Keystone Environmentally Safe... Who Knew?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0 ... 92295.htmL

The State Department released their Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline proposal on Friday, concluding in large part that the proposal is environmentally acceptable.

Probably still best to transport by ship to China :Whistle

Looks like Obama will likely approve it at this point.

So now the next Presidents economy will benefit from Obama's footdragging?

Oooh, the State Dept rubber-stamped a pipeline that Obama's getting heat to approve, yeah...let's believe that report 100%! :faint: This report also made the bone-head statement that oil from these tar fields wouldn't affect climate change...ummm, James Hanson, the scientist who first made global warming a real issue says that if we tap this resource, it's game over - and he's been right about every other prediction he's made. 40,000 people protested at the Capitol last month to not let this be approved; when polled, a majority says global warming is real AND we need to do something about it, so why is this even on the table?? :bash

Guess what, even China's figuring it out - we're gonna be the last hold-outs looking stupid and havng to pay more to catch up on green energy after everyone else has already changed over.


China announces carbon tax
http://www.rtcc.org/china-announces-carbon-tax/



Wind Power In China Leaves Nuclear In Its (Non-radioactive) Dust

China has good reason to be pursuing wind power passionately aside from safety issues. It's estimated that the nation's wind generation potential is 12 times that of its 2010 electricity consumption. China's 2015 wind energy target has been set at 100,000 megawatts capacity; a goal that should be easily reached.

Solar power uptake is also being feverishly pursued. In January, China raised its 2015 target for solar-power installations by 67 percent to 35 gigawatts capacity.

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.p ... le_id=3605

You might want to google "james hansen failed predictions".


In other news:

"Obama Names Pro-Fracking Energy Secretary"

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -Secretary

Wicked wrote: Oooh, the State Dept rubber-stamped a pipeline that Obama's getting heat to approve, yeah...let's believe that report 100%! :faint: This report also made the bone-head statement that oil from these tar fields wouldn't affect climate change...ummm, James Hanson, the scientist who first made global warming a real issue says that if we tap this resource, it's game over - and he's been right about every other prediction he's made. 40,000 people protested at the Capitol last month to not let this be approved; when polled, a majority says global warming is real AND we need to do something about it, so why is this even on the table?? :bash

Guess what, even China's figuring it out - we're gonna be the last hold-outs looking stupid and havng to pay more to catch up on green energy after everyone else has already changed over.


China announces carbon tax
http://www.rtcc.org/china-announces-carbon-tax/



Wind Power In China Leaves Nuclear In Its (Non-radioactive) Dust

China has good reason to be pursuing wind power passionately aside from safety issues. It's estimated that the nation's wind generation potential is 12 times that of its 2010 electricity consumption. China's 2015 wind energy target has been set at 100,000 megawatts capacity; a goal that should be easily reached.

Solar power uptake is also being feverishly pursued. In January, China raised its 2015 target for solar-power installations by 67 percent to 35 gigawatts capacity.

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.p ... le_id=3605

Sorry wicked but I think you missed the point. The reason the pipeline won't have an impact on the environment is because those oil sand will be developed whether the US buys the oil or not. If we don't get it, it's going to China but much less environmentally friendly means. So take your pick, by truck and ship to China, or by pipeline to us?

The report did not state that the Keystone XL pipeline was environmentally safe, it merely stated that it was no worse than the other alternatives for transporting the toxic tar sands.

Something the Dog Said wrote: The report did not state that the Keystone XL pipeline was environmentally safe, it merely stated that it was no worse than the other alternatives for transporting the toxic tar sands.

So would enviros prefer it being transported buy smelly diesel trucks and ships over a heavy steel pipe? One way or another the oil will be processed and transported.

Which is unfortunate, as it will be costly to the US economics, raising gas and oil prices in the Midwest, cut supplies across those areas, and cost jobs in the refineries in the Midwest just so the Koch Bros. can increase their profits by exporting those supplies overseas.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Which is unfortunate, as it will be costly to the US economics, raising gas and oil prices in the Midwest, cut supplies across those areas, and cost jobs in the refineries in the Midwest just so the Koch Bros. can increase their profits by exporting those supplies overseas.

Pretzel logic?
Which would benefit Americans more, a multi-million dollar project to build a pipeline across the Midwest to increase the supply of petrol products in the region, or having Canada ship it all to China?
Construction jobs Check.
More petroleum supplies in the region would help to keep prices lower. Check.
Or
Canada builds a pipeline across the Rockies employing Canadians, more jobs leaving the US.
Canada profits selling crude to China.
US Midwest has less supplies of crude available.

Only in a liberal mind would more sources of supply lead to higher prices.