Skip to main content

View Diary: Does John Kerry speaking clearly and firmly on climate change send a signal on Keystone XL? (192 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I certainly agree that we been a carbon fee/tax... (17+ / 0-)

    ...with teeth. But, seriously, we know that will not clear Congress until 2015 at the earliest, not even the Senate.

    You keep saying, however, that the pipeline is inconsequential. That is looking at it through the technical lens. And while it's a conduit for a dirty source of oil with potential for damaging leaks, it's the political consequentialty that's at issue here. Both the actions and statements of the anti-Keystone movement and the oil industry makes it clear they don't think the decision to green-light or reject is inconsequential.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 10:29:18 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The Bakken oil field empirically proves (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      this point.

      Just like the Alberta Tarsands, there is limited pipeline capacity for getting the product out of the area.

      But that has not hindered production there one iota.  Rail (ironically, mostly the progressive icon's Warren Buffet's BN railroad) has stepped in to fill the void.

      Seriously, that should be a lesson for anti-Keystone sentiment.

      Should Keystone be built - well, of course not.  But once it is not built, no one should kid themselves that this will make any difference globally, it won't.  For me, the only benefit will be that the blood will be incrementally more on the Canadian's hands than ours.  To mention small blessings.

      •  You realize that you're arguing that it doesn't (0+ / 0-)

        matter at all how much it costs to bring a product to market, right?

        income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

        by JesseCW on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 12:33:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not at all (0+ / 0-)

          It costs at a maximum, about $70/bbl to bring tarsands oil to market WITHOUT the keystone pipeline.

          Thus, as long as global crude oil prices are above that, the Tarsands will be massively profitable and development will continue unabated.

          Perhaps somebody reading this forum remembers POTUS Clinton?  Well, if not Google it - you'll see that under his regime that crude oil dropped to $10/bbl at one point.  But did that deter Alberta Tar Sands production?

          No, not at all because the folk in charge were savvy enough to understand the "Peak Oil" concept and that over the long run, they'd make massive profits by standing pat.

          And that's exactly what they're doing today.  With or without out Keystone (where there profit margin is either 2x or 4x the TOTAL PRICE OF CRUDE OIL BACK IN 1998)

          Seriously, either way, they're totally golden.

      •  Matter of fact (0+ / 0-)

        folks are offering to build a pipeline from the Bakken to points south, but cancelled it because not enough companies would ship on it.

        Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

        by 6412093 on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 02:01:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Before agreeing that pipeline is (11+ / 0-)

      inconsequential, perhaps worth reading this

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

      by A Siegel on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 10:42:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have read that type of analysis (2+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        MGross, LakeSuperior
        Hidden by:

        something like a gazillion times - always from an "environmental" group.

        All the why the world passes them by - not sure why they insist on looking like such dupes.

        For example they say this:

        Rails options to move tar sands are limited: In 2011, only 20,000 barrels of crude oil per day left western Canada on rail, and less than 5,000 bpd was exported to the United States. The high cost of shipping tar sands by rail to Gulf Coast refineries or even to the Candian west coast will not likely support prices to justify new tar sands projects.
        When reality is quite different .. .

        as demonstrated in any number of links easy enough to find by Google if one doesn't have one's  head firmly up one's ass . ..

        just saying, isn't it a tad embarrasing to post such ridiculous mis-information on a "reality-based" website?

        •  Not sure why I'm being troll rated for (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          pointing out actual facts.

          Unless the likes of Jim Carrey somehow gained membership to this site .. .

          •  For more context (0+ / 0-)

            the commenter I replied recently posted a diary that was anti-Keystone in the sense that Tarsands oils would thus be exported and not be available for the domestic market.

            Which, IMHO, is an absolutely idiotic POV.

            •  Thanks for the "idiotic POV" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades, joedemocrat

              That diary laid out counter-points to many of the arguments being used in favor of Keystone XL.

              One of the arguments is that it will, somehow, lead to lower US gas prices. Actually, the DilBit will be going to refineries that have been refining Venezuelan heavy crude for reexport onto the world market.

              And, well, that 'summary' of the diary is pretty far off since that is, of course, only one of many bullet points there -- as you well know.

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

              by A Siegel on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 03:01:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Not a clue. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roadbed Guy

            Uprated is response.  The guy who TR'd you wasn't who you were arguing with.

            •  I suppose the people on both side of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              the issue tend to get a tad over wrought about this.

              But, when somebody says that something is NOT possible (like ever) - and then when I post a link showing that it happens in only 2 years, is that really that egregious?

              In any event, I myself am probably way overly obsessed about this issue - I suppose if people wish to invest themselves 110% in something that has no greater significance (i.e., blocking Keystone) I should just graciously accord them that privilege  .. . . ..

          •  TR'd not for "facts" but for abusive language (0+ / 0-)

            toward people who are taking the most effective action to stop Tar Sands development and shipment, starting with what the industry is currently trying to push through.

            If we succeed in stopping KXL and they try another path, we'll fight that too.

            There's no such thing as a free market!

            by Albanius on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 01:12:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's complete bullshit (0+ / 0-)

              they're not taking remotely effective action.

              Seriously, maybe you should think back to grade school and the "boy who cried wolf" fable.

              There's more truth in that than you probably realize.

              •  If MB's question is answered in the affirmative (0+ / 0-)

                you might then reconsider your confidence that you know better than McKibben and Hansen, the leading students of this issue since the 1980s.

                Reasonable people can disagree about almost anything, but your choice of language indicates that you may not be among them.

                There's no such thing as a free market!

                by Albanius on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 01:57:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Do I know better? (0+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hidden by:

                  I'm not claiming that.

                  All that I am claiming, is that if one compares  what their position is claimed to be on DailyKos with what is happening out in the "real world" - they look like complete idiots.

                  I have yet to reconcile whether they are complete idiots, or whether their positions have been misrepresented right here at DailyKos

          •  yes, the HR is out of line. n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FishOutofWater, Roadbed Guy

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 01:36:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I appreciate your comment (0+ / 0-)

              somehow I suspect we're all on the same side here.

              too bad it's so decisive wrt tactics on how to get from here to there . ..

              •  This isn't directed at you specifically... (5+ / 0-)

                ...but I think it's clear we all AREN'T on the same side here. There are people at Daily Kos who think we can keep burning fossil fuels for the next 50 years and that those of us determined to stop that from happening are naive. We're not the ones in that category.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 03:47:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think I fall on both sides of that dichotomy (0+ / 0-)

                  On one hand - I am pretty sure that 50 years from now, the planet will still be gulping down every last drop of fossils available, and it will be naive think otherwise.

                  Dwight Eisehower's MIC warnings of 50 years ago provide good precedent for that, have we learned anything as a society in that regard?  Sadly no.  In fact we have dramatically regressed.

                  OTOH, I am absolutely terrified that dramatic action (as compared to window dressing like stopping Keystone) is not happening RIGHT NOW wrt to weaning the planet of off carbon based energy sources.  

                  As small consolation (and a really bad lifestyle)  I'll be long dead before then to witness the consequences

                  As less consolation, a goodly number of years ago Ms Roadbed Guy insisted on having children - I'm rather fearful of the world that awaits them.  On the plus side, they seem to be a good deal more intelligent than me (for example, they don't seem to have much interest at wasting time at internet websites devoted to political discussions), so they'll probably muddle through

                  •  I'd make a wager with you on what will... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Roadbed Guy

           happening a half century from now in terms of burning fossil fuels. But it would be naive of me to think I will live to be 116. My grandchildren, however, will only be 54 and 56 by then. And while I think some effects of global warming are unstoppable now, we can make it worse.

                    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                    by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 04:03:26 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  To be clear (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roadbed Guy

            which you see by looking at the TR, I have never TR someone with whom there is simply 'disagreement'/pushing material back and forth ... even with your tone ...

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

            by A Siegel on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 03:07:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks, I agree that from long time (0+ / 0-)

              interactions you seem like a totally reasonable and cromulent person.

              Therefore I trust that you will be open minded enough to seek out your own independent information on this topic and form your own opinions.

              I know that from doing a google search pretty much every day since the turn of the calendar year, I have become firmly convinced that as long as global Brent crude oil prices remain above $80/bbl, rail will suffice to move both Bakken and Tarsands oil to markets.

              Posting links from 2 years ago, quite frankly, are not convincing in dissuading me from this viewpoint.

        •  Sierra Club is the source (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy

          Yesterday I received a solicitation in the mail from the Sierra Club which makes the following claim:

          "The proposedpipeline will deliver tar sands oil from mines in Alberta, Canada, to Gulf Coast refineries largely for export to the international market"
          The Sierra Club is creating that conflation of 'largely for export' for some unknown reason to promote opposition to the pipeline.   I consider an organization like SC making conflations in that manner to be an example of advocacy misconduct that jeopardizes an organization's credibility.
          •  I try really, really hard to like the likes (0+ / 0-)

            of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.

            But when they put out really, really ridiculous information (for example , Greenpeace's claims that chlorinated compounds are only man-made) it becomes increasingly difficult.

            On more than one occasion, it makes me want to spend the rest of my life in my PJs in my parents basement.

            Unfortunately, as somebody in his late 50s, that's not really all that viable of an option . ..

            •  I wrote off Greenpeace decades ago because (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roadbed Guy

              that organization isn't a conservation stewardship organization and GP commits serial acts of scientific misconduct as part of their organizational programming.   Most of GP's chlorine campaign was junk, and their efforts addressing hazardous waste incineration in the 80-90's were mostly exercises in toxicology and environmental engineering misconduct.   GP is also a top-down organization that does not support local committees/action in the manner often required by the exigent circumstances.

              Sierra Club is different for me.   SC is supposed to be the premier national citizen's conservation action organization.  I've been a member and active volunteer of SC since 1989.  I am a present volunteer for the Michigan chapter.  I've also had as clients for consulting projects several SC chapters and groups.

              The problem is that sometimes SC forgets that being a conservation organization that uses science to formulate policy as part of conservation stewardship is the one and only job.

              If you're engaging in conservation stewardship in carrying out leadership, policy formation, advocacy, public policy campaigns and in making public statements, there is no place for exaggeration, conflation, false equivalency, misconduct, error, etc.

              This means a conservation stewardship organization carrying out such activities must be scrupulously accurate and consistent when describing facilities under review, when talking about risks/benefits/hazards and other factual matters.

              Groups like SC sometimes get into trouble when they  forget about conservation planning and stewardship and 'making the case' and instead opt for what I call 'product branding and marketing' approaches to their issues.  

              "Product branding and marketing' campaigns run by the rules of Madison Avenue and not conservation science and this is exactly how groups like SC sometimes get into trouble and damage their credibility.   SC's 'Beyond Natural Gas' campaign showing us all flaming water is a good example.   You realistically can't claim the mantel of scientific credibility by embracing the credibility of scientific consensus on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on climate, and then turn around and commit acts of geological engineering, hydrology, and toxicology/epidemiology/risk assessment misconduct in carrying out activities addressing natural gas exploration.

          •  The US is an international market (0+ / 0-)

            to the Canadians.  Every drop on Keystone is exported to the US.

        •  Actually ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          1. The "reality is quite different" ...  As per the DeSmogBlog, which I read when it came out and which you link to,  the #s that they cited for 2011 were off -- if Branden calculations were correct, there were roughly 10,000 rail cars/week at perhaps 6-700 barrels each or perhaps 60-70,000 barrels a day which was up perhaps 30% higher by the end of the year.  

          2.  However they truly failed by not pointing out that this has gone up massively since 2011 and is going to go up more in the coming year(s).

          3.  Railroad export of tar sands, however, does not make "Keystone XL inconsequential" although you are right that Droitsch messed up on this point and, well, I hadn't read her close enough.

          4. Keystone XL is not 'it', it is part of an overall struggle to slow and then turn back tar sands exploitation rates.  

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

          by A Siegel on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 02:59:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yet ... (0+ / 0-)

          even with the rail growth, the industry perspective:

          Even if you build every single pipe that's on the table right're still short pipeline capacity … For the growth to continue, all the proposed export pipeline capacity and more will need to be built, and soon.  Andrew Potter, Managing Director, Institutional Equity Research at CIBC World Markets, Jan. 1, 2013
          Is Potter simply ignorant?

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

          by A Siegel on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 03:05:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, he seems to be. (0+ / 0-)

            Like I pointed out elsewhere, you need one 120 car train per hour out of Fort McMurray to meet production demands.

            That is quite possible.

            If you don't agree, just wait 5 years and we can resume this discussion.  I don't particularly like being massively antagonistic, except if by being so, I can direct anti-carbon efforts down a more productive avenue

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site