Obama to block Keystone oil pipeline

[Iormlund]

But trying to reduce oil consumption by attacking potential sources of oil seems to me to be the most asinine way of fighting global warming I can think of. 

Huh? It's actually the most logical way. It makes fossil fuels more expensive are so alternatives become capable to compete earlier and less carbon is actually released to the atmosphere.

[PDH]

US needs to go nuclear anyway. That way Wyoming miners get more jobs.

[derspiess]

But trying to reduce oil consumption by attacking potential sources of oil seems to me to be the most asinine way of fighting global warming I can think of. 

Huh? It's actually the most logical way. It makes fossil fuels more expensive are so alternatives become capable to compete earlier and less carbon is actually released to the atmosphere.

That's assuming some omnipotent power can prevent new drilling/surveying all over the globe.  Absent that, high oil prices are going to spur more exploration and encourage improvements in drilling technology.  Of course that will also encourage research for alternatives, but if you're looking for a return on investment that you'll realize in your lifetime, which do you think is the safest bet?

[Valmy]

That's assuming some omnipotent power can prevent new drilling/surveying all over the globe.  Absent that, high oil prices are going to spur more exploration and encourage improvements in drilling technology.  Of course that will also encourage research for alternatives, but if you're looking for a return on investment that you'll realize in your lifetime, which do you think is the safest bet?

I don't know.  Hybrid technology has done pretty well.  After all when we are talking about "alternatives" to gasoline these days what we are really talking about are electric engines and it is not like that is a distant pipe dream.

[Barrister]

But trying to reduce oil consumption by attacking potential sources of oil seems to me to be the most asinine way of fighting global warming I can think of. 

Huh? It's actually the most logical way. It makes fossil fuels more expensive are so alternatives become capable to compete earlier and less carbon is actually released to the atmosphere.

It's not as if people don't want to use alternative fuels.  They don't because they just don't exist or are prohibitively expensive.  All moves like this do are drive up the cost to consumers in a rather haphazard manner, and spur on new exploration and development in places not under your control.

If government wants to increase taxes through a carbon tax or something else, that's one thing.  But to try and shut down oil production as a means of saving the planet it's ludicrous.

[HVC]

But trying to reduce oil consumption by attacking potential sources of oil seems to me to be the most asinine way of fighting global warming I can think of. 

Huh? It's actually the most logical way. It makes fossil fuels more expensive are so alternatives become capable to compete earlier and less carbon is actually released to the atmosphere.

But it's one sided. you raise the costs of getting canadian crude, but there's still other crude out there. So really by doing this you hurt NA and enrich crackpots and dictators (often one and the same)

[The Brain]

US needs to go nuclear anyway. That way Wyoming miners get more jobs.

Child labor is illegal.

[Zoupa]

Plus, you do know they reclaim the land once their done, right?

[derspiess]

I don't know.  Hybrid technology has done pretty well.  After all when we are talking about "alternatives" to gasoline these days what we are really talking about are electric engines and it is not like that is a distant pipe dream.

He was talking about alternatives to fossil fuels.  Hybrid & fully electric cars are great and all, but they still ultimately rely on fossil fuels for their power.

[Valmy]

He was talking about alternatives to fossil fuels.  Hybrid & fully electric cars are great and all, but they still ultimately rely on fossil fuels for their power.

Any sane person, who doesn't embrace stupid things like biofuels, knows that the most promising avenue for alternatives are in electricity generation not fuels.  And oil is very rarely used for that (like less than 1% of all power generation) so I fail to see how blocking pipelines is going to help in that.  They need to block coal and natural gas for that.  Environmentalist fail?  Not that Environmentalists are really great allies for alternative fuel backers.  They tend to just not like the idea of having fuel or electricity in general 

[PDH]

US needs to go nuclear anyway. That way Wyoming miners get more jobs.

Child labor is illegal.

It's the principal of the thing though!

[Neil]

He was talking about alternatives to fossil fuels.  Hybrid & fully electric cars are great and all, but they still ultimately rely on fossil fuels for their power.

Any sane person, who doesn't embrace stupid things like biofuels, knows that the most promising avenue for alternatives are in electricity generation not fuels.  And oil is very rarely used for that (like less than 1% of all power generation) so I fail to see how blocking pipelines is going to help in that.  They need to block coal and natural gas for that.  Environmentalist fail?  Not that Environmentalists are really great allies for alternative fuel backers.  They tend to just not like the idea of having fuel or electricity in general 

Your TV is full of ads for clean coal.

[CountDeMoney]

The US needs the oil, and it's obviously a much better idea to get it from Canada than from Venezuela or the Mid East.

No, it's not.

I don't understand the opposition to an additional pipeline. We can't make the entire US an enviro haven. Canada will produce the oil regardless of what we do, and just sell it elsewhere. I'm sure part of this is the angst felt by enviros and others who have some idea that we need to wean ourselves off of oil and this is somehow helpful in that cause. But it will likely do nothing of the sort while we have to continue imports from less stable/friendly nations.

These are fungible commodities traded on the world market on a single currency, so it helps nothing with price stabilization;  every barrel that we put on the market is one barrel the Mideast rolls back from production, extending their strategic reserves while shrinking ours. It's stupid.

The sooner we suck the Middle East dry, the sooner they become as relevant as subsaharan Africa.

[mongers]

The US needs the oil, and it's obviously a much better idea to get it from Canada than from Venezuela or the Mid East.

No, it's not.

I don't understand the opposition to an additional pipeline. We can't make the entire US an enviro haven. Canada will produce the oil regardless of what we do, and just sell it elsewhere. I'm sure part of this is the angst felt by enviros and others who have some idea that we need to wean ourselves off of oil and this is somehow helpful in that cause. But it will likely do nothing of the sort while we have to continue imports from less stable/friendly nations.

These are fungible commodities traded on the world market on a single currency, so it helps nothing with price stabilization;  every barrel that we put on the market is one barrel the Mideast rolls back from production, extending their strategic reserves while shrinking ours. It's stupid.

The sooner we suck the Middle East dry, the sooner they become as relevant as subsaharan Africa.

This will take a very,very long time.  Saudi Arabia, Iran. Iraq and others I've forgotten in the Gulf all have reserves that will far out last all other reserves* at the current rates of production.   



* There maybe a handful of other countries that have more sustainable extraction programs.

[derspiess]

Your TV is full of ads for clean coal.

I am a: Friend of Coal