact, I have been a long time proponent of a stiff carbon tax to put them out of business (unlike all the pipeline fluff that is promoted here at DailyKos).

                    My big issue is that if the Tarsands were COMPLETELY shut down - that's about 1% (or when fully developed maybe up to 2%) of global emissions.  IOW, basically nothing when there is enough slack in global supply to instanteously increase usage by 5 or 6% (like what happened in 2011 when Japan shut down their nukes (plus economic recovery in other parts of Asia kicked in)).

                    OTOH, US emisions HAVE been dropping lately even in the face of global surplus supply - wouldn't it make sense to figure out how/why and build on what's working rather than chasing unicorns over the rainbow?

      •  Some of the Tar Sands dilbit is going to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheMomCat, joanneleon

        Oklahoma right now where it is creating a glut. A glut in a country where oil consumption is declining. So the Tar Sands industry wants to unload their landlocked dilbit in the rest of the world. They are desperate to get to the coasts, east, west and south. That's why stopping the Keystone XL is so crucial to the climate. It will slow down the worst ecocide on earth, the Alberta Tar Sands.

        To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 07:36:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Obama is getting a lot of support (9+ / 0-)

      on the Huffington Post -- from Republicans.  

      The Democrats?....not so much:


      40,000 (not so) strong freezing their butts off raging at big, polluting, global warming oil Obama was out in nature on the sun bathed greens playing 18 holes of excutive golf with the world's worst polluting machines. Such hypocrisy in a president has never been seen.

      Dear leader...leading by example.

      Let them eat cake?

      he wasn't hiding from republicans he was hiding from democrats
      Disappointing, because it smacks of cronyism.
      Another Obama disappointing moment ... lost count on how many times he has pandered to the corporations and GOP.
      Even if his intentions were honorable, a lot of people find the timing troubling. No matter what he says, his actions once again show that he has adopted an open door policy for big money interests...but no time for members of the base.
    •  I've looked at dillbit from both sides now... (4+ / 0-)

      if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:30:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (135)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (40)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • Culture (30)
  • Media (29)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Education (23)
  • Spam (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Texas (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site