Skip to main content

View Diary: WATCH: The "Obama Pipeline"? (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Equating a pipeline to a coal burning plant shows (6+ / 0-)

    that the debate over keystone is mucked up.

    The pipeline isn't going to emit any greenhouse gases itself; the oil that it is transporting does, and given that the oil is going to be dug up and transported regardless shows how bad the discussion is.

    The pipeline is merely something that is visible and can stand in for a position, rather than achieve a result if blocked.   I'm reminded of the fence at the border: it's function is to allow people to distill a long range, complicated problem into something concrete they can understand.

    "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

    by Inland on Thu May 30, 2013 at 11:00:51 AM PDT

    •  XL Pipeline would not transport oil. Watch Video. (21+ / 0-)

      The Pipeline would transport toxic tar diluted by volatile hydrocarbons that evaporate when the pipeline breaks. The toxic tar then sinks in water & fouls everything it comes in contact with. There's no known way to clean it up one it gets in rivers, lakes and water bodies.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Thu May 30, 2013 at 11:51:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It transports. That's it. (0+ / 0-)

        I don't care what you call whatever it transports; for greenhouse gases, the XL pipeline is not creating them like coal burning plants.  

        As for concerns over spills, nobody is really asserting that the tar sands aren't going to be mined by the Canadians, or the pipeline isn't going to be redirected to the Canadian pacific coast, and it's not like conventional oil is being removed and transported in an error free way either.   Therefore the useful approach would be to build the best pipeline one can, and curtail the demand for petrocarbons.  

        "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

        by Inland on Thu May 30, 2013 at 12:32:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Extracting the tar sands by strip mining (6+ / 0-)

          the boreal forest (a carbon sink) or by in situ steam extraction - both have a huge carbon cost. Then burning the dirty tar sands oil has more carbon cost than conventional oil. This affects the atmosphere. Green house gases are global, climate change is global.

          BTW the Canadians alone are not mining it. 71% of the extraction is by foreign owned companies. Canada imported over 200,000 guest workers in 2012 mostly for the tar sands.

          Every major oil company in the world is involved in the tar sands extraction. This is a global enterprise with global consequences.

          To thine ownself be true

          by Agathena on Thu May 30, 2013 at 03:09:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This baby's gonna fail (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FishOutofWater, quill, AoT, OleHippieChick

        Said it from the start. That crap is too thick and what they use to thin it is even worse. Net result, industrial accident. Woops. Sorry. FU. This is one of those projects that looks good on paper, but sorry.

        A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

        by onionjim on Thu May 30, 2013 at 03:07:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site