Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline
November 6, 2015 3:32 PM Subscribe
Possibly spurred on by TransCanada's request for a delayed decision, Obama has rejected construction of the long-contested Keystone XL pipeline.
TransCanada is bummed out.
New Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is "disappointed".
350.org is ecstatic.
The still-warm corpse of Stephen Harper rises from the grave to threaten us again.
TransCanada is bummed out.
New Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is "disappointed".
350.org is ecstatic.
The still-warm corpse of Stephen Harper rises from the grave to threaten us again.
I read somewhere that the new Trudeau government is unhappy with TPP. Perhaps this is Obama's big stick to bring them in line?
posted by infinitewindow at 3:59 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by infinitewindow at 3:59 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Eh. Better to shoot it down than to accept it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:08 PM on November 6, 2015
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:08 PM on November 6, 2015
For as Big-L Liberal Trudeau has been so far (Most Diverse Cabinet Ever "Because it's 2015"), he couldn't resist the allure of Keystone's "cash cow" for the country.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:09 PM on November 6, 2015
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:09 PM on November 6, 2015
You mean for the owners of the pipeline, the owners of the oil, and the tiny handful of people who will be employed working on the pipeline once construction is complete?
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:13 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:13 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Unreal.
All we've heard about this is how Obama is beholden to Big Oil if he doesn't oppose this particular pipeline. He succeeds in quashing it, and now some people are saying this is a chit in the TPP debate? Gah.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 4:26 PM on November 6, 2015 [9 favorites]
All we've heard about this is how Obama is beholden to Big Oil if he doesn't oppose this particular pipeline. He succeeds in quashing it, and now some people are saying this is a chit in the TPP debate? Gah.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 4:26 PM on November 6, 2015 [9 favorites]
That's not a contradiction.
posted by LogicalDash at 4:26 PM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by LogicalDash at 4:26 PM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
Lets build a big infrastructure thing for a non-renewable resource in 300 years kids can skateboard in it!
posted by vrakatar at 4:31 PM on November 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by vrakatar at 4:31 PM on November 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
Lets build a big infrastructure thing for a non-renewable resource in 300 years kids can skateboard in it!
That.. that would be pretty sweet.
posted by curious nu at 4:32 PM on November 6, 2015 [38 favorites]
That.. that would be pretty sweet.
posted by curious nu at 4:32 PM on November 6, 2015 [38 favorites]
If the pipeline doesn't go through, the oil has to go by rail. BNSF, the rail company bought by Berkshire Hathaway, has earnings that are up 10% to 1.1 billion over last year. They have a strong incentive to be anti-pipeline.
Isn't Keystone XL just a duplication anyway? Don't they already have a pipeline route already to Cushing and on to the Gulf?
posted by Talez at 4:35 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Isn't Keystone XL just a duplication anyway? Don't they already have a pipeline route already to Cushing and on to the Gulf?
posted by Talez at 4:35 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's not a contradiction.
I believe the point was, no matter what choice is made, even Obama's supporters will find fault with it.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:37 PM on November 6, 2015 [22 favorites]
I believe the point was, no matter what choice is made, even Obama's supporters will find fault with it.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:37 PM on November 6, 2015 [22 favorites]
That's not a contradiction.
No shit. But it's tiresome.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 4:37 PM on November 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
No shit. But it's tiresome.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 4:37 PM on November 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
If the pipeline doesn't go through, the oil has to go by rail
I've found it kind of galling that the default liberal position in the U.S. has been to oppose the pipeline as a matter of environmental concern. I'm no fan of the drilling and fracking and encrappenating of Alberta, but the product is moving already and by a means that is many times less safe and less energy-efficient than pipeline would be. Perhaps since the Lac-Mégantic disaster didn't make the same waves in the U.S. it's not as clear to people here, but rail is a terrible, dangerous substitute.
posted by psoas at 4:38 PM on November 6, 2015 [15 favorites]
I've found it kind of galling that the default liberal position in the U.S. has been to oppose the pipeline as a matter of environmental concern. I'm no fan of the drilling and fracking and encrappenating of Alberta, but the product is moving already and by a means that is many times less safe and less energy-efficient than pipeline would be. Perhaps since the Lac-Mégantic disaster didn't make the same waves in the U.S. it's not as clear to people here, but rail is a terrible, dangerous substitute.
posted by psoas at 4:38 PM on November 6, 2015 [15 favorites]
You don't fight global warming by fighting a pipeline.
Sure you do. You fight on the beaches, you fight on the landing grounds, you fight in the fields and in the streets. You fight wherever the carbon status quo says "too big to fail." You fight to move the Overton window until renewables are the default, assumed energy source everywhere so that next time a similar project is proposed instead of a decade long fight, it never makes it to the table. Symbols matter, and a few years ago the pipeline was a foregone conclusion. Same with arctic drilling. Same with divestment. Same with coal plant shutdown. Things are changing.
posted by gwint at 4:38 PM on November 6, 2015 [152 favorites]
Sure you do. You fight on the beaches, you fight on the landing grounds, you fight in the fields and in the streets. You fight wherever the carbon status quo says "too big to fail." You fight to move the Overton window until renewables are the default, assumed energy source everywhere so that next time a similar project is proposed instead of a decade long fight, it never makes it to the table. Symbols matter, and a few years ago the pipeline was a foregone conclusion. Same with arctic drilling. Same with divestment. Same with coal plant shutdown. Things are changing.
posted by gwint at 4:38 PM on November 6, 2015 [152 favorites]
...in 300 years, kids can skateboard in it.
After the 100 year, $10 trillion superfund site cleanup and upon signing a release against all medical claims from said skateboarding, I presume...
posted by y2karl at 4:50 PM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
After the 100 year, $10 trillion superfund site cleanup and upon signing a release against all medical claims from said skateboarding, I presume...
posted by y2karl at 4:50 PM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hell, this might not even be the biggest climate change story of this week, given:
Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General
posted by gwint at 4:50 PM on November 6, 2015 [16 favorites]
Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General
posted by gwint at 4:50 PM on November 6, 2015 [16 favorites]
You don't fight global warming by fighting a pipeline.
This pipeline you do. Keystone XL was planned to handle increased development of Canadian tar sands. the high cost of extraction for tar sands oil makes it unprofitable to ship via rail.
posted by nathan_teske at 4:58 PM on November 6, 2015 [48 favorites]
This pipeline you do. Keystone XL was planned to handle increased development of Canadian tar sands. the high cost of extraction for tar sands oil makes it unprofitable to ship via rail.
posted by nathan_teske at 4:58 PM on November 6, 2015 [48 favorites]
Bloomberg Business - The Oil Industry Has Been Put on Notice:
The world will depend on oil for decades to come. But 2015 may very well be remembered as the beginning of the end, with the rejection of Keystone and the investigation of Exxon as key markers on the timeline.posted by gwint at 4:59 PM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
I believe the point was, no matter what choice is made, even Obama's supporters will find fault with it.
I think it's healthy to try to find the good side and the bad side of any decision by someone powerful. Being suspicious of their motives is frequently appropriate as well, and we have pretty recent reason to question Obama's motives regarding rich private interests. This stance doesn't change with whose side I'm on; if it did, I'd lose the thing I use to decide whose side to be on.
posted by LogicalDash at 5:04 PM on November 6, 2015
I think it's healthy to try to find the good side and the bad side of any decision by someone powerful. Being suspicious of their motives is frequently appropriate as well, and we have pretty recent reason to question Obama's motives regarding rich private interests. This stance doesn't change with whose side I'm on; if it did, I'd lose the thing I use to decide whose side to be on.
posted by LogicalDash at 5:04 PM on November 6, 2015
A coincidence this news came out the same day as the release of the full text of the TPP, and on a Friday? I think not. The administration is trying to suppress as much as possible any serious inquiry into the TPP and overshadow it with this (admittedly good) news.
posted by crazy with stars at 5:12 PM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by crazy with stars at 5:12 PM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
You don't fight global warming by fighting a pipeline.
Wasn't there something about solving the problems for our time instead of putting all focus on solving problems for all time?
Obama done good here... finally
posted by JoeXIII007 at 5:18 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Wasn't there something about solving the problems for our time instead of putting all focus on solving problems for all time?
Obama done good here... finally
posted by JoeXIII007 at 5:18 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Without a pipeline, the EROEI of most of the tar sands could stay below 1. Some of it can be extracted, with a high multiplier to climate impact, but if the rest stays below ground it seems like a win.
posted by Tobu at 5:21 PM on November 6, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by Tobu at 5:21 PM on November 6, 2015 [10 favorites]
Anyway, what is really needed is a tax that makes poor EROEIs unviable.
posted by Tobu at 5:24 PM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Tobu at 5:24 PM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
If the pipeline doesn't go through, the oil has to go by rail
the oil has to go
These five words are the core of the fallacy.
posted by delfin at 5:28 PM on November 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
the oil has to go
These five words are the core of the fallacy.
posted by delfin at 5:28 PM on November 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
It's not a fallacy.
Oil is the cornerstone of our civilization. It's not just about putting gas in cars. Everything you can see and touch around you at this very moment is in some way based on petroleum. That is not going to change even if we all drive Tesla station wagons.
This is not a victory for environmentalism. It's totally political. That doesn't make it wrong at all. There are people in Nebraska who didn't want that pipeline. But on the other hand plenty of other pipelines are going to get built.
posted by Nevin at 5:45 PM on November 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
Oil is the cornerstone of our civilization. It's not just about putting gas in cars. Everything you can see and touch around you at this very moment is in some way based on petroleum. That is not going to change even if we all drive Tesla station wagons.
This is not a victory for environmentalism. It's totally political. That doesn't make it wrong at all. There are people in Nebraska who didn't want that pipeline. But on the other hand plenty of other pipelines are going to get built.
posted by Nevin at 5:45 PM on November 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
Everything you can see and touch around you at this very moment is in some way based on petroleum. That is not going to change even if we all drive Tesla station wagons.
I understand that you've already given up on the idea of ensuring that our descendants can continue living on this planet indefinitely, but some of us still think it's worth doing what we can to change course.
posted by Mars Saxman at 5:49 PM on November 6, 2015 [33 favorites]
I understand that you've already given up on the idea of ensuring that our descendants can continue living on this planet indefinitely, but some of us still think it's worth doing what we can to change course.
posted by Mars Saxman at 5:49 PM on November 6, 2015 [33 favorites]
The NYT suggests that Trudeau was not as disappointed in reality as he was "officially." I wonder how much of the timing of the announcement was related to Canada's election results.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:54 PM on November 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:54 PM on November 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think you mean energy is the cornerstone of our civilization. Oil happened to be cheap and abundant for awhile, but then it turned out burning too much of it will cause the end of our civilization, so we're transitioning to alternative ways of generating that energy.
posted by gwint at 5:54 PM on November 6, 2015 [27 favorites]
posted by gwint at 5:54 PM on November 6, 2015 [27 favorites]
Oil is the cornerstone of our civilization.
Uh, no. It is not. You're thinking of agriculture. Petroleum has been a significant part of 0.001% of human civilization. We can very easily do without quite so much of it.
posted by Sys Rq at 6:10 PM on November 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
Uh, no. It is not. You're thinking of agriculture. Petroleum has been a significant part of 0.001% of human civilization. We can very easily do without quite so much of it.
posted by Sys Rq at 6:10 PM on November 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think it is funny how people try to frame this in liberal vs conservative political terms. Nebraska (the State that basically stopped TransCanada on this issue) is redder than Red. But its also made up of farmers who want to protect their cropland and the aquafier that runs underneath it (and other central U.S. States). They all hate Obama and think he's the anti-christ, but I'm sure they are all cheering this decision - even though they probably won't give him any credit for making it. Also, these same "stewards of the land" will continue to put enough nitrate/nitrite on their land to poison their town's water supplies and spray enough anhydrous ammonia on their fields that it will run off in the rain, go down the creeks and rivers to the Gulf of Mexico and make a huge oxygen "dead zone" that is growing each year.
posted by spock at 6:11 PM on November 6, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by spock at 6:11 PM on November 6, 2015 [16 favorites]
That's not a contradiction.
I believe the point was, no matter what choice is made, even Obama's supporters will find fault with it.
They're not his supporters, they're his opponents on the Left. There's a difference. That said, I don't think this has to be either the result of Obama taking a great moral stand or some great and devious seven-dimensional chess move on behalf of his putative corporate masters - environmental concerns are only one of several issues with the pipeline, some of which have already been mentioned (concerns of localities it would pass through, competition from other oil sources making it less potentially profitable, etc.). The TPP connection is, well, it would be interesting if there was any actual evidence for it.
I think that on a certain level I see this as good simply because it demonstrates that the narrative of inevitability which tends to cluster around decisions like this (or, for that matter, TPP) takes a hit every time the government is forced to change course as a result of the actions of citizen groups - whether these are the abovementioned conservative farmers or environmentalists or something else. It makes it easier to make the argument next time that the battle can be fought and won.
Uh, no. It is not. You're thinking of agriculture. Petroleum has been a significant part of 0.001% of human civilization. We can very easily do without quite so much of it.
It's a pretty significant ingredient in industrial processes relating to (among other things) construction materials (including those required to build, say, solar cells and hydroelectric dams), medical supplies, decent roads, industrially-produced ammonia (critical for modern agriculture) and pesticides (more debatable, but still widely used). So, yeah, easily seems quite a stretch. Even without burning it, we use a LOT of it.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:59 PM on November 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
I believe the point was, no matter what choice is made, even Obama's supporters will find fault with it.
They're not his supporters, they're his opponents on the Left. There's a difference. That said, I don't think this has to be either the result of Obama taking a great moral stand or some great and devious seven-dimensional chess move on behalf of his putative corporate masters - environmental concerns are only one of several issues with the pipeline, some of which have already been mentioned (concerns of localities it would pass through, competition from other oil sources making it less potentially profitable, etc.). The TPP connection is, well, it would be interesting if there was any actual evidence for it.
I think that on a certain level I see this as good simply because it demonstrates that the narrative of inevitability which tends to cluster around decisions like this (or, for that matter, TPP) takes a hit every time the government is forced to change course as a result of the actions of citizen groups - whether these are the abovementioned conservative farmers or environmentalists or something else. It makes it easier to make the argument next time that the battle can be fought and won.
Uh, no. It is not. You're thinking of agriculture. Petroleum has been a significant part of 0.001% of human civilization. We can very easily do without quite so much of it.
It's a pretty significant ingredient in industrial processes relating to (among other things) construction materials (including those required to build, say, solar cells and hydroelectric dams), medical supplies, decent roads, industrially-produced ammonia (critical for modern agriculture) and pesticides (more debatable, but still widely used). So, yeah, easily seems quite a stretch. Even without burning it, we use a LOT of it.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:59 PM on November 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
And don't forget the extra layer of hypocrisy that those nitrogen based fertilizers are likely petroleum based (natural gas in particular), which also includes an extra dosage of petroleum use in that it's energy intensive to make them.
. . . which kind of goes back to Nevin's point. We are a petroleum based civilization, and it isn't useful to try to change that if we deny or ignore it. It's in the packaging of our food, the asphalt in our streets (and bike paths), the paint on our walls. It's in the paraffin wax used to process frozen food, it's in the tar shingles on our roofs, it's our lipstick and shampoo. Do you have nylon in your clothes? Have you ever had an IV, gotten a vaccine, or had a prescription for pills? Do you have caulk on your doors or windows or plumbing? Do you print using ink? Eat food with food additives or coloring? Have you ever used glue? Soap? A toothbrush? Wear shoes with synthetic rubber? Use a lubricant on a bicycle?
You're using a petrochemical to read this or respond. Yes: diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel are the main products of petroleum. Yes: we absolutely want to reduce that kind of consumption as much as possible. And, IMHO, this is a victory, whatever the cause. But if we do want to "change course" we also have to acknowledge ALL the other ways we use petroleum based products, how much energy is used to create those products, and how difficult it might be to get away from it. It's not just cars.
posted by barchan at 7:09 PM on November 6, 2015 [21 favorites]
. . . which kind of goes back to Nevin's point. We are a petroleum based civilization, and it isn't useful to try to change that if we deny or ignore it. It's in the packaging of our food, the asphalt in our streets (and bike paths), the paint on our walls. It's in the paraffin wax used to process frozen food, it's in the tar shingles on our roofs, it's our lipstick and shampoo. Do you have nylon in your clothes? Have you ever had an IV, gotten a vaccine, or had a prescription for pills? Do you have caulk on your doors or windows or plumbing? Do you print using ink? Eat food with food additives or coloring? Have you ever used glue? Soap? A toothbrush? Wear shoes with synthetic rubber? Use a lubricant on a bicycle?
You're using a petrochemical to read this or respond. Yes: diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel are the main products of petroleum. Yes: we absolutely want to reduce that kind of consumption as much as possible. And, IMHO, this is a victory, whatever the cause. But if we do want to "change course" we also have to acknowledge ALL the other ways we use petroleum based products, how much energy is used to create those products, and how difficult it might be to get away from it. It's not just cars.
posted by barchan at 7:09 PM on November 6, 2015 [21 favorites]
It doesn't really seem to be about TPP or environmental concerns (at least not completely). The truth is that it doesn't make any economic sense any more.
posted by fungible at 7:09 PM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by fungible at 7:09 PM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
This is not a victory for environmentalism. It's totally political.
In what world are these statements in tensions?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:14 PM on November 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
In what world are these statements in tensions?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:14 PM on November 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
I always found it interesting how many conservatives who used to rail about the Kelo decision came around when it was a foreign oil company who wanted the fruits of eminent domain.
posted by dirigibleman at 7:20 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by dirigibleman at 7:20 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
I guess maybe some people just don't know what a cornerstone is.
posted by Sys Rq at 7:30 PM on November 6, 2015
posted by Sys Rq at 7:30 PM on November 6, 2015
This part of Trudeau's statement also suggests the disappointment on his part may be minimal:
We know that Canadians want a government that they can trust to protect the environment and grow the economy. The Government of Canada will work hand-in-hand with provinces, territories and like-minded countries to combat climate change, adapt to its impacts, and create the clean jobs of tomorrow.posted by parudox at 7:30 PM on November 6, 2015
we also have to acknowledge ALL the other ways we use petroleum based products, how much energy is used to create those products, and how difficult it might be to get away from it. It's not just cars.
It's mostly cars. Well, transport really (vehicle fuels + road materials) All our plastic doodads account for less than 2% of total petroleum consumption.
posted by gwint at 7:34 PM on November 6, 2015 [10 favorites]
It's mostly cars. Well, transport really (vehicle fuels + road materials) All our plastic doodads account for less than 2% of total petroleum consumption.
posted by gwint at 7:34 PM on November 6, 2015 [10 favorites]
It doesn't really seem to be about TPP or environmental concerns (at least not completely). The truth is that it doesn't make any economic sense any more.
I suspect that when oil prices start to rise, a lot of currently shelved projects (drilling, pipeline, and others) will be brought back on line quickly and with great vigor.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:35 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
I suspect that when oil prices start to rise, a lot of currently shelved projects (drilling, pipeline, and others) will be brought back on line quickly and with great vigor.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:35 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Making it cheaper, safer and easier to exploit some of the most damaging fossil fuels on the planet would clearly encourage increased volume of extraction and extend the viable lifetime. Stopping Keystone XL will not shut down the tar sands overnight, but it will help reduce the viable lifetime and thereby reduce the overall volumes. That's a win in anyone's book.
posted by Jakey at 7:38 PM on November 6, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Jakey at 7:38 PM on November 6, 2015 [7 favorites]
Very Relevant.
Oil in the US is almost exclusively used for transportation. Rejecting low EROEI oil options is going to drive the development of electric cars, which is a huge win for the planet.
posted by zug at 7:45 PM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oil in the US is almost exclusively used for transportation. Rejecting low EROEI oil options is going to drive the development of electric cars, which is a huge win for the planet.
posted by zug at 7:45 PM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
I suspect that when oil prices start to rise, a lot of currently shelved projects (drilling, pipeline, and others) will be brought back on line quickly and with great vigor.
Fracking is much cheaper and has a lot more marginal barrels in it.
posted by PMdixon at 7:48 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fracking is much cheaper and has a lot more marginal barrels in it.
posted by PMdixon at 7:48 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well gwint, I wasn't referring to just "plastic doodads" - I was referring to all products that are based off some petrochemical, like the fertilizer on your food and then the wax used to package it, and petroleum based products that aren't fuel make up about 11% of consumption. And don't forget: products that are made need to be transported. By air, by sea, by highway, by rail - that's gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel (and coal). Petroleum based goods matter.
posted by barchan at 7:49 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by barchan at 7:49 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Just because they matter doesn't mean we couldn't stand to cut back a little. Jeez.
Consume less -- period -- and you consume less petroleum. This is not remotely difficult.
posted by Sys Rq at 7:54 PM on November 6, 2015 [7 favorites]
Consume less -- period -- and you consume less petroleum. This is not remotely difficult.
posted by Sys Rq at 7:54 PM on November 6, 2015 [7 favorites]
That's exactly my point! But to do that we have to acknowledge it. Pretending or denying or being in ignorance or however one might not acknowledge how much petroleum we use and how pervasive it is won't help us cut back. And it also won't help us acknowledge how difficult it might be. That's why it matters.
posted by barchan at 8:00 PM on November 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by barchan at 8:00 PM on November 6, 2015 [8 favorites]
Rejecting low EROEI oil options is going to drive the development of electric cars, which is a huge win for the planet.
Please remember that electricity isn't magic'ed into being. Something has to be harnessed to make it. And while there are absolutely clean ways to do that, think about the increase in demand that would be accompanied by hundreds of millions, if not billions of cars suddenly needing electricity to go. Would nuclear, wind, and solar be able to absorb all of that? Because if not, then we're back to coal and oil (particularly in China) to power our new "green" utopia.
***
I want to feel good about this. I can't decide if it's going to make any difference in the end or if it's just going to mean more long trains full of oil. If it can legitimately retard Oil Sands development, then I'll call it a win. But it's hucksterism to say whether it will one way or the other at this point.
***
It's pretty entertaining to see conservatives in Canada try to put this on Trudeau when the man has been on the job for two actual days.
posted by dry white toast at 8:02 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Please remember that electricity isn't magic'ed into being. Something has to be harnessed to make it. And while there are absolutely clean ways to do that, think about the increase in demand that would be accompanied by hundreds of millions, if not billions of cars suddenly needing electricity to go. Would nuclear, wind, and solar be able to absorb all of that? Because if not, then we're back to coal and oil (particularly in China) to power our new "green" utopia.
***
I want to feel good about this. I can't decide if it's going to make any difference in the end or if it's just going to mean more long trains full of oil. If it can legitimately retard Oil Sands development, then I'll call it a win. But it's hucksterism to say whether it will one way or the other at this point.
***
It's pretty entertaining to see conservatives in Canada try to put this on Trudeau when the man has been on the job for two actual days.
posted by dry white toast at 8:02 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
This definitely has nothing to do with the crashing price of oil.
posted by miyabo at 8:09 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by miyabo at 8:09 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
My point was simply that we can retain all of the ancillary uses of petroleum at sustainable carbon output levels by transitioning away from using oil for transport. It means a massive change (of course!) to EVs and renewables to power them. But it has to happen in order to stay below a 3C global temp rise (2C seems out of reach at this point)
Then again, few thought we'd see developed nations generating the majority of their electricity from renewables this decade, but it's happening, so there's still hope.
posted by gwint at 8:10 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Then again, few thought we'd see developed nations generating the majority of their electricity from renewables this decade, but it's happening, so there's still hope.
posted by gwint at 8:10 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Planned communities!
Sorry, I know it's random it just escaped through my typing fingers.... PLANNED COMMUNITIES with work places, schools, farm onsite and limits on car use. !!!!!!!!!!!!
Now that got that out I am extremely delighted that we are ceasing doing more destruction to people's land against their will and indigenous communities are celebrating right now.
It IS a win-- there's just a buttload more wins we need to make. Don't let winning make you hopeless about how much further we have to go or how limited or mixed the win is.
We need to stop seeing solutions that plow over human rights and cause more destruction as the way to fix the destruction we are already doing. Instead of more proposals for more destruction and harm against the will of indigenous communities and unwilling people, let's focus on the fight against the damage we're already doing.
posted by xarnop at 8:13 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Sorry, I know it's random it just escaped through my typing fingers.... PLANNED COMMUNITIES with work places, schools, farm onsite and limits on car use. !!!!!!!!!!!!
Now that got that out I am extremely delighted that we are ceasing doing more destruction to people's land against their will and indigenous communities are celebrating right now.
It IS a win-- there's just a buttload more wins we need to make. Don't let winning make you hopeless about how much further we have to go or how limited or mixed the win is.
We need to stop seeing solutions that plow over human rights and cause more destruction as the way to fix the destruction we are already doing. Instead of more proposals for more destruction and harm against the will of indigenous communities and unwilling people, let's focus on the fight against the damage we're already doing.
posted by xarnop at 8:13 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Please remember that electricity isn't magic'ed into being. Something has to be harnessed to make it. And while there are absolutely clean ways to do that, think about the increase in demand that would be accompanied by hundreds of millions, if not billions of cars suddenly needing electricity to go.
We are emphatically not using meaningful quantities of oil to produce electricity. That's coal you're thinking of.
As skeptical as I am about the future of cars, I think that we have plenty of oil-free alternatives lined up, if push comes to shove.
posted by schmod at 8:15 PM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
We are emphatically not using meaningful quantities of oil to produce electricity. That's coal you're thinking of.
As skeptical as I am about the future of cars, I think that we have plenty of oil-free alternatives lined up, if push comes to shove.
posted by schmod at 8:15 PM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Would nuclear, wind, and solar be able to absorb all of that?
Well, if you leave out nuclear, (and add in water: hydroelectric, tidal, etc.) still "yes".
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:29 PM on November 6, 2015
Well, if you leave out nuclear, (and add in water: hydroelectric, tidal, etc.) still "yes".
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:29 PM on November 6, 2015
this is awesome.
sure there are other pipelines. sure, Valero outside of new orleans is on fire tonight, desperately trying to pump this junk, sub-bituminous sand through their giant chemistry set to make oil, causing miscarriages, projectile shitting, and cancer in st charles parish because tar sands is moving by rail through jackson, mississippi and down a railyard expansion cut through our cypress wetlands in louisiana, fucking up our air. but nobody cares about the Gulf. god bless canada and nebraska for sticking it to them, it helps us.
sure, there's the other keystone XL that had already existed, and was already pumping shit to port arthur etc etc
but these midstream and oil companies are constantly building out too much infrastructure to stick it to the transport companies. there's not actually a national or international need to these fucking pipelines, it's all about whatever profit the producers can fuck the midstreamers out of and what profit the midstreamers like Rich Kinder can squeeze out of the rail companies.
because they are floating on debt, merely on debt. we are past peak oil, y'all, wake up. their profit comes from squeezing the land, squeezing the poor, squeezing the powerless and squeezing the other companies. there's no public benefit.
there was never a need for this pipeline, it was always all about profit, always about putting hurt on unionized rail lines and making money.
when are people going to see through the smokescreen and see that the oil business is not about oil, it's about power and finance in the capitalist game, and what politicians you can buy.
the tar sands burn more oil than they make, for christ's sake. it's never about energy, it's about positioning your company in the capitalist game. and the poor and the the land and water are wasted so some dickbat can stick it to some other asshole.
have y'all seen "there will be blood"? dude kills and steals to avoid dealing with the transport company. same shit here.
these people use the government as a plaything so fuck them.
so don't talk to me about safety, either. it's not about safety. it's about forcing the government to be ripping up as much land as possible so that you, as an underwater, debt to the ceiling oil producer have more leverage against the transport companies. fuck this project and kill more of them on the basis of climate. we have more than we need already.
each of these pipelines, and there are hundreds require check valves and water crossings and pig checks, all of which increase how much farmland and aquifer and wetlands they endanger. then they have to go in every other year, and rip up the land again and again if there are "anomalies" and the only thing worse than checking for anomalies is not checking for anomalies...because then the fucking thing cracks open and spills.
why not keep it on the rail, and keep it moving slow? profit, only reason.
posted by eustatic at 8:36 PM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
sure there are other pipelines. sure, Valero outside of new orleans is on fire tonight, desperately trying to pump this junk, sub-bituminous sand through their giant chemistry set to make oil, causing miscarriages, projectile shitting, and cancer in st charles parish because tar sands is moving by rail through jackson, mississippi and down a railyard expansion cut through our cypress wetlands in louisiana, fucking up our air. but nobody cares about the Gulf. god bless canada and nebraska for sticking it to them, it helps us.
sure, there's the other keystone XL that had already existed, and was already pumping shit to port arthur etc etc
but these midstream and oil companies are constantly building out too much infrastructure to stick it to the transport companies. there's not actually a national or international need to these fucking pipelines, it's all about whatever profit the producers can fuck the midstreamers out of and what profit the midstreamers like Rich Kinder can squeeze out of the rail companies.
because they are floating on debt, merely on debt. we are past peak oil, y'all, wake up. their profit comes from squeezing the land, squeezing the poor, squeezing the powerless and squeezing the other companies. there's no public benefit.
there was never a need for this pipeline, it was always all about profit, always about putting hurt on unionized rail lines and making money.
when are people going to see through the smokescreen and see that the oil business is not about oil, it's about power and finance in the capitalist game, and what politicians you can buy.
the tar sands burn more oil than they make, for christ's sake. it's never about energy, it's about positioning your company in the capitalist game. and the poor and the the land and water are wasted so some dickbat can stick it to some other asshole.
have y'all seen "there will be blood"? dude kills and steals to avoid dealing with the transport company. same shit here.
these people use the government as a plaything so fuck them.
so don't talk to me about safety, either. it's not about safety. it's about forcing the government to be ripping up as much land as possible so that you, as an underwater, debt to the ceiling oil producer have more leverage against the transport companies. fuck this project and kill more of them on the basis of climate. we have more than we need already.
each of these pipelines, and there are hundreds require check valves and water crossings and pig checks, all of which increase how much farmland and aquifer and wetlands they endanger. then they have to go in every other year, and rip up the land again and again if there are "anomalies" and the only thing worse than checking for anomalies is not checking for anomalies...because then the fucking thing cracks open and spills.
why not keep it on the rail, and keep it moving slow? profit, only reason.
posted by eustatic at 8:36 PM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
I think you mean energy is the cornerstone of our civilization.
No. The clothes I am wearing are a polyster blend. The monitor I am looking at uses plastic. So does the keyboard. The food that I ate for dinner used a petroleum-based fertilizer. The paint on the walls of my house uses petroleum. And on and on.
It will be very difficult to replace petroleum in our civilization for 8 billion people.
I don't understand why saying this makes me somehow not care about the future of our planet. I'm just stating the obvious. You can use wind energy or tidal energy or heat pumps or solar, but everything is based on petroleum products. Everything.
posted by Nevin at 8:55 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
No. The clothes I am wearing are a polyster blend. The monitor I am looking at uses plastic. So does the keyboard. The food that I ate for dinner used a petroleum-based fertilizer. The paint on the walls of my house uses petroleum. And on and on.
It will be very difficult to replace petroleum in our civilization for 8 billion people.
I don't understand why saying this makes me somehow not care about the future of our planet. I'm just stating the obvious. You can use wind energy or tidal energy or heat pumps or solar, but everything is based on petroleum products. Everything.
posted by Nevin at 8:55 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
The clothes I am wearing are a polyster blend. The monitor I am looking at uses plastic. So does the keyboard. The food that I ate for dinner used a petroleum-based fertilizer. The paint on the walls of my house uses petroleum. And on and on.
These mostly look to me like reasons why just straight up burning petroleum is stupid and wasteful af.
posted by PMdixon at 8:59 PM on November 6, 2015 [29 favorites]
These mostly look to me like reasons why just straight up burning petroleum is stupid and wasteful af.
posted by PMdixon at 8:59 PM on November 6, 2015 [29 favorites]
It will be very difficult to replace petroleum in our civilization for 8 billion people.
This is true, but if we eliminated it from transport >95% of its emissions would go, too. From a climate change perspective, plastic is immaterial. From an environmental perspective - as bad as it is - it's nothing compared to the use of oil for burning.
posted by smoke at 9:09 PM on November 6, 2015 [10 favorites]
This is true, but if we eliminated it from transport >95% of its emissions would go, too. From a climate change perspective, plastic is immaterial. From an environmental perspective - as bad as it is - it's nothing compared to the use of oil for burning.
posted by smoke at 9:09 PM on November 6, 2015 [10 favorites]
spock: I think it is funny how people try to frame this in liberal vs conservative political terms. Nebraska (the State that basically stopped TransCanada on this issue) is redder than Red. But its also made up of farmers who want to protect their cropland and the aquafier that runs underneath it (and other central U.S. States). They all hate Obama and think he's the anti-christ, but I'm sure they are all cheering this decision
This is more than a bit of an oversimplification. Most Nebraskans opposed the particular route chosen by TransCanada, but supported construction of the pipleine itself by a large margin (detailed poll results).
National polls do show the question breaking down on partisan lines, so it's just not correct to say this isn't a partisan issue just because some red-staters wanted the pipeline to be rerouted.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:31 PM on November 6, 2015
This is more than a bit of an oversimplification. Most Nebraskans opposed the particular route chosen by TransCanada, but supported construction of the pipleine itself by a large margin (detailed poll results).
National polls do show the question breaking down on partisan lines, so it's just not correct to say this isn't a partisan issue just because some red-staters wanted the pipeline to be rerouted.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:31 PM on November 6, 2015
I suspect that when oil prices start to rise, a lot of currently shelved projects (drilling, pipeline, and others) will be brought back on line quickly and with great vigor.
Yeah not so sure about that oil price rise anytime soon. With fracking the US has effectively found oil. A lot of the issue is that Canadian oil is suddenly very far away and very expensive to extract, and Keystone is just too much infrastructure for dirty, pricey oil. You have the Saudis turning on the taps to kill American fracking and all the while investing like fuck in alternative energy industries because they know that even if we burn a small fraction of our known reserves we're completely fucked.
Oil is not coming back in price. There's too much of it to burn as it is to stay under catastrophic rises in global temperatures. We have an NDP government in Alberta, federal Liberals in Canada and the only question in the US race next year is who's gonna be Hilary's VP. It's a game of diversification in energy now. Nobody in power in the west will play the oil game any longer. This move of Obama's is pretty much just the start of a rollback that isn't going to end.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:32 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah not so sure about that oil price rise anytime soon. With fracking the US has effectively found oil. A lot of the issue is that Canadian oil is suddenly very far away and very expensive to extract, and Keystone is just too much infrastructure for dirty, pricey oil. You have the Saudis turning on the taps to kill American fracking and all the while investing like fuck in alternative energy industries because they know that even if we burn a small fraction of our known reserves we're completely fucked.
Oil is not coming back in price. There's too much of it to burn as it is to stay under catastrophic rises in global temperatures. We have an NDP government in Alberta, federal Liberals in Canada and the only question in the US race next year is who's gonna be Hilary's VP. It's a game of diversification in energy now. Nobody in power in the west will play the oil game any longer. This move of Obama's is pretty much just the start of a rollback that isn't going to end.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:32 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Why is the assumption that anyone who sees this decision as positive must also be totally ignorant of where nylon and fertilizer come from, anyway? It's a total non-sequitur.
posted by No-sword at 9:37 PM on November 6, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by No-sword at 9:37 PM on November 6, 2015 [22 favorites]
Why is the assumption that anyone who sees this decision as positive must also be totally ignorant of where nylon and fertilizer come from, anyway? It's a total non-sequitur.
Indeed. Maybe some of the things in our lives are made from hydrocarbons because it's the easiest thing to do, or maybe there's some other factor...like, oh, a trillions-of-dollars industry set up to make everything out of their product? Hmm.
There's carbon in the air. Way too much of it, in fact. It's just a matter of time before we don't need much at all to pull it out and make all sorts of things. Solar powered 3D graphene printers sourcing carbon material from the air aren't all that far off.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:55 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Indeed. Maybe some of the things in our lives are made from hydrocarbons because it's the easiest thing to do, or maybe there's some other factor...like, oh, a trillions-of-dollars industry set up to make everything out of their product? Hmm.
There's carbon in the air. Way too much of it, in fact. It's just a matter of time before we don't need much at all to pull it out and make all sorts of things. Solar powered 3D graphene printers sourcing carbon material from the air aren't all that far off.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:55 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
I know some people who worked pretty hard on this. It's kind of shitty to tar (sorry) the Nebraskans who organized on this one with a handy pile of Red Stater stereotypes and the standard "farmers are terrible hypocrites" bit. Yep, Nebraska politics are fucked. They sure are. You know who's actually creating a space in which some kind of alternative to that can maybe grow, at substantial personal cost in an ever-more-hostile environment? People who cared enough to spend years of their lives on this issue are pretty close to the top of a short list.
posted by brennen at 10:06 PM on November 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by brennen at 10:06 PM on November 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
The clothes I am wearing are a polyster blend. The monitor I am looking at uses plastic. So does the keyboard. The food that I ate for dinner used a petroleum-based fertilizer. The paint on the walls of my house uses petroleum. And on and on.
If you think Keystone XL is necessary for polyester clothes or plastics or paint, then you are perhaps rather confused. Plastics are a couple percent of total oil consumption. We have absolutely no problem supplying sufficient oil for plastics with our current infrastructure. No additional pipelines needed. Keystone is about oil for burning in cars, trucks, trains, and planes. Also, many of the items you mention are more likely or definitely from natural gas than oil.
No one is suggesting we should stop using oil for plastics. What people are saying is that we have to stop burning so much for transport if we'd like to avoid catastrophic climate change. That might be a little bit inconvenient for a while, but it will certainly not be impossible.
Listing a bunch of non-fuel uses of oil when talking about additional oil capacity in North America is just disingenuous.
posted by ssg at 10:34 PM on November 6, 2015 [14 favorites]
If you think Keystone XL is necessary for polyester clothes or plastics or paint, then you are perhaps rather confused. Plastics are a couple percent of total oil consumption. We have absolutely no problem supplying sufficient oil for plastics with our current infrastructure. No additional pipelines needed. Keystone is about oil for burning in cars, trucks, trains, and planes. Also, many of the items you mention are more likely or definitely from natural gas than oil.
No one is suggesting we should stop using oil for plastics. What people are saying is that we have to stop burning so much for transport if we'd like to avoid catastrophic climate change. That might be a little bit inconvenient for a while, but it will certainly not be impossible.
Listing a bunch of non-fuel uses of oil when talking about additional oil capacity in North America is just disingenuous.
posted by ssg at 10:34 PM on November 6, 2015 [14 favorites]
Very Relevant.
also this? i was just reading over this and got to the end:
and so back to the beginning: "politics is nonetheless the eye of the needle through which [decarbonization trends] must pass on their way to the promised land."
posted by kliuless at 2:00 AM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
also this? i was just reading over this and got to the end:
We are under no illusion about how easily or quickly our lopsided politics can be righted. But put yourself in the shoes of an early 1970s conservative and ask how likely the great right migration seemed then, when Richard Nixon was proposing a guaranteed income and national health insurance and backing environmental regulations and the largest expansion of Social Security in its history. Reversals of powerfully rooted trends that threaten our democracy take time, effort, and persistence. Yet above all they require a clear recognition of what has gone wrong.which just serves to highlight AdamCSnider's and gwint's points that:
- Things are changing...
- because it demonstrates that the narrative of inevitability which tends to cluster around decisions like this (or, for that matter, TPP) takes a hit every time the government is forced to change course as a result of the actions of citizen groups
and so back to the beginning: "politics is nonetheless the eye of the needle through which [decarbonization trends] must pass on their way to the promised land."
posted by kliuless at 2:00 AM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
I am a pretty cynical person, but I also think that Obama is maybe? having fun in office as his presidency comes to an end. And he's having fun by doing shit that is in line with his core principles. I can't really believe anybody would take the time to read The Sixth Extinction over his summer vacation and be all, 'I'll just do this thing that will make corporate masters happy."
I guess I'm not that cynical. But reading an excerpt from that book scared the flying fuck out of me, and I don't have two children I know will have to manage with how shitty things are going to be in say, 2060.
posted by angrycat at 2:35 AM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I guess I'm not that cynical. But reading an excerpt from that book scared the flying fuck out of me, and I don't have two children I know will have to manage with how shitty things are going to be in say, 2060.
posted by angrycat at 2:35 AM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General
New York Attorney Generals who investigate large financial concerns have short careers.
posted by srboisvert at 5:06 AM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
New York Attorney Generals who investigate large financial concerns have short careers.
posted by srboisvert at 5:06 AM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Stopping Keystone XL will not shut down the tar sands overnight, but it will help reduce the viable lifetime and thereby reduce the overall volumes.
My fantasy (I live in Alberta) is that once we get the CO2/ climate change thing sorted out, we'll have enough infrastructure left in northern Alberta to use the tar sands to make plastic doodads for the next 10,000 years. Then we'll have to build a pipeline for LEGO or whatever. Safe, delicious LEGO.
The current extraction model seems to be based on "Hey, let's get those profits in the bank today before someone else gets them, and the trickle-down benefits will be great for my political career!"
posted by sneebler at 7:30 AM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
My fantasy (I live in Alberta) is that once we get the CO2/ climate change thing sorted out, we'll have enough infrastructure left in northern Alberta to use the tar sands to make plastic doodads for the next 10,000 years. Then we'll have to build a pipeline for LEGO or whatever. Safe, delicious LEGO.
The current extraction model seems to be based on "Hey, let's get those profits in the bank today before someone else gets them, and the trickle-down benefits will be great for my political career!"
posted by sneebler at 7:30 AM on November 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
To the people who are talking about how important petroleum is to our whole economy: yeah, we get it. What would you have us to in order to deal with climate change? Fix our entire industrial system first? We don't have the time. We just don't. Climate change is happening now. This just seems like the kind of stalling that is only good for the short-term bank accounts of corporate CEOs and no one else.
But to do that we have to acknowledge it.
OK. Acknowledged. Now what?
posted by lunasol at 8:43 AM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
But to do that we have to acknowledge it.
OK. Acknowledged. Now what?
posted by lunasol at 8:43 AM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
The clothes I am wearing are a polyster blend. The monitor I am looking at uses plastic. So does the keyboard. The food that I ate for dinner used a petroleum-based fertilizer. The paint on the walls of my house uses petroleum. And on and on.
the question isn't, do we still need petroleum but where will we get it from? Seabeds, vast nation sized chunks of pristine wilderness ... or perhaps by mining landfills, or just taking recycling technologies and processes magnitudes more seriously than we currently are.
posted by philip-random at 10:18 AM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
the question isn't, do we still need petroleum but where will we get it from? Seabeds, vast nation sized chunks of pristine wilderness ... or perhaps by mining landfills, or just taking recycling technologies and processes magnitudes more seriously than we currently are.
posted by philip-random at 10:18 AM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
the problem is that the reason why this happened: the collapse in the price of oil, is the same reason that alternatives to our current petroleum based infrastructure will be put off for another generation.
if the reason you are opposed to the pipeline is climate catastrophe, there isn't any good news here: despite the increase in rhetoric, the us federal government is no closer to responding to global warming as if it is a crisis happening now than it was 4 years ago...
posted by ennui.bz at 10:44 AM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
if the reason you are opposed to the pipeline is climate catastrophe, there isn't any good news here: despite the increase in rhetoric, the us federal government is no closer to responding to global warming as if it is a crisis happening now than it was 4 years ago...
posted by ennui.bz at 10:44 AM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
One thing I've not heard in any pipeline PR push was "hey, today's (or tomorrow's) pipelines are much safer because of X,Y,Z". The only point that comes out is "but, trains are WORSE"... as if referring to another industry, who has been footdragging on upgrading their own infrastructure, is somehow compelling.
My cousin who recently retired from the Alberta oilpatch, told me several years ago that the rationale for Keystone XL was to supply the gulf-coast refineries. I asked him about building a refinery in Canada, and his answer was that at the time, there was already excess refining capacity in North America.
I agree that it's much easier/safer now to cancel the project, because the US is now less reliant on oil imports, including from Canada.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:13 AM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
My cousin who recently retired from the Alberta oilpatch, told me several years ago that the rationale for Keystone XL was to supply the gulf-coast refineries. I asked him about building a refinery in Canada, and his answer was that at the time, there was already excess refining capacity in North America.
I agree that it's much easier/safer now to cancel the project, because the US is now less reliant on oil imports, including from Canada.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:13 AM on November 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Erik Loomis, Keystone
There’s a strong element on the so-called “respectable left,” one that even often appears around here, that protest is worthless, that’s protesters are basically a bunch of hippies performing a role, and that real change occurs through “serious” policy channels and that protesters should instead be doing “real” work like registering voters and working for, presumably, Democratic candidates. What happened with Keystone should be Exhibit A in why that whole formulation is deeply misguided. The reality is that there are many ways to influence a system. The left needs to work both within and outside the political establishment. Protest can absolutely work. Without McKibben and the 350.org movement, the Keystone pipeline would already have been approved. Obama is responding directly to a protest movement on this issue. Those who disdain protest need to remember this going forward.posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:19 AM on November 7, 2015 [14 favorites]
Artful Codger: "One thing I've not heard in any pipeline PR push was "hey, today's (or tomorrow's) pipelines are much safer because of X,Y,Z". The only point that comes out is "but, trains are WORSE"... as if referring to another industry, who has been footdragging on upgrading their own infrastructure, is somehow compelling. "
Things at $50 are a bit different but at $100 the oil was going to be extracted and transported. There isn't any regulatory framework in place, as far as I know, to limit rail companies from transporting oil in tankers, increasing volumes year over year, or even making infrastructure improvements if necessary to increase capacity. A lot of tanker cars were being built to transport oil. So while it's possible to block the pipeline at $80-$100 per that would just shunt the oil onto rails. And rail transport is worse than pipeline in pretty much every metric. More spills, more dangerous in places with higher population densities, takes more energy to transport. About the only social upside is it employs more people in generally higher paying jobs.
posted by Mitheral at 12:28 PM on November 7, 2015
Things at $50 are a bit different but at $100 the oil was going to be extracted and transported. There isn't any regulatory framework in place, as far as I know, to limit rail companies from transporting oil in tankers, increasing volumes year over year, or even making infrastructure improvements if necessary to increase capacity. A lot of tanker cars were being built to transport oil. So while it's possible to block the pipeline at $80-$100 per that would just shunt the oil onto rails. And rail transport is worse than pipeline in pretty much every metric. More spills, more dangerous in places with higher population densities, takes more energy to transport. About the only social upside is it employs more people in generally higher paying jobs.
posted by Mitheral at 12:28 PM on November 7, 2015
If you think Keystone XL is necessary for polyester clothes or plastics or paint, then you are perhaps rather confused. Plastics are a couple percent of total oil consumption. We have absolutely no problem supplying sufficient oil for plastics with our current infrastructure. No additional pipelines needed. Keystone is about oil for burning in cars, trucks, trains, and planes. Also, many of the items you mention are more likely or definitely from natural gas than oil.
No one is suggesting we should stop using oil for plastics. What people are saying is that we have to stop burning so much for transport if we'd like to avoid catastrophic climate change. That might be a little bit inconvenient for a while, but it will certainly not be impossible.
Listing a bunch of non-fuel uses of oil when talking about additional oil capacity in North America is just disingenuous.
posted by ssg at 10:34 PM on November 6 [13 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]
I just wanted to post this enough. oil really is an amazing chemical, a treasure, and what do we do with it? we burn most of it. we burn this treasure and are destroying our home in the process. a double waste.
posted by eustatic at 1:19 PM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
No one is suggesting we should stop using oil for plastics. What people are saying is that we have to stop burning so much for transport if we'd like to avoid catastrophic climate change. That might be a little bit inconvenient for a while, but it will certainly not be impossible.
Listing a bunch of non-fuel uses of oil when talking about additional oil capacity in North America is just disingenuous.
posted by ssg at 10:34 PM on November 6 [13 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]
I just wanted to post this enough. oil really is an amazing chemical, a treasure, and what do we do with it? we burn most of it. we burn this treasure and are destroying our home in the process. a double waste.
posted by eustatic at 1:19 PM on November 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
And if you follow Al Bartlett's logic around the math of oil extraction, if the doubling time is around 11 years, that means every 11 years we extract/consume as much oil as has been used in the entire previous history of the resource. Which is great if your objective is profit, but not so great if your purpose is more long term. "Energy – it is essential to our modern way of life." or "...ensuring our existing $59-billion asset base operates safely and reliably, allowing it to deliver the energy people need and value for our shareholders for decades." According to TransCanada anyway.
The mad rush to convert the tar sands into dollars really looks more and more like the last gasp of an industry with nowhere else to go in the face of Peak Oil. We could consume all of that energy in the next 15-20 years, or we could hold off and use it sparingly over the next millenium, maybe longer.
posted by sneebler at 7:09 PM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
The mad rush to convert the tar sands into dollars really looks more and more like the last gasp of an industry with nowhere else to go in the face of Peak Oil. We could consume all of that energy in the next 15-20 years, or we could hold off and use it sparingly over the next millenium, maybe longer.
posted by sneebler at 7:09 PM on November 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
The inside story of the campaign that killed Keystone XL (vox)
the problem is that the reason why this happened: the collapse in the price of oil, is the same reason that alternatives to our current petroleum based infrastructure will be put off for another generation.
i think saudis were mainly targeting frackers but it doesn't seem to have impacted investment in renewables, esp as costs continue to drop.
also btw...
the problem is that the reason why this happened: the collapse in the price of oil, is the same reason that alternatives to our current petroleum based infrastructure will be put off for another generation.
i think saudis were mainly targeting frackers but it doesn't seem to have impacted investment in renewables, esp as costs continue to drop.
also btw...
- Paris climate deal to ignite a $90 trillion energy revolution - "The old fossil order is on borrowed time as China and even India join the drive for dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions"
- Sunshine revolution: the age of solar power - "From the US to China, solar power is poised to tackle climate change and shake up the electricity industry"
- New York's revolutionary plan to remake its power utilities - "Under the leadership of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York is undertaking an astonishingly comprehensive and ambitious effort to remake its energy systems and reduce its carbon emissions."
- You know about net neutrality, Meet grid neutrality - "Keeping the power grid open to all, just like the internet."
- Reimagining electric utilities for the 21st century - "Less Soviet, more dynamic."
- The new Senate Democratic energy bill is a wonk's dream - "The alternate universe in which this becomes law is a better place."
OK. Acknowledged. Now what?
This is exactly it. Just once, I'd like to hear the people who say we can't slow our fossil fuel use because of the economy to articulate some sort of long term plan. Right now, all we have is the current plan, which is to keep burning oil, coal, and gas until climate change becomes catastrophic and civilization collapses to the point where we can't burn oil, coal, and gas anymore (although coal is pretty darn easy to burn, so that might take a while).
I'd love to hear some kind of alternative plan. What is it? A couple decades more and then we'll definitely stop, pinky swear, for definite this time? Because we can debate different plans to deal with climate change, but if all you have is that we are too reliant on cheap oil to change anything, then there really is no discussion to be had because that's just burying your head in the sand.
posted by ssg at 10:14 AM on November 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
This is exactly it. Just once, I'd like to hear the people who say we can't slow our fossil fuel use because of the economy to articulate some sort of long term plan. Right now, all we have is the current plan, which is to keep burning oil, coal, and gas until climate change becomes catastrophic and civilization collapses to the point where we can't burn oil, coal, and gas anymore (although coal is pretty darn easy to burn, so that might take a while).
I'd love to hear some kind of alternative plan. What is it? A couple decades more and then we'll definitely stop, pinky swear, for definite this time? Because we can debate different plans to deal with climate change, but if all you have is that we are too reliant on cheap oil to change anything, then there really is no discussion to be had because that's just burying your head in the sand.
posted by ssg at 10:14 AM on November 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'd love to hear some kind of alternative plan. What is it?
Honestly, I think the 'plan' is this:
To oversimplify, the world economy is great big massive ship, which takes a long time to respond to the helm. And many factors both passive and active have til recently prevented anyone from pulling seriously on the wheel. There's been some small changes (EPA regs, small subsidies for renewables, recycling, some carbon-trading schemes) but not the big course change we need.
I feel that globally, we will see more serious action... gradually. I understand that China, India, and other developing nations are becoming more serious about curtailing coal-burning. Even in North America (denial central) I feel that climate change is less a debate, more of a "so, what can we do anyways" subject. I see less jubilant denial from the usual suspects, because it's becoming inescapable that they've been ignorant fucking assholes all along. And, as the recent revelations of Exxon's foreknowledge suggest, I believe that the corporations and even the US government know more than they publicly admit about the threat. As countries develop, their birth-rate drops, so I don't currently fear that overpopulation will be an immediate problem.
So, the wheel will get turned, and the ship will start to change course... slowly. Energy alternatives and mitigating technology will get developed... here, if we get off our asses, or by the developing economies who know the next industrial fortunes will come from energy alternatives and cleanup technology.
Will things change fast enough to avert global catastrophe? Well... define global catastrophe. Human lifespan is still short compared to the timescale of the climate change. The alterations produced by climate change, and the cumulative damage of pollution and exploitation are (mostly*) going to come on so slowly that frankly, they will be inescapable realities that will be taken in stride.
Assuming that there will still be enough land to feed and house the anticipated populations, climate change impact will range from a minor to a life-altering hardship... but not a mass extinction event (except for the species we'll end up displacing, sorry) And as we know, the people in the wheelhouse, who happily kept us on this course for so long, will survive, no matter whether the ship piles up on the rocks or just grazes them.
* to me, it seems that the biggest, fastest catastrophe could be food supply. Loss of arable land, and failure of the oceans could produce mass starvation. But just for the poor. We'll get by.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:22 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Honestly, I think the 'plan' is this:
To oversimplify, the world economy is great big massive ship, which takes a long time to respond to the helm. And many factors both passive and active have til recently prevented anyone from pulling seriously on the wheel. There's been some small changes (EPA regs, small subsidies for renewables, recycling, some carbon-trading schemes) but not the big course change we need.
I feel that globally, we will see more serious action... gradually. I understand that China, India, and other developing nations are becoming more serious about curtailing coal-burning. Even in North America (denial central) I feel that climate change is less a debate, more of a "so, what can we do anyways" subject. I see less jubilant denial from the usual suspects, because it's becoming inescapable that they've been ignorant fucking assholes all along. And, as the recent revelations of Exxon's foreknowledge suggest, I believe that the corporations and even the US government know more than they publicly admit about the threat. As countries develop, their birth-rate drops, so I don't currently fear that overpopulation will be an immediate problem.
So, the wheel will get turned, and the ship will start to change course... slowly. Energy alternatives and mitigating technology will get developed... here, if we get off our asses, or by the developing economies who know the next industrial fortunes will come from energy alternatives and cleanup technology.
Will things change fast enough to avert global catastrophe? Well... define global catastrophe. Human lifespan is still short compared to the timescale of the climate change. The alterations produced by climate change, and the cumulative damage of pollution and exploitation are (mostly*) going to come on so slowly that frankly, they will be inescapable realities that will be taken in stride.
Assuming that there will still be enough land to feed and house the anticipated populations, climate change impact will range from a minor to a life-altering hardship... but not a mass extinction event (except for the species we'll end up displacing, sorry) And as we know, the people in the wheelhouse, who happily kept us on this course for so long, will survive, no matter whether the ship piles up on the rocks or just grazes them.
* to me, it seems that the biggest, fastest catastrophe could be food supply. Loss of arable land, and failure of the oceans could produce mass starvation. But just for the poor. We'll get by.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:22 AM on November 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
What critics of the Keystone campaign misunderstand about climate activism
There is a strain of hostility toward the Keystone campaign among Beltway wonks and journos that is, let's just say, underdetermined by the substantive critiques they offer. Take this high dudgeon from Stephen Stromberg on the Washington Post editorial page. He deems the campaign so "irrational and insulting," so "capricious and immature," that it "should have offended those who care" about clean energy. Lawsy mercy!posted by tonycpsu at 12:14 PM on November 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Nonetheless, it isn't all concern trolling. Plenty of people of good faith, even those who share a concern over climate change, are skeptical of, or at least puzzled by, the Keystone campaign. They all have versions of the same question: why this? It doesn't seem like that big a deal in terms of carbon emissions. So why so much angst and organizing, so much wearying persistence, over this?
The question deserves an answer. Since this is likely my last post ever on Keystone, I'm going to do my best to answer it.
How the Keystone XL Decision is Neither “Irrelevant” Nor “Just Symbolic”
In particular, I found the second graph in that link really interesting... really demolishes the "oh, the oil will just be shipped by rail instead (which is more dangerous)" argument.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:41 AM on November 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
In particular, I found the second graph in that link really interesting... really demolishes the "oh, the oil will just be shipped by rail instead (which is more dangerous)" argument.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:41 AM on November 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Anyway, what is really needed is a tax that makes poor EROEIs unviable.
I actually prefer incentives that make clean and renewable project's EROEI's more viable, especially in cases where the difference in economies of scale. Like how part of the problem with solar is (or maybe just used to be) that you need a lot of manufacturers making the panels before the panels are cheap enough. Since the panels cost too much, there is no demand. Since there is no demand, not enough are manufactured to get cheap enough, and so on.
If you add incentives to boost demand, the increased demand encourages manufacturers to expand capacity to meet it until the panels are cheap enough that you can phase out the incentives.
Better yet, do both. Then you're basically just taxing/incentivizing externalities and letting capitalism do it's thing until the renewable stuff just out-competes anything else.
posted by VTX at 9:41 AM on November 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I actually prefer incentives that make clean and renewable project's EROEI's more viable, especially in cases where the difference in economies of scale. Like how part of the problem with solar is (or maybe just used to be) that you need a lot of manufacturers making the panels before the panels are cheap enough. Since the panels cost too much, there is no demand. Since there is no demand, not enough are manufactured to get cheap enough, and so on.
If you add incentives to boost demand, the increased demand encourages manufacturers to expand capacity to meet it until the panels are cheap enough that you can phase out the incentives.
Better yet, do both. Then you're basically just taxing/incentivizing externalities and letting capitalism do it's thing until the renewable stuff just out-competes anything else.
posted by VTX at 9:41 AM on November 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older The real Faraday could've fought a 10-year-old Nic... | gutted Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
If the pipeline doesn't go through, the oil has to go by rail. BNSF, the rail company bought by Berkshire Hathaway, has earnings that are up 10% to 1.1 billion over last year. They have a strong incentive to be anti-pipeline.
posted by pmg at 3:56 PM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]